Saddam Executed Soon

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I guess I’m callous or uncivilized, whatever, “The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood of tyrants.” [/quote]

Congratulation on quoting Barere de Vieuzac, a man so devoid of moral compass that he consistently assisted the existing power in persecuting the weaker side. The quote refers to the condemnation to death of Louis XVI, who might have been useless, but compared to Barere de Vieuzac, a pillar of moral strength and conviction.

Incidentally, this illustrates quite well what I find objectionable about capital punishment, what it does to the rest of us. Not believing in a life after death, I do not go for the salvation argument, but every time someone speaks with satisfaction about an execution, I get worried. Criminal cases should never be about revenge or our new disease, “victim’s rights”. If you want revenge, sue, otherwise it is “the state vs. x”, and you should butt out.

TQB

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the death penalty, what was being discussed was death for crimes long past for individuals who can cause no further harm to society.[/quote]

I vehemently disagree with this.

In the case of Saddam (or any murderer of his ilk), everyday he was on this planet, he continued to harm society. Or do you not consider the continuing pain imposed on the family members of the hundreds of thousands killed due to his actions as a harm to society? Or how about all the potential contributions that will never be accounted for, all those young(and not so young) lives snuffed out because of one man’s lust for absolute power? How is that not a continuing harm to society? Please. What if Saddam tortured and killed your mother?

[quote]
Why ignore the possibility that an individual can change over time? [/quote]

In the context of the conversation (rehabilitating guilty as sin mass murderers) this might be perhaps the stupidest statement you have ever uttered on this board.

[quote]
Is it really your job or anyone else’s to pull the plug on someone’s life if they may act completely different than 10-20 years ago all in the name of retribution? [/quote]

In the case of Saddam Hussein, fuck yeah. I wouldn’t have even put on the executioner’s mask.

And once again, are you really that naive to believe that hardened mass murderers can be rehabilitated? I didn’t really see any remorse coming from Saddam.

How about Ted Bundy? Or that douchebag Danny Rollings who slaughtered those undergrads at UF 15 years ago and confessed to other murders a few days before his execution. Bullshit. People like that develop an appetite for killing, once they cross that line there is no going back.

[quote]
What if that person could do more good alive than dead?[/quote]

Un-huh… now you’re grasping at straws, buddy.

Wow. “Let’s go hang with Uncle Saddam- he’ll tell us why it’s wrong to become a sadistic, megalomaniacal tyrant with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.”

[quote]
Is it still as simple as “justice”? [/quote]

In this case, most definitely.

[quote]
Why does playing God have an on and off switch?[/quote]

Who says we are playing God? Well I guess if you believe in that crap, you might be inclined to see it that way. I see it as garbage disposal.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
JD430 wrote:
The difference between us and Saddam is that as much of a piece of shit as he was, we still had strange feelings about the whole thing. I can guarantee you that none of those emotions ever crossed his soul when he was gassing thousands or stuffing them in meat grinders.

The last sentence is ridiculous given the fact that he, personally, never killed anyone. His underlings did. This means that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the man was executed for other peoples’ doings. Stick that in your cud and chew on it. [/quote]

Since you seem to be so proud of your argument, I will take particular joy in shredding it.

Saddam is as guilty as any of his henchman, in fact more so, as I will explain shortly. To even propose otherwise is the height of stupidity.

Not only was the idea his, but he knowingly approved it, endorsed it, and for all we know celebrated it. The rest was just logistics, that was the scale he operated on. That motherfucker didn’t kill 10-20 people - this guy killed tens of thousands, and if you count all the wars he provoked, then hundreds of thousands.

In any court of criminal law that is pretty much the same as committing the crime yourself. Civilly, he would also get clipped under the theory of “respondeat superior” as well.

What next, are you going to argue that Hitler isn’t really a mass murderer because he wasn’t the one that was actually dropping the cannisters of Zyklon-B into the gas chambers?

[quote]
Saddam’s crime - the crime of any dictator put to the gallows - was not murder, but power.[/quote]

Wow. Did you read that in the two chapters of Foucault you read in philosophy class or something? Old Michel is rolling in his grave with that interpretation. I’ll bet you thought that nugget was particularly brilliant didn’t you?

