1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Death Penalty / Latest Posts

RE: Death Penalty

Nuclearcow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:35:30 GMT

That video was hella-funny, Scip. :P

RE: Death Penalty

-M- — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:32:47 GMT

If it were possible to bring the slain back to life, I would not support a death penalty. There has to be some sort of accountability to every action and everyone should be aware of that. An example may not deter everyone equally due to variability of circumstances, but it goes a long way in preventing many would be cases.

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:35:53 GMT

[quote][b]cleopatra143 (7/3/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/3/2008)[/b][hr]The death penalty is bad arse.

[youtube]Hyph_DZa_GQ[youtube]

I rest my case. :P[/quote]fail[/quote]

RE: Death Penalty

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:05:07 GMT

I thought it was funny.

RE: Death Penalty

cleopatra143 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:26:01 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/3/2008)[/b][hr]The death penalty is bad arse.

[youtube]Hyph_DZa_GQ[youtube]

I rest my case. :P[/quote]fail

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:39:44 GMT

The death penalty is bad arse.

[youtube]Hyph_DZa_GQ[/youtube]

I rest my case. :P

RE: Death Penalty

RabiAkiva — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:50:09 GMT

My grandfather used to say: "If you have to be hanged, make sure it is on the last gallows."
I am therefore inclined to say that the drawn out affair is better than the immediate axe.

Besides, you must make a difference between punishment and locking up for security purposes. A psychotically deranged person can and should be locked up for the sake of safety - that is not punishment, it is a (safety) measure.
If we talk about punishment purely, I'd say that indeed life sentence is hardly worse or better than death. But then again, not only am I against a death penalty, I am also against a severe sentence such as life. A punishment (mark! I am not talking about safety measure) should be limited in time. The punishment should be over some day and the crime considered to be purged. I'd love to limit punishments to an absolute maximum of ten years. But that is just lenient me.

RE: Death Penalty

Nuclearcow — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:35:21 GMT

[quote]In a way, this case has no relevance for the death penalty discussion,[/quote]Its actually pretty relevant to some of the early discussion in this thread though. Many pages back. :P

Especially in regards to, isn't a life sentence a death sentence anyways, just drawn out painfully long? This most recent article isn't quite a life-without-parole case, but I still would probably rather face death than 27 years in prison.

*Edited because its 02:39 in the morning and I'm not quite making sense. lol*

RE: Death Penalty

RabiAkiva — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:09:52 GMT

In a way, this case has no relevance for the death penalty discussion, it is first of all an example of a bad functioning justice system. In a bad functioning justice system, the outcomes are horrendous, whether the system has lenient penalties or harsh ones.
The only thing may be, is that one can contemplate in this case that at least the unjustly convicted could be freed, whereas, had he been put to death, it was irreparable. However, as NC points out: much is irreparable anyway. 27 years imprisonment is life ruining no matter how you look at it.

Why is this such a bad case?
[quote]Woodard was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses. Officials say one has since recanted and the accuracy of the other has been questioned.[/quote]

On the basis of the article, this seems to imply there is a suspect who is denying the charges and the only evidence are two testimonies from eyewitnesses.

This is a flimsy criminal case under any law. Without a confession there is little basis, you will need a lot of additional evidence. Best is: technical evidence, such as the DNA test that eventually exonerates him.
Another way to put it: it doesn't take too much of a defense lawyer to make mashed potatoes of the accusation. So how could the guy get convicted? Apart from having a bad lawyer, he may have had a jury.

So, in my mind, a case like this is more a point for questioning jury trials and for pressing a better supply of free lawyers (the accused can't possibly have been a rich guy with access to a prestigious law firm).

RE: Death Penalty

Nuclearcow — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:14:50 GMT

Ooh. I hope I don't invoke the wrath of admins for reviving a 4 month old thread, but I thought this was relevant to this thread and pondered for a moment whether I should start a new thread on this, or add it to this.

Man was freed after 27 years in prison for a rape/murder he didn't commit. DNA freed him.
[url]http://590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=90149[/url]
I respect life an awful lot, or so I'd like to think at least, but I'd rather be put to death than go to prison for 27 years for something I didn't do.

