Posts made by Mary

@221B:

This has become interesting to me in many respects.

First, I find myself totally in contradiction with Mary - I’m for the death penalty (in rare circumstances only) and against abortion. Mary, unless I am mistaken about your views (correct me if I am wrong) you take the opposite view.

True

I’d really like to understand how you conclude that abortion of an innocent baby is OK, but capital punishment for the worst mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile imaginable would not be acceptable

.

Because a one-celled organism is not a person. A “mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile” is. I’m a reincarnationist, so my beliefs about ending life early are pretty outside the norm. An aborted fetus’s soul simply occupies the next available body (think of it like a bunch of people in a butcher shop waiting for their number to be called).

But even on a non-reincarnationist viewpoint, it is VERY hard to argue that a zygote should have the same rights as a person. At most you can argue that it is a potential person, which doesn’t really mean much when stacked up against the rights of an actual person. If I buy a lotto ticket, I’m a potential millionaire, but I doubt anyone will give me a loan because of it.

As much as people hate to admit it, a “mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile” is a person and should be treated as such. Is it not possible for them to be truly repentant? To understand what they did was wrong? I would rather give them a lifetime to ponder what they did, then cut it short before they ever can come to terms with it (but this is because I believe people should learn from mistakes for the next life).

But Christians should be against the death penalty as well, since it runs counter to everything Jesus preached. And on a Christian level, if you kill someone before they “accept Christ”, you’ve condemned them to hell. Where is the harm in giving them time to eventually repent? If they never do, they’re still going to hell, but even the most wicked sinner can reach heaven, if they are truly repentful. Why take that oppurtunity away from someone?

Lastly, yes they did horrible things. Should the state stoop to their level and finish them off? What good could it possibly do? Make the families feel better? If someone harmed my kid, hurting them badly might make me feel better, but should I be allowed to? Where does it end? An Old West shootout? We should be careful executing people for reasons of “closure” (which, I think, is just a equphemism for revenge).

Secondly, I really think the point about normal procedures vs. rare exceptions does apply. It is rare (I hope and the few statistics available tend to show this) for atrocities as you describe in the US. And how do you know this doesn’t happen in France? And at what rate in France? As these things are usually hidden, we probably will never know for certain, but it seems the normal cell is better in the US than in France in all ways Chengora described. But again, the comparisons of the % of population favors France. Also, the death penalty is a rare occurance, even in Texas, and usually takes several decades of appeals. When people can die of old age before their penalty, I’m not sure why this is an issue.

I don’t know where you’re going with the first part. France doesn’t have a death penalty, so they never have a chance to wrongfully kill someone. We do, and every so often, we DO wrongfully kill someone. It may be rare, but how often should a govt. be killing innocent people? Never is a good answer, I think.

Some prisoners want to die because of guilt for their crimes - a life sentence could be viewed as worse.

Could be, but we don’t exactly let condemned people choose to be executed or not. I’m betting most people would opt for the life-sentence, given the choice.

If we take the approach that prison should be a deterent to crime, perhaps this is better?!

Is the death penalty a deterrent to crime? Both sides can cite studies all day. I simply don’t think the government should be in a position to execute innocent people, even if it IS a deterent.

For that matter, how can France think to judge us (both in the States and Gitmo) if this is the best they can do for their prisoners? It does cut both ways here, although to be fair I am not sure how much of the Gitmo criticism is from France and how much from other places.

I didn’t know the French were complaining about us. But our practice of holding people for years without even CHARGING them is shameful.

@Yanny:

Imagine being killed for something you didn’t do. Imagine having electrodes on your balls and a confession paper a corrupt detective wants you to sign.

“One of the 13 exonerated Illinois inmates, Anthony Porter, spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed before a group of student journalists at Northwestern University uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

What kind of torture do you want? Bad food and water? A cramped cell? Sitting on death row, waiting to be killed? You would like to ignore the death penalty because it makes America look hypocritical, but any talk of prisons, must also include death row. How hypocritical to talk about another country’s failed prisons and ignore the thousands waiting to die in our own.

That is a completely seperate issue. Mary, I’m a liberal as you are, but I’m just admitting fact right here. It’s not a political stance. I’d rather do 10 years in a US prison than 6 months in a French prison.

The jury system of conviction absolutely has it’s problems. I’m not saying I support the death penalty (though the Constitution specifically mentions it, so we can’t eliminate it easily), but that question is irrelevent when assessing different country’s prisons.

So we still execute people in the US. I’d prefer a country with an innocent-first justice system with the death penalty than a guilt-first system system without it.

But we’re discussing prisons here. Just prisons. And again, I’d rather spend 10 years in an American prison than 6 months in a french one.