[quote]
For dictators don’t kill, they command others to do so.[/quote]

My question again - what’s the fucking difference? None.

[quote]
The only thing that separates their commands from a homeless bum’s is the factor of power.[/quote]

What a loaded analogy - that’s a horrible argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No what separates Saddam’s commands from the bum’s is not “power” (which is an incredibly loaded word whose context you never fully explained) but “fear” - which is a form of COERCIVE power - and not the power you are discussing - for if the henchmen did not follow orders - they would die along with the intended victims. If anything, that exculpates the henchmen more than Saddam, pretty much destroying your argument on that point alone.

You also seem to forget the main element in first-degree murder that he was convicted of - PREMEDITATED INTENT - the actual act is just the icing on the cake. The intent is what crosses the line from manslaughter and lesser grades of murder to the death-penalty level crime, and Saddam is guilty of that in spades.

[quote]
Thus, Saddam’s only crime was being too powerful (yet ultimately, not powerful enough). [/quote]

No. Saddam’s crimes are too numerous to mention here, but we can all agree that he was a pre-meditated cold blooded killer.

[quote]
The murder of any powerful individual by his inferiors is an affront to nature. By killing off powerful individuals, you leave behind nothing but mediocrity. Most people understand this to a certain extent, so long as their own status in the power hierarchy doesn’t come into play. [/quote]

Spare us the totally incorrect interpretations of Nietzsche. That last paragraph was just beyond crap. No need for me to tear it up - just read that out loud - you’ll notice how silly it really is.

[quote]
For instance, people toss back trophy fish for this very reason. But we’re not so good about applying it to human affairs, because the weak will always require scapegoats, and powerful people serve this role when they fall out of favor.[/quote]

more nonsense.

[quote]
So, who wins from the execution? From any execution? The state, of course.

Self-proclaimed arbiter of life and death. More power to it. That’s not a positive outcome.[/quote]

even more nonsense. I sense a theme here.

Stick that in your cud and chew it.

[quote]TQB wrote:
I do not go for the salvation argument, but every time someone speaks with satisfaction about an execution, I get worried.[/quote]

Everytime I hear someone try to argue for the sanctity of the life of a man who took such obvious joy in taking the lives of others, I get worried.

I would just love to hear one of you “Enlightened” Europeans drop that load of bullshit with a straight face on a mother whose kid was butchered by Saddam or any other sick fuck mass murderer who got the death penalty.

[quote]
Criminal cases should never be about revenge or our new disease, “victim’s rights”.[/quote]

Wow. You really have your priorities mixed up. A victim having the right to demand satisfaction from the perpetrator is a disease? I wonder if you would say this bullshit if some asshole murdered someone you loved dearly.

[quote]
If you want revenge, sue,[/quote]

You are obviously not a lawyer. Lawsuits are utter bullshit. You will not get complete satisfaction through the legal system.

[quote]
otherwise it is “the state vs. x”, and you should butt out. [/quote]

Um, isn’t that precisely what happened here? “The People of Iraq v. Saddam” and they spoke - death?

Perhaps you should take your own advise.

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
TQB wrote:
I do not go for the salvation argument, but every time someone speaks with satisfaction about an execution, I get worried.

Everytime I hear someone try to argue for the sanctity of the life of a man who took such obvious joy in taking the lives of others, I get worried.

I would just love to hear one of you “Enlightened” Europeans drop that load of bullshit with a straight face on a mother whose kid was butchered by Saddam or any other sick fuck mass murderer who got the death penalty.

Criminal cases should never be about revenge or our new disease, “victim’s rights”.

Wow. You really have your priorities mixed up. A victim having the right to demand satisfaction from the perpetrator is a disease? I wonder if you would say this bullshit if some asshole murdered someone you loved dearly.

If you want revenge, sue,

You are obviously not a lawyer. Civil Lawsuits are utter bullshit. You will not get complete satisfaction through the legal system. Just ask the families of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

otherwise it is “the state vs. x”, and you should butt out.