Either way... Poor guy. :crying:

RE: Death Penalty

Hrainian — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:31:26 GMT

Another thing that frustrates me immensely: relatively young people (16, 17) committing first degree murder, and getting off with manslaughter because they "did not realize that hitting those two men on the head with a shovel would cause harm"

RE: Death Penalty

Bismarck2990 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:37:16 GMT

Heh, Rk, I assure you the feeling is mutual. :D I get warm fuzzies when I read your posts too. :P

[QUOTE]For example, I have posted on this forum before about age of consent laws. Correct me if I am in error here but, in any event, I do know that there is not one consistent age of consent in all 50 U.S. states, nor in say Canada and the U.S. So for example, the age of consent may be 16 in Alabama, but 18 in Georgia. This means that behavior which is illegal "here" on this side of a state boundary, is illegal "over there" 10 meters away on that other side of the state boundary. There are almost countless examples of these local variations on laws (although again I do not know where these are written down, how they get decided, or whether they have sound philosophical bases underlying them), and indeed, they extend all the way to matters of life and death. What constitutes murder and what constitutes self-defense no doubt differs between different states. Is it not the case that certain forms of euthanasia are legal in some U.S. states and not in others? Certainly abortions are legal in some U.S. states, but perhaps not in all?[/QUOTE]

Good point. You could take Florida for instance.. in the event of a home burglary, you are perfectly able to shoot the individual who is in your house simply based on the fact that they are intruders in your home. Personally, since I don't actively jump in through other people's windows, I have nothing against the law and am thankful for it.

Also, indeed, the age of consent does vary State to State.

[QUOTE]This leads me back to Bismarck's original comment, that giving a criminal choice is inherent contradictory to punishment. Is this even something that we can all agree with? Increasingly it seems to me that there is an effort to re-define crime as a "social problem," i.e., not as an inappropriate, or wrongful action or choice by an individual which has harmed another individual or the society in some way, but as a manifestation through an individuals behavior of a structural problem. While I do not want to take a distinctly oppositional stance to the idea that certain social milieu tend to predispose crime, I also have a problem with following such thinking to its ultimate conclusion, which is in my estimation to remove all agency from the individual and alleviate the individual of all his social responsibility to behave in a civil and sociable manner.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's sad, but it really wouldn't surprise me that the answer to that is most likely, "no," some people simply can't wrap their head around the concept of placing punishment outside of the individual in question's choice. Heck, there are individuals who believe we shouldn't even put murderers in prisons.

[quote]Yes, living in poverty, being a minority, suffering various forms of neglect or abuse, are all associated with resorting to behaviors that harm others, or else harm the social fabric. But does this mean that individuals should not be held acountable and responsible for their actions? If individuals are to be held accountable for their wrongs against society or others, then should having their choices in life reduced be a standard response of society, and is not ending one's life the ultimate way of reducing one's choices?[/quote]

I agree completely with that thinking, Scip. Personally, I find it's disappointing that some individuals believe murder or others criminal acts can somehow be justified due to the person in question's surroundings or quality of life (in some few cases - yes, the majority? no.. that also doesn't mean the individual should be void of punishment).

In contrast, I actually attempt to believe humans can be held to some degree of personal responsibility. There's no way (that I can see), somebody can argue against that fact the overwhelming majority of these people we are attempting to discuss in this conversation, commit these crimes knowing full well and ahead of time the possible consequences/punishments that can be taken against them based on their actions.

Heck, it's even because of fear of punishment, individuals are willing to go to even more extreme lengths to cover up their crimes. Thus, for the overwhelming majority, they should be held fully accountable.

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:37:16 GMT

[quote][b]Bismarck2990 (12/5/2007)[/b][hr][quote]The people convicted of crimes, should not be allowed to choose their punishment since it defeats the whole purpose . . .

[/quote]

This raises the interesting philosophical question of "what is a punishment." Or more specifically, what does "your society" philosophically think constitutes a "punishment," and for that matter what does your society think constitutes a "crime?" Moreover, WHY does any social or political entity need to have an idea of a punishment and what it constitutes?