Ten years is a long time. But given equal sentences, I would probably prefer doing time in America. However, I would also point out I would rather be wrongfully convicted of murder in France, than in Texas.

@Yanny:

You guys have no idea how bad French prisons are. Don’t try to make this a death penalty debate, it’s not. Thats a seperate issue.

Imagine being isolated in a concrete room, one meter by one meter. It is wet, cold, and completely dark. You share the space with rats. Once or twice a day, the door opens and some guard brings you something that barely qualifies as edible. Now imagine this concrete room for months or years at a time. Also imagine this in the context of a justice system which presumes guilt before innonence.

That is what we’re talking about in terms of French prisons. US prisons are a walk in the park compared to them.

Imagine being killed for something you didn’t do. Imagine having electrodes on your balls and a confession paper a corrupt detective wants you to sign.

“One of the 13 exonerated Illinois inmates, Anthony Porter, spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed before a group of student journalists at Northwestern University uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

What kind of torture do you want? Bad food and water? A cramped cell? Sitting on death row, waiting to be killed? You would like to ignore the death penalty because it makes America look hypocritical, but any talk of prisons, must also include death row. How hypocritical to talk about another country’s failed prisons and ignore the thousands waiting to die in our own.

Does France have a death penalty, or is America the only industrialized country left that has a state-sponsored method of killing innocent people? How can Americans even think to judge other countries’ penal systems when we still have something as barbaric as the death penalty in place?

That’s tough. It’s like the pornography question: I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.

Colonialism, to me, is a parasitic relationship- one country’s resources are used for the benefit of another, more powerful country with minmal regard given to the “host” country. My 5th grade Social Studies text has a great quote from a Parliament committe back in the 1700’s:

“We must remind all members of Parliament that colonies were set up for the good of England, not for the good of the colonists. These settlements can provide us with many needed things- tobacco, lumber, whale oil, fish, grain, and furs. And, they also provide England with a place to sell our manufactured goods.”

And another from Prime Minister George Grenville during the same time:

“So it is only right and just that the colonists help pay for the protection we are giving them. Clearly, Parliament and the King have authority over the colonies. It is in the name of that authority that we suggest new rules which will make the colonists pay taxes to the English government.”

So, substitute “lumber” and “fish” with “oil” and “military bases”, and you basically have Iraq. We even had a scheme to make Iraq pay for repairs for all the damage WE did with OUR bombs (and how is Haliburton doing these days?). I can see three reasons for the U.S. invading:

• To remove a potential threat (we all know how THIS one turned out)
• To secure a huge reserve of oil with a pro-U.S. regime.
• To establish a dominant military presence in the region.

Any improvement in the lives of Iraqis is either accidental or just a necessary condition for securing those objectives. We may eventually succeed in our objectives, but it will only be for the short-term. Eventually, Iraqi’s will demand we leave so they can settle their own affairs. But why use “eventually”? They already want us gone.

What I am saying is that SH would have eventually given germ warfare technology to nearly untraceable terrorist agents for operations against the US. Particularly in Texas, where GHW & Barbera Bush live. That would be just a short SW Air flight to your state.

Ok, back to the real world….

SH would have also kept funding the suicide bombers against Israel. Taking him out removes an obstacle to Mid-east peace.

As well as every other country in the MIddle East. Who are we invading next to help Israel? Perhaps Israel’s terrorist problems stem from its draconian polocies towards the Palesteinians. And why is Israel our problem? It’s enough we give them billions a year in unsecured loans. We don’t need to invade countries so Israel will feel more secure.

I am sure you have great domestic spending plans, but it can all be ruined by another terrorist attack. I would rather have Iraq as their base than some mosque by the local flight school. I do not want another 911 on our soil. Given the Spanish elections after 311, I doubt if AQ will care about their losses in Iraq.

Where have I heard this before? Vietnam maybe? If we don’t fight the communists over there, we’ll be fighting them over here! It was a lie then and its a lie now. The insurgents in Iraq are almost all native TO Iraq

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Only 90 of the more than 5,700 people in custody in Iraq as security risks are foreign fighters, defense officials said on Tuesday, a figure that suggests the Bush administration may have overstated the role of outside militants in the deadly insurgency.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said the U.S. military command handling security detention facilities in Iraq confirmed a report in USA Today that fewer than 2 percent of those in custody were foreigners."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/07/06/few_detainees_in_iraq_are_foreign_usa_today?mode=PF

I feel so much safer knowing we’re taking the fight to the enemy :roll:

The raids along the Syrian border are inflicting significant losses on the Baathists.