Um, isn’t that precisely what happened here? “The People of Iraq v. Saddam” and they spoke - death?

Perhaps you should take your own advise.

[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
orion wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Nice to see that yet another thread is quickly devolving into a jab at “fundamentalist” Christians (as if that is the only group making a distinction between abortion and capital punishment). As Thunder has pointed out, what isn’t being taken into account is the question of guilt.

There is a huge difference between taking the life of an innocent human being (whether you agree or not, most Christians believe the unborn are every bit as human as you and me) and taking the life of a human being responsible for the deaths of thousands. One is murder, the other is not (in the eyes of most Christians). I don’t see why that distinction is so strange…

I think the answer is in part something Prof X wrote above:

You either believe that people can change or you don`t.

I do not care either way, but as a Christian you MUST believe that people can change, call it “finding Jesus” if you must…

To rob someone of that chance by killing him before his time, you rob him of his chance of redemption and therefore endanger his eternal soul.

In a way it could be argued that it is worse to execute a guilty man than killing an innocent child, because the soul is more important than the flesh, and the child?s soul goes straight up to heaven anyway.

Above we have the most idiotic, assinine post ever made on any message board anywhere. Maybe one of stupidest things ever said. You deserve to be beaten with your little pink purse for that one, asshole. Why don’t you stop posting and crawl into a corner and cry for Saddam. Maybe you’ll cry some of those stupid thoughts out and you’ll be able to think straight.

So if someone explores your little fairy tales a little bit and tries to think them trough you have a very strong negative emtional reaction.

Interesting.

Anything else you would like to share?

Plus if any pro death-penalty Christian ever accuses me of moral relativism I am going to laugh so hard I shall wet myself… [/quote]

Well, I’m sure that wetting yourself isn’t anything all that unusual.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Oh. So since we don’t know for certain when life begins, or at least, we don’t know for certain, then abortion is a-okay? I’ll call bullshit on that and leave it.

It seems that any argument that you don’t make is a poor argument in your estimation. Odd. But common in those that idolize themselves.

How old are you? Your arguments come across like teenaged angst more than actually trying to make a point. My posts didn’t have anything to do with claiming abortion was “ok”. It had everything to do with letting you know that not everyone believes it is “murder”, while your stance clearly shows you think BOTH abortion and death for a crime are BOTH murder…making you a hypocrite to support one and not the other. I know it hurts to admit that, but damn, get over it.[/quote]

The insult was nice. Always good to call someone a teenager. The rest was your typical bullshit double talk. Nonsense. Go wait for the short bus.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Oh, wow. The dummies are out in force today.

You’re off to a great start. Usually when debating you’ll have any easier time getting your points across to others when you’re not calling them names.

I’ll just deal with two of your points as to point out all of your shitheadedness would take a month.

Your mother is a whore! There, now I’m on your level.

First - the good thing coming out Saddam’s death IS his death. Get it? He’s dead. That’s GOOD!

Saddam was scum. No argument here.

Second, what does Saddam’s tyranny have to do with our liberty? Nothing. You got it. So let’s put a fence around the nation and not pay attention to anything else going on in the world?

I didn’t say we shouldn’t be concerned with what is going on in the world. Don’t put words in my mouth. Iraq, however, was as much a threat to the U.S as Canada is.

I doubt that’s what you want. I’m sure you have your pet causes that you want shitloads of money spent on. Saving the ducks of Antarctica from frostbitten toes? Save the whales?

Oh, so now I’m a tree-hugger? I’ve never been called that before.

I know this is a weight training website, but try not to sound like a stupid meat-head.

Do those things affect our liberty? Does Darfur affect or liberty? No. But should we go in there and kick some ass for what’s gone on there?

Are you in the military? It’s easy to say we should do this, or we should do that, sitting behind a computer screen.

Fucking right we should? Bush AND the UN should pull their heads out on that one and act. Now get some opinions that make sense.

Okay hard-charger, you lead the way! With all this aggression you have, you should join the Army or Marines.