I realize here that many of us are coming from different societies. For the sake of example ask yourself: What does nation else the specific state you live in, think constitutes a "punishment."

With respect to the United States, my home nation, and the various states I have resided in (and thus been a de facto 'citizen of') I honestly do not know the answer to these questions. I honestly do not know WHERE, in what document outlining the social contract of being a United States citizen, or _insert state name_ citizen it spells out why it serves the greater social good for there to be a police force, let alone for them to use force to detain, question, or otherwise impede the rights which the Constitution set out as being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This may seem self-evident to some people, but in fact it is dramatically different from one culture to the next, and indeed from one STATE to the next.

For example, I have posted on this forum before about age of consent laws. Correct me if I am in error here but, in any event, I do know that there is not one consistent age of consent in all 50 U.S. states, nor in say Canada and the U.S. So for example, the age of consent may be 16 in Alabama, but 18 in Georgia. This means that behavior which is illegal "here" on this side of a state boundary, is illegal "over there" 10 meters away on that other side of the state boundary. There are almost countless examples of these local variations on laws (although again I do not know where these are written down, how they get decided, or whether they have sound philosophical bases underlying them), and indeed, they extend all the way to matters of life and death. What constitutes murder and what constitutes self-defense no doubt differs between different states. Is it not the case that certain forms of euthanasia are legal in some U.S. states and not in others? Certainly abortions are legal in some U.S. states, but perhaps not in all?

In short, I do not know the law. Moreover, I do not know the law SO THOROUGHLY, that I do not even know where (or if) it is written down in any sort of broader philsophical way, what constitutes a crime, or what constitutes a punishment for my own society! Thus I find it very hard to have a philosophical critique of a specific jurisprudential practice (the death penalty) not knowing how that practice is, or is not justified or validated through the larger philosophical structure of any specific state, or the nation of the U.S.

This leads me back to Bismarck's original comment, that giving a criminal choice is inherent contradictory to punishment. Is this even something that we can all agree with? Increasingly it seems to me that there is an effort to re-define crime as a "social problem," i.e., not as an inappropriate, or wrongful action or choice by an individual which has harmed another individual or the society in some way, but as a manifestation through an individuals behavior of a structural problem. While I do not want to take a distinctly oppositional stance to the idea that certain social milieu tend to predispose crime, I also have a problem with following such thinking to its ultimate conclusion, which is in my estimation to remove all agency from the individual and alleviate the individual of all his social responsibility to behave in a civil and sociable manner.

Yes, living in poverty, being a minority, suffering various forms of neglect or abuse, are all associated with resorting to behaviors that harm others, or else harm the social fabric. But does this mean that individuals should not be held acountable and responsible for their actions? If individuals are to be held accountable for their wrongs against society or others, then should having their choices in life reduced be a standard response of society, and is not ending one's life the ultimate way of reducing one's choices?

RE: Death Penalty

Hrainian — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:29:56 GMT

Lol

RE: Death Penalty

Roadkill — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:55:55 GMT

[quote]EDIT: Took out some rambling.[/quote]

-THERE [b]IS[/b] A GOD!

*Runs for the hills*

RE: Death Penalty

Hrainian — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:41:43 GMT

You have made some very good points!

RE: Death Penalty

Bismarck2990 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:54:15 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (12/5/2007)[/b][hr]Well Bismarck, in some states the death row convict can choose how he/she is to be executed! Does that mean the state is sanctioning....whatever the hell they would be sanctioning in allowing the convict to choose how they are going to be offed? Oh, you're going to die, but we'll give you the honor of choosing how you are going to die!!! :w00t:

I know one such individual in Tennessee recently chose to be Electrocuted, and that was something that had not been done in a while here, mainly because injection is now the primary means of execution these days.[/quote]

There's a difference though, LC. :P

In my response, I'm not attempting to say that the person in question shouldn't be allowed to choose [i]how[/i] they are executed (I actually have nothing against that). I'm against allowing the individual to choose [i]if[/i] they are executed at all.

