Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Does the U.S. have to invest billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, in support of campaigns that might save thousands more, but also unreasonably restrict the rights of individuals, both American and foreign?...
The fact of the matter is, you'll never be safe from terrorists, because there are too many of them, and they will forever be able to cause havoc in innovative and unexpected ways. So why obsess over it?
|
Tristan made a really good post above and I did rep him for it. I can't disagree with most of his post. I do have my 10 cents that is mostly opinion as an American who sees a ton of his money go to taxes.
The US Federal Goverment has few major tasks to complete with roughly ~30% of mine and everyone elses salary. One of those tasks is to provide security for US citizens. You're right, we'll never be safe from terrorists; but that doesn't mean we should abandon strategies that could keep us safer. After the 9/11 attacks America did institute some very obsessive policies on terrorism (the Patriot Act comes to mind.) Unfortunatly, if policy makers didn't act swiftly and harshly they probably wouldn't have been re-elected. With the TSA loosening restrictions I think we're stepping away from overbearing policies. Basicly, I'd rather see them do something to fight terrorism rather than nothing.
Regardless of whether or not Iraq has WMD; because they did have WMD, they used WMD on 100,000 Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War (
Source). It was a "good thing" to liberate the country from an oppresive dictator who also happened to use his WMD on his own citizens during the Kurdish Genocide (
Source). Whether or not the Colaition of the Willing finds WMD seems to be a moot point with Saddam Hussein's track record.
I'm not going to lie to you and say that there weren't less altrusitic reasons for freeing Iraq, they certainly have a lot of oil. There's also debatabley better things the military could be used for such as in Darfur. However, wherever the United States military does go they are doing their work for peace for the United States, other countries, and the citizens of the invaded countries. It's disheareting to hear much of the critissim over the Iraq war coming from the French. We all know what the US military did for the citizens of France during World War 2.
I do have a problem with this line...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
America has committed itself to an unwinnable conflict, which has the potential to exist in perpetuity, so long as ideologues on both sides refuse to seek common ground."
|
I am vehemently opposed to seeking common ground with idiots. Their defintion of normal and acceptable behavior is far different from ours. The United State's idealog is that they want peace for not only of every United States citizen, but every citizen of Earth. That means we simply can't meet minds with terrorists or countries who routinely torture their citizens. For instance the president of Iran wishes for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth and thinks the Holocaust is a myth. How can you meet idealogs with people like this? The United States was formed with the pricipal idea that there should be a seperation of church and state. Terrorist countries see another country's religion as a pretense for war. We will never meet idealogically because we do not consider one's religion a reason for violence.
I am rambling now, so I'm going to stop and return to the subject of the thread...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beth Sweet
Who has the right to kill? Who gives the right to kill?
|
In Mr. Williams's case it was the People of the State of California. It was someone's job at San Quentin to push the button and administer the deadly fluids. We do have a representative governemtn and the people in his state decided under what circumstances the death penatly is used.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wetzel
Unfortunately, vengeance rather than rehabilitation is still the way of the criminal justice system in this county and Mr Williams has been killed for his actions.
|
What's wrong with vengeance? Isn't the greatest form of retribution to have your own life taken for taking another's. Is it not the victim's family's right to closure?
I found a really great article on Wikipedia about
capital punishment and have brought some new ideas for the death penalty:
- If the death penalty were abolished, a criminal would have little or no reason not to kill potential witnesses during the commission of a robbery (assuming that robbery would earn the criminal a life sentence or a very lengthy prison sentence).
- By waiving the threat of a death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against their co-conspirators, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. The threat of the death penalty can be a powerful mechanism for greasing the wheels of justice.
- People who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life.
- The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable value.
It's food for thought.