Dustin[/quote]

Did Canada ever launch warheads at neighboring nations? Has Canada ever sought nuclear technology on the black market? Not much else in your post that makes sense so let’s keep it to your most ridiculous point, that Iraq is Canada. Canda ever commit genocide on it’s citizens?

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
TQB wrote:
I do not go for the salvation argument, but every time someone speaks with satisfaction about an execution, I get worried.

Everytime I hear someone try to argue for the sanctity of the life of a man who took such obvious joy in taking the lives of others, I get worried.

I would just love to hear one of you “Enlightened” Europeans drop that load of bullshit with a straight face on a mother whose kid was butchered by Saddam or any other sick fuck mass murderer who got the death penalty.

Criminal cases should never be about revenge or our new disease, “victim’s rights”.

Wow. You really have your priorities mixed up. A victim having the right to demand satisfaction from the perpetrator is a disease? I wonder if you would say this bullshit if some asshole murdered someone you loved dearly.

If you want revenge, sue,

You are obviously not a lawyer. Lawsuits are utter bullshit. You will not get complete satisfaction through the legal system.

otherwise it is “the state vs. x”, and you should butt out.

Um, isn’t that precisely what happened here? “The People of Iraq v. Saddam” and they spoke - death?

Perhaps you should take your own advise.

[/quote]

M’lud, I rest my case. 2000 years of jurisprudence vindicated.

[quote]DS 007 wrote:

Well, I’m sure that wetting yourself isn’t anything all that unusual. [/quote]

For your sake I can only hope that you are still in highschool…

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Oh. So since we don’t know for certain when life begins, or at least, we don’t know for certain, then abortion is a-okay? I’ll call bullshit on that and leave it.

It seems that any argument that you don’t make is a poor argument in your estimation. Odd. But common in those that idolize themselves.

How old are you? Your arguments come across like teenaged angst more than actually trying to make a point. My posts didn’t have anything to do with claiming abortion was “ok”. It had everything to do with letting you know that not everyone believes it is “murder”, while your stance clearly shows you think BOTH abortion and death for a crime are BOTH murder…making you a hypocrite to support one and not the other. I know it hurts to admit that, but damn, get over it.

The insult was nice. Always good to call someone a teenager. The rest was your typical bullshit double talk. Nonsense. Go wait for the short bus.[/quote]

Doofus, there was more there than a simple insult. Leave it you to never be able to actually stay on topic.

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Professor X wrote:
As far as the death penalty, what was being discussed was death for crimes long past for individuals who can cause no further harm to society.

I vehemently disagree with this.

In the case of Saddam (or any murderer of his ilk), everyday he was on this planet, he continued to harm society. Or do you not consider the continuing pain imposed on the family members of the hundreds of thousands killed due to his actions as a harm to society? Or how about all the potential contributions that will never be accounted for, all those young(and not so young) lives snuffed out because of one man’s lust for absolute power? How is that not a continuing harm to society? Please. What if Saddam tortured and killed your mother?[/quote]

Having a hard time reading? I could care less about the life of Saddam and wrote so how many times in this thread? All you basically wrote is that the death penalty brings relief for victims. Thanks for sharing though.

[quote]
Why ignore the possibility that an individual can change over time?

In the context of the conversation (rehabilitating guilty as sin mass murderers) this might be perhaps the stupidest statement you have ever uttered on this board. [/quote]

Are you saying no one can be rehabilitated? Only non-murderers can?

[quote]

In the case of Saddam Hussein, fuck yeah. I wouldn’t have even put on the executioner’s mask. [/quote]

You are having a hard time thinking beyond Saddam, aren’t you?

[quote]

And once again, are you really that naive to believe that hardened mass murderers can be rehabilitated? I didn’t really see any remorse coming from Saddam.[/quote]

Again, why do you think I am discussing Saddam?

Gee, if someone has not reformed then they aren’t who I am talking about, are they? I know this is difficult, but maybe you should reread what was written before without the assumption that I am discussing Saddam and without being so limited as to only think of serial killers who are insane and can’t be reformed.

[quote]

What if that person could do more good alive than dead?