I'm looking at it from this perspective:

If somebody would rather be executed in contrast to spending time in prison, I don't believe they should be allowed the right to choose their specific punishment in that respect. The people convicted of crimes, should not be allowed to choose their punishment since it defeats the whole purpose. If somebody wants to die in contrast to prison time, the state shouldn't provide the means to accomplish that unless the crime and their peers (jury, judge, bunch of other legal yada-yada involved) dictate it as proper punishment.

EDIT: Took out some rambling. :)

RE: Death Penalty

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:09:04 GMT

Well Bismarck, in some states the death row convict can choose how he/she is to be executed! Does that mean the state is sanctioning....whatever the hell they would be sanctioning in allowing the convict to choose how they are going to be offed? Oh, you're going to die, but we'll give you the honor of choosing how you are going to die!!! :w00t:

I know one such individual in Tennessee recently chose to be Electrocuted, and that was something that had not been done in a while here, mainly because injection is now the primary means of execution these days.

RE: Death Penalty

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:53:56 GMT

[quote][b]Hrainian (12/4/2007)[/b][hr]Living in canada (no death penalty here), I don't think it should be a penalty. I think that (instead of serving a sentence) people should be allowed to opt for a death "sentence" instead.[/quote]

Personally, I don't believe those convicted of crimes should be allowed to choose their punishment (especially when it comes to the death penalty). That just sounds like the state or the powers-that-be are sponsoring suicide (which goes into a whole other area of debate).

It would cause way more problems then the current system in the US, IMO.

RE: Death Penalty

Hrainian — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:05:34 GMT

Living in canada (no death penalty here), I don't think it should be a penalty. I think that (instead of serving a sentence) people should be allowed to opt for a death "sentence" instead.

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:30:07 GMT

There should be no Death Penalty because it is EVIL!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...but then so am I so... oh fudge.

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:58:20 GMT

*YAWN*

Doesn't look like this one is gonna make it to 20 pages. We had a good run, but lets face, it we're just copyin' and pastin' from our existing stock of arguments now . . .

I think Zigs idea of randomly assigning debate positions is a good idea!

From here on, Jerm you must take an ANTI-death penalty stance, and Roadkill you must take a pro-stance!

Ready . . . GO!

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:02:04 GMT

[quote]-I was trying to make the point that the death penalty does not act as a deterrant.[/quote]

That is an opinion and one many hold. There is (that is, none that I have seen) no solid evidence that it works or doesn't work. But the statement that fear isn't a deterant is one I don't know if I can agree with and that doesn't mean we become oppressive regimes. The country with one of the lowest murder rates after all is Saudi Arabia.

RE: Death Penalty

Roadkill — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:26:41 GMT

-Missed this one.

[quote]I don't understand that statement... that is I don't understand the point.[/quote]

-I was trying to make the point that the death penalty does not act as a deterrant.

[quote]See, when you actually write what you're thinking, we can come to some agreement.[/quote]

-Write... what I think? Blasphemy!

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:35:51 GMT

See, when you actually write what you're thinking, we can come to some agreement. I think I pretty much hold your view, though I think the degree is probably different (perhaps largely different). Now, back to the Death Penalty... shame I don't have time :crying:

RE: Death Penalty

Roadkill — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:22:45 GMT

[quote]That to me sounds rather absolutist to me.[/quote]

-Maybe I should have worded myself better. The first step in fixing a problem is noticing that there is one.

[quote]I ask again, what is your alternative?[/quote]

-I have already posted an alternative earlier, but let me add to it(And re-iterate some of it): I would not abolish holding facilities, they would still be similar to prisons in that way. Instead, the terms of being sent to prison would be increased(You don't get sent to jail for for stealing a bike or possessing/distributing drugs(Of course, this is relative).), many drugs would be legalised and regulated, as would prostitution. This would not simply be to control or contain, but to also give people more security(I'll explain this point further if you wish me to). Violent and non-violent criminals would be kept away from each other and reform would be emphasised through education, new experiences, etc. Instead of simply containing criminals, they would work(This is already in use in the USA and many European nations), in part to support their expenditure and also to gain practical experience. Home detention would also be put to use(Widely used in Sweden, basically a lo-jack is placed on the person's foot and he/she is to be confined to the home when not at work).