And yet they still keep killing our guys and Iraqis. Just like they have been for the last two years. Oh, and that’s another Vietnam-era trend I’ve noticed: body counts. Anyone else notice we’re measuring progress by the number of insurgents killed? When we started, Tommy Franks said, “We don’t do body counts”. Well, I guess we do now.

the troops are just a few raids away from getting the rest of the replacement leadership. Iraqis are now looking for stable leadership. Keeping the insurgents on the run prevents them from establishing legitamate stability. It does not take away their ability to disrupt the stability that we recently set up there. They did get a decent turn out on the latest election. Things are more stable. Soon, they will be able to fight for it themselves. As in A&A, if you just sit on an advantage, the opponent will eventually build a counter. Minor advantages are not always permanent. You must exploit them and widen your edge in order to gain victory.

Did you lift this out of 1984 or something? “Attention! Your Attention please! A majory victory, against the forces of EastAsia, has now put the war within measureble reach of ending!” Needless to say, we’re all getting tired of hearing “mission accomplished” every six months.

@Linkon:

@Mary:

@221B:

According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.

True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.

True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.

It then becomes a question of who will welcome these terrorists. If all exits in Iraq get bottled up, then they are trapped there and will eventually get hunted down.

Iraq has a huge, porous border which we are incapable of defending. But let me get this straight: we can’t stop illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border, but we’re going to make Iraq air-tight?

@Linkon:

@Mary:

You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?

Let’s not forget that nerve gas has been around a while. Old technology that SH would easily have given to someone bent on killing Iraelis and Americans in mass slaughter.

Where to begin with all this?

Three things to consider:

1. According to the 2002 NIE report, SH did not want to get involved in attacks against us out of fear of reprisal.

2. SH had ten years from PG1 to the Iraq invasion to try a terrorist attack against us, fund one, or provide logistic support for an attack. He never did. Too busy building presidential palaces, probably. But suddenly, when Bush comes to power, Iraq becomes an imminent threat, with their nuclear program, WMD’s, and ties to Al Queda

3. Iraq had no nuclear program, WMD’s, or ties to Al Queda. We’ve found one artillery shell with VX in it. If that’s the standard for preemptive invasion, then every other nation on Earth was more of a threat to us than Iraq was.

@marine36:

This is a really stupid question. Of course well suceed, we already are winning, though the media misconstrues it into a disaster. If Marines are being killed in Iraq, then yes, its definantly worth it, Marines die for a reason.

Is that the rule then? Whenever a marine dies its “worth it”?

@stuka:

@marine36:

I wont give a damn unless I get it.

Such a selfless thing to say. Yyyyeeeeeeeeeeaaaahhh!!!

LOL! I think Marine is actually a high-level official in charge of American relief efforts.

@221B:

According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.

True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.

True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.

How about a theocracy?

“BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Framers of Iraq’s constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation - a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation - according to a draft published Tuesday.”

http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/2579335p-11017020c.html

Your sig is very appropriate, IL.

@Linkon:

Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.

You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.

This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”

You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?

I wish you guys would understand that opposing the Iraq invasion does not = pacifism. I was supportive of the first Persian Gulf war. It was a very effective UN operation that cost us little, garnered us prestige, and stopped a greedy grab for land. Somehow, I doubt Chamberlain would have supported PG1. But go on, keep telling yourself that the majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists.

I think you are on to something here. There is no doubt that the actions in Iraq, while perhaps encouraging more terrorists on the local level (i.e. a few more Saudi citizens get involved) also greatly discourage the support of middle eastern governments. Witness for example Lybia giving up its WMD program, or the events in Lebanon. And how about the invaluable help Pakistan provides?

Pakistan got on board with our action in Afghanistan. If anything, Iraq has alienated the population of Pakistan (which never really liked us anyway) even more so. Musharaff may support us, but sooner or later he’ll be gone. I’ll bet you when he’s replaced, his successor won’t be so accomodating. And how much are Syria and Iran influencing events over in Iraq? It’s in both countries best interests to see us slowly bleed ourselves in Iraq.

A few additional terrorists for AQ doesn’t change the equation much - there is really nothing these individuals can add to AQ’s arsenal. However governmental bodies could potentially give AQ greatly helpful things:

1. A safe base of operations for training, planning, etc. For example, Afganistan prior to 911. This is invaluable to AQ and cannot be overstated for many reasons both obvious and not so obvious.