Un-huh… now you’re grasping at straws, buddy.[/quote]

So, no one in jail who has ever killed someone could ever do any good in society?

[quote]

What if they are now involved in programs to deter youth from going down the same path?

Wow. “Let’s go hang with Uncle Saddam- he’ll tell us why it’s wrong to become a sadistic, megalomaniacal tyrant with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.” [/quote]

Saddam…again?

This case?

Much like this post.

I’m glad the execution of Saddam put an end to suicide bombings…oh, wait.

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
JD430 wrote:
The difference between us and Saddam is that as much of a piece of shit as he was, we still had strange feelings about the whole thing. I can guarantee you that none of those emotions ever crossed his soul when he was gassing thousands or stuffing them in meat grinders.

The last sentence is ridiculous given the fact that he, personally, never killed anyone. His underlings did. This means that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the man was executed for other peoples’ doings. Stick that in your cud and chew on it.

Since you seem to be so proud of your argument, I will take particular joy in shredding it.

Saddam is as guilty as any of his henchman, in fact more so, as I will explain shortly. To even propose otherwise is the height of stupidity.

Not only was the idea his, but he knowingly approved it, endorsed it, and for all we know celebrated it. The rest was just logistics, that was the scale he operated on. That motherfucker didn’t kill 10-20 people - this guy killed tens of thousands, and if you count all the wars he provoked, then hundreds of thousands.

In any court of criminal law that is pretty much the same as committing the crime yourself. Civilly, he would also get clipped under the theory of “respondeat superior” as well.

What next, are you going to argue that Hitler isn’t really a mass murderer because he wasn’t the one that was actually dropping the cannisters of Zyklon-B into the gas chambers?

Saddam’s crime - the crime of any dictator put to the gallows - was not murder, but power.

Wow. Did you read that in the two chapters of Foucault you read in philosophy class or something? Old Michel is rolling in his grave with that interpretation. I’ll bet you thought that nugget was particularly brilliant didn’t you?

For dictators don’t kill, they command others to do so.

My question again - what’s the fucking difference? None.

The only thing that separates their commands from a homeless bum’s is the factor of power.

What a loaded analogy - that’s a horrible argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No what separates Saddam’s commands from the bum’s is not “power” (which is an incredibly loaded word whose context you never fully explained) but “fear” - which is a form of COERCIVE power - and not the power you are discussing - for if the henchmen did not follow orders - they would die along with the intended victims. If anything, that exculpates the henchmen more than Saddam, pretty much destroying your argument on that point alone.

You also seem to forget the main element in first-degree murder that he was convicted of - PREMEDITATED INTENT - the actual act is just the icing on the cake. The intent is what crosses the line from manslaughter and lesser grades of murder to the death-penalty level crime, and Saddam is guilty of that in spades.

Thus, Saddam’s only crime was being too powerful (yet ultimately, not powerful enough).

No. Saddam’s crimes are too numerous to mention here, but we can all agree that he was a pre-meditated cold blooded killer.

The murder of any powerful individual by his inferiors is an affront to nature. By killing off powerful individuals, you leave behind nothing but mediocrity. Most people understand this to a certain extent, so long as their own status in the power hierarchy doesn’t come into play.

Spare us the totally incorrect interpretations of Nietzsche. That last paragraph was just beyond crap. No need for me to tear it up - just read that out loud - you’ll notice how silly it really is.

For instance, people toss back trophy fish for this very reason. But we’re not so good about applying it to human affairs, because the weak will always require scapegoats, and powerful people serve this role when they fall out of favor.

more nonsense.

So, who wins from the execution? From any execution? The state, of course.

Self-proclaimed arbiter of life and death. More power to it. That’s not a positive outcome.

even more nonsense. I sense a theme here.

Stick that in your cud and chew it.

[/quote]

Nice job handling such a foolish argument.

However, I just figured that he was a troll and should be ignored.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Having a hard time reading? I could care less about the life of Saddam and wrote so how many times in this thread? All you basically wrote is that the death penalty brings relief for victims. Thanks for sharing though.[/quote]

No. You are ducking the question, and in your usual condescending style you are trying to flip the argument.