-A host of other solutions would also be put into practice, I just don't have time to write them all down now.

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:33:53 GMT

[quote]All you have to know is that the way we do things right now is wrong.[/quote]

That to me sounds rather absolutist to me. I'd agree that we don't do everything right but to say "wrong" is kind of black and white. I think that is also not all we need to know. We need to know exactly what we are doing wrong and what we are doing right. To paint it all with a broad brush is simplistic and will never solve anything. Once you have shown us what we have done wrong, it seems to me that you've got to show us how to do it right and give a good argument of why it is better and won't actually make things worse. To me, eliminating prisons would be a much worse system than we have now. The alternatives such as halfway houses would give criminals the same opportunity to expand their criminal network only now they are on the streets at the same time. Parole is just not a big enough deterrent in some cases and some people need to be off the streets.

I ask again, what is your alternative?

[quote]If fear was truly a deterrant we would all live in oppressive regimes.[/quote]

I don't understand that statement... that is I don't understand the point.

RE: Death Penalty

Roadkill — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:56:45 GMT

-Sorry, I've been away for a while due to sickness.

[quote]And the U.S. is _single-handedly_ responsible for what all those folks did. Soviet Union had _NUUTHIN!_ ta do with it :D Nuthin.[/quote]

-Wow, it's almost as if you didn't read what I replied to.

[quote]Oh yeah . . . I had forgotten how the U.S. had hampered democracy in France, Italy, West Germany, the Low Countries, and NORWAY![/quote]

-And the propaganda machine just keeps going...

[quote]Ahhh.. more anti-U.S. babble.[/quote]

-I find the defense mechanism of calling any negative comment towards the USA "anti-USA babble" to be a great diservice to your country.

[quote]Most nations do nothing when they see injustice and see the potential for involving their military and probably their own soldier's deaths.[/quote]

-Seriously, read a history book.

[quote]Sitting on their PCs in places like Norway from the comfort of their homes complaining about the US and our Imperialistic ways.[/quote]

-Ohhh, hipocracy...

[quote]For all the babble, if in 10 years, there is a new aggressor in that part of the world and Norway is attacked, you KNOW the U.S. will come to their aid, no matter how many other nations do or don't. If the opposite were true, people like Roadkill and others might be smirking at how the mighty have fallen and do nothing and perceive it as karma or justice or whatever. You can say 'no' but I believe that would likely happen if the U.S. was in trouble and called for help.[/quote]

-Cute.

[quote]To Roadkill: You got the reaction you wanted...happy now?[/quote]

-I did not solicit a reaction of any kind, I was merely refuting your "real good" comment. The fact that we have a lot of American Reactionaries on this board is not my problem.

[quote]What does that have to do with the Death Penalty, for Heaven's sake?[/quote]

-Noone knows, but isn't it fun?:D

[quote]Attempting to shift attention back on topic, I saw on TV this morning that there is a documentary series coming out soon on the National Geographic Channel, if I caught that right (I rarely watch TV other than the news, so I might be wrong) talking about how people are going into prison as criminals, and coming out as hardened criminals with all types of criminal contacts, and coming out far worse than they went in. Seems related to some of this earlier debate.[/quote]

-Yes, but the US does REAL good... :unsure: I would so like to have a definition of REAL good.

[quote]I've always heard that all American prisons really accomplish is to make criminals professionals. Moreover, I have the impression that the prison population is relative large in the U.S.. And another factoid I've heard is that something like 45% of all those incarcerated in the U.S. are in for a drug offense.[/quote]

-Those are all correct(Though the first one is somewhat subjective, I wouldn't call it a "fact."), the only error is that it's more like 51%.

[quote]I'm a social scientist, but I don't really know much about crime and punishment.[/quote]

-All you have to know is that the way we do things right now is wrong. In the US and in Europe(And most certainly in most of the Middle East and Asia). If fear was truly a deterrant we would all live in oppressive regimes.