According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s. Instead of multiple training camps in Afghanistan, we’ve turned Iraq into one large training camp. I can’t really see this as a benefit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7460-2005Jan13?language=printer

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”

Lastly, Iraq never financed Al Queda (or if they did, they covered their tracks pretty well). Saddam was a threat to Israel, but seemed to have ignored groups like Al Queda. Before the invasion, there was an NIE report that stated “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.”

http://www.cia.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html

It seems very odd to invade a country that the CIA figured was probably too afraid of us to actually attack us. I would think, as a rule of thumb, you should only preemptively attack someone whom you BELIEVE will eventually attack you.

I could continue, but to be brief I’ll go to my last point. A sucessful Iraq will show ordinary people in the middle east that it is posible for them to fight against terrorists. Too many are basically held hostage out of fear of reprisal. This should not be so – or would anyone rather we were all giving kickbacks and favors to the local mob boss? An unsuccessful Iraq doesn’t change the current status.

I would agree with you here, but even if we cobble together some type of represntative govt. (which is still going to defer to Islam as the supreme law of the land), I think having 130,000 troops in Iraq might be a necessary condition for its survival for many years. How long can we keep that up?

Like I said, there’s really nothing of value in what you posted, so no in-depth reply from me. If you get some ego-boost out of thinking you “owned” me, enjoy it while it lasts.

In your post, you fail to grasp the concept of cost/benefit analysis. You use familiy photos as an example of something whose value cannot be measured. This is wrong. YOU may consider family photos “without value”, but if it came down to a choice between saving a photo album or an uninsured briefcase full of $1,000,000, a tough decision would have to be made, and I think most would pick the cash.

Everything has a measured value, every action has a cost and benefit associated with it. Until you understand this, we can’t really talk about whether Iraq was “worth it”.

Was the American Revolution worth it? Think of all the money and lives that cost. Without the help of the French we may not have won that.
That’s no different then US helping the Iraqis.

Was WW2 worth it? Think of all the destruction that caused. [/qoute]

Apples and oranges here: In one case we have 250 years of hindsight, (as well as the fact we begged the French to help us) and in the other, we were attacked by a country that was gobbling up the Pacific, and another country that had already conquered all of Europe and half of Russia had just declared war on us.

Even if Iraq succceds in five years, it may fail utterly in ten (e.g., backslide into civil war, draw us into a war vs. Iran, etc.).

You can’t place “value” on some things. It’s absurd.

Everything has a value, even human life. Elementary economics. This is why we don’t spend $100 billion researching a cure for a disease 5 people have, while we DO spend billions resarching cures for AIDS and treatments for various cancers. When you have a scarcity of resources, like we do on this planet, EVERYTHING has a cost/benefit analysis assosciated with it.

But back to the point at hand, How much is too much? Will Iraq have been worth it if it costs 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 4 trillion? How many lives? 4,000? 8,000? 16,000? Eventually you reach a point where you bankrupt yourself and wreck your armed forces. I will submit, probably without argument, that if we KNEW it would take ten years, 50,000 casualties and 4 trillion dollars to “win” in Iraq, the public would demand an immediate pullout. There’s no way we’re going to bankrupt ourselves for some country in the Middle East.

So, what’s your price for the chance to be free?
$1.50? $10? 1 Million??? 1 billion???

So you would spend a billion a person in your pursuit of freedom? Do you see the absurdity of this?

Or what is the going rate now a days to help people???

Obviuisly, less than what you think it is. We don’t have unlimited resources to change every govt in the world that is mean to its people.

It is clear you’ve already made up your mind, you were/are against the war so obviously nothing can be done in your mind to accept it. You flat out said you already think it wasn’t worth it.

The truth is this war already was worth it and has paid huge dividends it the war on terror, but your hatred for Bush has blinded you.

We are clearly winning and crushing these terrorists.

What are these dividends? If we’re clearly winning, why has the number of independent Iraqi combat battalions dropped (to one), the number of Americans killed each month stayed the same (actually gone up a bit), and the suicide bombings just as deadly?

I read at FoxNews, that if the bird flu mutates, the mortality rate will only be a couple people per 10,000. That seems a bit low to me. If you crunch the numbers, 1/10000 would only be 600,000 killed worldwide (assuming everyone came in contact with it). If the mortality rate was 1/100, then you would have 60,000,000 dead, which seems right for a bad pandemic. The SPanish flu of 1918 killed between 20-40 million and that was with a world population much less than 6 billion.

"“Avian H5N1 looks like a 70 percent case fatality in humans. But this has never been true of any human strain,” Longini told WebMD last December. “There has never been any human influenza virus that has behaved that way in recorded or even unrecorded history. The case fatality of even highly virulent flu strains are a couple of deaths per 10,000 people.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171921,00.html

Are those numbers way off?

At this point, I think we’ve passed the point of no return. Even if it all works out, it was too much to spend, and too many people had to die to make it work.