“Arguing” with you is more akin to trading insults and probably closer to talking to a brick wall, so I’ll stop after this post.

Perhaps it is you who should learn to read. So let me make this crystal clear for you:

  1. The kinds of crime that usually bring the death penalty are the most heinous usually involving some sort of premeditated murder.

  2. You imply that for acts of this nature that were committed a sufficient time in the past and that are punished via the death penalty there would be hope for rehabilitation because they are no longer “harming” society.

  3. I, on the other hand, counter this ridiculous argument on two fronts:

a. The harm that these people do continues into perpetuity when you factor in the pain they have caused loved ones of the deceased, not to mention any potential contributions to society the ones who were killed could have made.

b. Unless you can present some kind of counter argument please try to explain you would actually rehabilitate habitual murderers - the kind of criminal that makes up the vast majority of death row inmates. Yet you seem to think people of this ilk can be “reformed”. I don’t.

I am not focused on Saddam - I use him as an example. You were not referring to Saddam, but rather speaking in general terms - which makes your argument all the more ludicrous when you consider the kind of crimes that get some on death row.

Stop with the petty insults and actually address my points.

[quote]
Are you saying no one can be rehabilitated? Only non-murderers can?[/quote]

I limited my discussion to death row inmates. And to answer your question - for someone convicted of multiple first degree murder - no, I don’t think there is hope of rehabilitation.

[quote]
You are having a hard time thinking beyond Saddam, aren’t you?[/quote]

No. I merely used him as an example. You are conveniently using him to duck my points.

Again, I posed the question - if someone killed your mother with premeditated intent, was caught, and up for death row - would you be so magnanimous?

[quote]
Again, why do you think I am discussing Saddam? [/quote]

I didn’t - you were discussing the issue in general terms. I merely use the Saddam example, because the thread was about Saddam. The point is that for purposes of discussing capital punishment - the crimes are inherently the same. Multiple, premeditated, murder.

[quote]
How about Ted Bundy? Or that douchebag Danny Rollings who slaughtered those undergrads at UF 15 years ago and confessed to other murders a few days before his execution. Bullshit. People like that develop an appetite for killing, once they cross that line there is no going back.

Gee, if someone has not reformed then they aren’t who I am talking about, are they? I know this is difficult, but maybe you should reread what was written before without the assumption that I am discussing Saddam and without being so limited as to only think of serial killers who are insane and can’t be reformed.

What if that person could do more good alive than dead?

Un-huh… now you’re grasping at straws, buddy.

So, no one in jail who has ever killed someone could ever do any good in society?

What if they are now involved in programs to deter youth from going down the same path?

Wow. “Let’s go hang with Uncle Saddam- he’ll tell us why it’s wrong to become a sadistic, megalomaniacal tyrant with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.”

Saddam…again?

Is it still as simple as “justice”?

In this case, most definitely.

This case?

Why does playing God have an on and off switch?

Who says we are playing God? Well I guess if you believe in that crap, you might be inclined to see it that way. I see it as garbage disposal.

Much like this post.[/quote]

Wow, that is so like you Professor.

Deflect with insults and sarcasm. Do not address any points inconvenient to your argument(because you don’t have any winning rebuttals) then dismiss it as “garbage.”

Only on the internet.

[quote]TQB wrote:

M’lud, I rest my case. 2000 years of jurisprudence vindicated.
[/quote]

I don’t understand how you rested your case? Is this your attempt at smug sarcasm? Did you not think I was going to call you out on this intellectually lazy answer?

Thank you for illustrating how completely full of shit most of you Europeans are when it comes to this argument.

But to recap let’s try it again:

  1. You are disturbed when people celebrate the death of a mass murderer seemingly oblivious to what Saddam Hussein did to a vast majority of his country for over 20 years.

  2. You call “victim’s rights” a disease? That is just beyond fucked up.

  3. Then you have the audacity to claim if you have beef with a murderer to “sue” (presumably civilly - since you can’t sue in criminal context) - funny, that didn’t work too well for the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, now did it?