RE: Death Penalty

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:36:35 GMT

[quote]but I don't really know much about crime and punishment.[/quote]

Read Dostoyevsky! :P

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:47:40 GMT

I've always heard that all American prisons really accomplish is to make criminals professionals. Moreover, I have the impression that the prison population is relative large in the U.S.. And another factoid I've heard is that something like 45% of all those incarcerated in the U.S. are in for a drug offense. Not sure the extent to which it is truly different anywhere else. Maybe someone from another land can clarify this comparisons?

I can agree that prisons should truly constitute a system of 'corrections,' and not simply a system to promote sociopathy and recidivism. But sharing that opinion and contributing a worthwhile opinion on what should happen and what shouldn't happen (in terms of how society is run) is a leap that I'm not willing to make without doing some substantial reading on crimology. I'm a social scientist, but I don't really know much about crime and punishment.

RE: Death Penalty

Nuclearcow — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:49:44 GMT

Sorry guys. Maybe I shouldn't have responded with my own wall of text. :ermm: When I stopped visiting 1BC a couple years back or so, it was because seemingly every thread turned into a 'bash America' fest. "How to achieve cultural victory" threads seemed to always morph into America and Bush is evil and after months of it, I decided to go elsewhere. I mean, we visit this site for fun, not to rehash the same angry, argumentative stuff over and over. Now, at least its mostly localized to P&R thread, but it sure does get old (for me, at least.)

Attempting to shift attention back on topic, I saw on TV this morning that there is a documentary series coming out soon on the National Geographic Channel, if I caught that right (I rarely watch TV other than the news, so I might be wrong) talking about how people are going into prison as criminals, and coming out as hardened criminals with all types of criminal contacts, and coming out far worse than they went in. Seems related to some of this earlier debate.

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:31:41 GMT

Who said anything about Roadkill? :P

Sorry guys, I was thinking about it and I'm probably just as guilty of going off on tangents as anybody. I'm a bit tired and haggered so I blame it on that... :w00t::doze:

RE: Death Penalty

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:28:07 GMT

boy, a defensive bunch of Yanks we have here, eh? :w00t:

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:03:27 GMT

Aw you guys. You know it would be boring around here without Roadkill to liven things up! :w00t:

RE: Death Penalty

jerm — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:09:17 GMT

This was a great debate, though I am not finished and will likely address some of the things Rabi brought up once I'm not so busy, but why do all these end up on some off topic rant about how destructive America [i]really[/i] is? Here's an idea. If you see a little chance for a big tangent, instead of biting and sending the topic into the Offtopicsphere, just resist the urge and keep, in some way, to the topic at hand. Seriously, if you think America is the "Great Satan"... make a new thread. What does that have to do with the Death Penalty, for Heaven's sake?

RE: Death Penalty

ddmagnan — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:09:41 GMT

Another debate gets the axe... Still, 16 pages is a pretty good run.

RE: Death Penalty

Leo — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:00:16 GMT

The reason I said in my last post "and that I can guess what you think of the US system, the point is moot, and is therefore, indeed babble," was my attempting to avoid the next bit...ah well.

The internet, every day making me wish I was an isolationist...

To be fair, we were speaking about the US system, I brought it up...but as I said, I knew Roadkill's opinion on that matter so wasn't looking for a reiteration. But it *did* have a place here, since I brought it up in my statement about real good.

To Roadkill: You got the reaction you wanted...happy now?

*wanders off* Seeya guys, done with this topic

RE: Death Penalty

Nuclearcow — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:26 GMT

Ahhh.. more anti-U.S. babble. This debate wasn't quite complete without Roadkill slipping that in to yet another thread that has nothing to do with that subject. I guess you haven't said that enough times and feel the need to slam the US again? All the bad in the world is to blame on the U.S. and any good the U.S. does isn't really a credit the U.S. at all, because the good would have happened without the U.S.'s help anyways.