So I ask you again - how is your case rested or jurisprudence vindicated?

[quote]DS 007 wrote:

Did Canada ever launch warheads at neighboring nations? Has Canada ever sought nuclear technology on the black market? Not much else in your post that makes sense so let’s keep it to your most ridiculous point, that Iraq is Canada. Canda ever commit genocide on it’s citizens? [/quote]

Well, I said that with a bit of sarcasm. The point was Iraq never posed a threat to the U.S. Hence the Canada reference.

As for Iraq attempting to purchase nuclear technology, they are by far not the only country to attempt that. Does that mean we invade them also?
And again, you keep mentioning Saddam’s crimes against his own citizens. That is hardly a reason to invade a country based on the lie that they have WMDs.

It is also telling that you ignored the rest of my post and simply labeled my points as nonsensical. Yet, you believe we should deploy troops to Darfur or anywhere else that bad people exist.

The internet tough guy attitude is getting annoying. Go sign up and join the Marines and then we’ll see how bad you want to be deployed to Darfur.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

Well, I said that with a bit of sarcasm. The point was Iraq never posed a threat to the U.S. Hence the Canada reference.[/quote]

Well, since the entire relevant international community said exactly the opposite of what you are claiming prior to the invasion of Iraq, you should stop trying to pass this off as fact.

Iraq was a known belligerent under UN sanction, subject to the conditions of a specific ceasefire. We can choose to deal with Iraq and its specific transgressions completely independent of what other countries do with their nuclear ambitions.

Back to the subject.

The idea that Iraq had WMDs was not a ‘lie’, so move along to a better argument.

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
a. The harm that these people do continues into perpetuity when you factor in the pain they have caused loved ones of the deceased, not to mention any potential contributions to society the ones who were killed could have made.[/quote]

This is a SOCIETY. Actions shouldn’t be all based on the emotions of victims but on the greater good. The question was NOT whether victims were hurt, but rather whether the individual who caused that pain could ever do more good for society. You haven’t responded to that at all.

Also, no one changed the argument. This is exactly what has been debated from the first page. Don’t get pissed because you can’t read well.

[quote]

b. Unless you can present some kind of counter argument please try to explain you would actually rehabilitate habitual murderers - the kind of criminal that makes up the vast majority of death row inmates. Yet you seem to think people of this ilk can be “reformed”. I don’t.[/quote]

Please prove to me that all people on death row are “habitual murderers”. That would make them serial killers, most of which would be considered clinically insane. Obviously someone of that mental state isn’t what is being discussed. If you believe that everyone on death row is a serial killer, your vision is out of focus.

[quote]

I am not focused on Saddam - I use him as an example. You were not referring to Saddam, but rather speaking in general terms - which makes your argument all the more ludicrous when you consider the kind of crimes that get some on death row. [/quote]

Please, go into detail on some of these crimes. Everyone on death row is a “habitual murderer”? That is what you stated, correct? If they aren’t all habitual murderers, then what about the people who have the possibility of rehabilitation?

What about those who have been found innocent through forensic evidence over the last 20 years?

[quote]

No. I merely used him as an example. You are conveniently using him to duck my points. [/quote]

Duck points? I haven’t missed one of your lame points yet.

So, no one can ever rehabilitate from premeditated murder?

Deflect? Every point of yours has been responded to. I know that pisses you off, but at least quit lying to yourself?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, since the entire relevant international community said exactly the opposite of what you are claiming prior to the invasion of Iraq, you should stop trying to pass this off as fact.
[/quote]

I think you underestimate the American governments influence on the international community.

And, considering every reason given by the Bush administration to invade Iraq has fallen flat on its face, I see no reason to believe anything they say.

Believe them if you wish.

Of course, they violated UN sanctions for what, a decade? Conveniently though, in 2003, UN sanctions and the violation of them became important.

[quote]
The idea that Iraq had WMDs was not a ‘lie’, so move along to a better argument.[/quote]

It was a weak argument then, and it seems even more ridiculous now.

My point from the beginning of this thread was that the execution of Saddam doesn’t benefit the U.S, and I stand by that comment.

Dustin