This reminds me of the World War 2 garbage that has spewed here on 1BC a few times, where some American guys seem to want street-credit for the U.S. helping liberate Europe from the Nazis 60+ years earlier, and some other non-Americans accompanying the argument with their own drivel of how Europe was doing just fine before the U.S. got into it and could have won without America's help. Blah blah blah. Ridiculous on both arguments. Those 2 arguments probably say a lot about how arrogant the U.S. is perceived when Americans argue that and how anti-US much of the world seems to the U.S. when the help of sooo many Americans were lost defending a foreign land that we could have stayed out of. A sad, but perhaps perfect example right there of both.

"Thank you" Scipio for mentioning that tiny nation of the USSR who at least played heavily into those scenarios mentioned by Roadkill.

I guess the U.S. had nothing to do with the Soviet Union's downfall either? Perhaps that was Norway's doing or it just would have magically disolved by itself. Not to say it was *solely* the U.S.'s doing, but surely the cold war and the arms race and Ronald Reagan's charismatic dealing with Gorbachev, etc. was at least a large part to do with this. At least a far bigger influence than anything else. Don't say 'economy' because thats part of it with the U.S. out-spending the Soviet Union in an arms race.

To sidetrack myself, I think people like a villain to dislike and complain about. You see it in so many things. Baseball comes to my mind as a perfect example, especially with the New York Yankees. Bear with me a sec, and I'll explain. The Yankees are historically a juggernaut of a baseball team and have won it more than anyone and seem to always be there in the playoffs, etc. Now they out-spend everyone so much that there is almost a question of not playing fair compared to the other teams. So, in my experience, you find a lot of Yankees fans all around the U.S. and a lot of people who absolutely detest the team for the same reasons above. People like a villain and they like a Goliath to boo and hiss at and love it when the little guy beats the big guy in pretty much any venue. I believe the anti-US drivel really picked up after the USSR fell, which if there is any validity to my theory, makes perfect sense as the US filled in as the new Goliath. The U.S. ISN'T an angelic nation and there are many problems from high crime to some arrogance in leaders, etc, but most Americans who have been to several other nations wouldn't trade it for anything and the amount of Americans emigrating elsewhere is probably as small as anywhere in the world because of all the good reasons that people never mention in their anti-US drivel/babble and with most of the people spewing it having never been here. The 'good' use of military is never mentioned when people bash a few of the U.S.'s military involvements that aren't so black and white.

For any blaming of the U.S. for stuff like Roadkill mentions, there is never any positive mention from things as far back at WWII, to helping South Korea, to helping the USSR fall, to U.S. gathering dozens of nations to "liberate" Kuwait in 1991 (though 90+% of the units were 'ours)', etc. We all know that the U.N. wouldn't have done anything unless the U.S. took initiative in that one. Maybe in Norway people don't think about countries under durress like that and "accept this because it has little impact on your personal lives" but I'd bet if you were Kuwaiti, you'd sure be happy with the U.S. not sitting idle like most nations when they perceive injustice happening. Or if you were South Korean in decades past. Or if you were in any of the Allied European nations in WWI or WWII that Americans paid with our blood over, despite not being directly threatened in Europe. Or if you were Chinese, Russian, Phillipine, or several other Asian nations when the U.S. was fighting their oppressors (Japan). I can only assume how the Israelis feel about the U.S.'s military help in general when they are not only surrounded by nations that seem to hate them, but ones that have attacked them multiple times in their new nation's relatively short history (current state of Israel, not the historical, or Biblical, etc obviously).

Most nations do nothing when they see injustice and see the potential for involving their military and probably their own soldier's deaths. We can debate how 'just' some wars are, like Vietnam as Roadkill mentioned, or some other actions, but for all the many faults the U.S. has, it usually doesn't sit idle when it see injustice, slaughter, etc, though most of the world DOES. I might mention that the U.S. didn't take any land after any of those wars, despite all the anti-U.S. babble about U.S imperial conquests. Utter B.S.

In other presidencies, the U.S. would have gotten involved in Darfur. I would think if we weren't involved in Gulf War II or whatever you want to call it, "we" probably would have and I think maybe even *should* have anyways. Where was the rest of the world to stop the slaughter of close to half a million people? Sitting on their PCs in places like Norway from the comfort of their homes complaining about the US and our Imperialistic ways. If the U.S. doesn't take a lead in things like that, the world does absolutely nothing 99 out of 100 times. For all the babble, if in 10 years, there is a new aggressor in that part of the world and Norway is attacked, you KNOW the U.S. will come to their aid, no matter how many other nations do or don't. If the opposite were true, people like Roadkill and others might be smirking at how the mighty have fallen and do nothing and perceive it as karma or justice or whatever. You can say 'no' but I believe that would likely happen if the U.S. was in trouble and called for help.

Again, the U.S. has many faults and has been involved in some bad deals, but 'we' usually act when many don't have the courage to. I am sorry to ramble, but I usually don't respond much if at all to this garbage when its spewed here, and its pathetic that even in a debate like 'death penalty' you can count on the same characters bringing it up YET AGAIN. Sheesh. Like THIS stuff isn't old yet.

RE: Death Penalty

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:21:20 GMT

[quote][b]Roadkill (11/18/2007)[/b][hr]-You(CIA) funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, who established the Taliban state. You deposed Mohammed Mosaddeq and instated shah Pahlavi who ruled the country in a fashion that fuelled the 1979 revolution, instating a islamic theocracy. You supported Saddam Hussein's coup in 1963. You supported Pol Pot, and you supported just about everyone in Vietnam. You overthrew a democratically elected Chilean government and instated Augusto Pinochet. You overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala and instated Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. Should I go on?[/quote]

And the U.S. is _single-handedly_ responsible for what all those folks did. Soviet Union had _NUUTHIN!_ ta do with it :) Nuthin.

[quote]-You've pretty much hampered democracy wherever you found it, instated and supported every ruthless dictatorship in modern history.[/quote]

Oh yeah . . . I had forgotten how the U.S. had hampered democracy in France, Italy, West Germany, the Low Countries, and NORWAY! :w00t:

. . . and Mexico!

. . . and Brazil!

. . . and oh yeah! Japan!

. . . and oh yeah! The Chang Kai Shek guys lost to the Communists because the Americans actually had a clever ruse to trick them! *Awl yur base are mine* :P

. . . and ONE MORE THING! The Korean War was actually the result of the U.S. demilitarizing so much of Southeast Asia!

Without all those American troops in Japan and Korea, it created a veritable "vacuum" effect. The Red Chinese and North Korean commanders didn't actually WANT to start a war. 135,000 of them were just inextricably [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#North_Korean_invasion]SUCKED across the border[/url] like Dorothy and Toto were sucked into the Land of Oz, creating the perfect illusion of a well-orchestrated sneak attack!

That's what I love about the internet! All ya gotta do is spout some de-contextualized, revisionist history drivel and you can get away with bigotry and falsehood as bad as any seen during the last century.

RE: Death Penalty

Roadkill — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:22:42 GMT

-You(CIA) funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, who established the Taliban state. You deposed Mohammed Mosaddeq and instated shah Pahlavi who ruled the country in a fashion that fuelled the 1979 revolution, instating a islamic theocracy. You supported Saddam Hussein's coup in 1963. You supported Pol Pot, and you supported just about everyone in Vietnam. You overthrew a democratically elected Chilean government and instated Augusto Pinochet. You overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala and instated Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. Should I go on?

-You've pretty much hampered democracy wherever you found it, instated and supported every ruthless dictatorship in modern history. You seem unable to plan for the long term, instead opting for a quick fix that will become a major problem 10 years down the line. And you(You you, not CIA/US government you) just accept this because it has little impact on your personal lives. If Norway had been involved in anything like this the whole government would have been thrown out at once. Statoil, the government owned oil and gas company, has taken a considerable amount of flak for doing business in some war torn countries or countries ruled by despots. Aker has taken alot of criticism for being involved in building parts of the Guantanamo base. Things like these are too much here, while you are unmoved by the fact the USA, "leader of the free world," has done more for despotism than democracy.