SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 04 2007 07:52 pm

Kubo wrote:

Attempted retaliatory genocide against the Kurds.

and?

Posted: Jan 04 2007 07:53 pm

Hitler+Osama=Saddam, reason 1.
It cost a fucking large amount of cash to house 1 lifer in prison, reason 2.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 07:54 pm

It cost even more to fund the "George Bush wants to rid the world of the middle east" project, but your tax dollars are still being used!

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Tishwitch wrote:

It cost even more to fund the "George Bush wants to rid the world of the middle east" project, but your tax dollars are still being used!

Is this really what you think? No sarcasm. Is this like... serious? That the American government wants to rid the world of the Middle East?

Posted: Jan 04 2007 07:56 pm

Yeah, but that already happened. I'm talking about the question of executing him after already catching him.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 07:57 pm

Tishwitch wrote:

Aside from saying he was a bad guy, and he killed lots of people, I haven't heard any reason why we should have killed him. If the only criteria for execution is that they have killed innocent people, then I'll be back later tonight: I have to round up a crew to nab George Bush, because he certainly fits the criteria.

Well, the rules of engagement clearly make the type of killing that Bush (and other countries, may I remind you) is doing totally legal. Usually I'd rather take a staple gun to my scrotum than defend Bush's or Blair's actions, but that's what the rules of war are there for. Saddam wasn't at war; he gassed his own citizens in an attempt to exterminate an entire people. He's no different than Hitler or Osama, and I'm pretty sure they deserved/deserve to die.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Tishwitch wrote:

Kubo wrote:

Attempted retaliatory genocide against the Kurds.

and?

and what? You don't think that attempting to physically wipe out an entire culture through organized attacks and mass graves is reason enough to die?

Milosovic? Hitler?

Bueller?

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:13 pm

Char Aznable wrote:

Hitler+Osama=Saddam, reason 1.
It cost a fucking large amount of cash to house 1 lifer in prison, reason 2.

And, there we have another age old argument:

Why should we use our tax dollars to pay for someone who is in prision serving consecutive life sentences with no hope for parole? If he is never getting out why put him in, in the first place? Wouldn't it be more humane and cheaper to just execute him?

-VS-

Killing is wrong. If we execute criminals then we are no better than they are. They need to learn from their mistakes, and be given a chance to repent. They can still live full lives in prison, and better themselves as individuals.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:20 pm

This is like asking the square root of a million. No one will ever know.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:33 pm

Kubo wrote:

Is this really what you think? No sarcasm. Is this like... serious? That the American government wants to rid the world of the Middle East?

I don't think that the government is trying to rid the world, I think George Bush would like nothing more than to be able to get rid of all people of color, one race at a time. As far as the war goes, now that Saddam has been captured, convicted, and hung, I'm not what more they need. Innocent people continue to be killed, and I haven't heard the government of the US explain the 'why' lately... maybe someone could fill me in..

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:34 pm

Kubo wrote:

Tishwitch wrote:

Kubo wrote:

Attempted retaliatory genocide against the Kurds.

and?

and what? You don't think that attempting to physically wipe out an entire culture through organized attacks and mass graves is reason enough to die?

Milosovic? Hitler?

Bueller?

I think he should be stopped, if his reasons are not justifiable, but I don't necessarily think he should be killed.

How is it we can justify killing Saddam because he was a killer? There's probably nothing more hypocritcal than killing a killer because he's a killer...

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:35 pm

Condoleeza Rice.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

Tishwitch wrote:

It cost even more to fund the "George Bush wants to rid the world of the middle east" project, but your tax dollars are still being used!

so your one of those "george bush is evil and we don't belogn in the middle east" retards?

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:40 pm

Bush was retarded. But Kerry was a douche. Take your pick.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:42 pm

Valdronius wrote:

This is like asking the square root of a million. No one will ever know.

1,000.

A better one would be the square root of "-1". The answer is "i", as it is an imaginary number. If you try to figure it out on most calculators, it comes up with an error.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:44 pm

S. McCracken wrote:

Well, the rules of engagement clearly make the type of killing that Bush (and other countries, may I remind you) is doing totally legal.

ROE in the US: The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

* Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
* Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
* Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

This last one is where Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. fit in. But, as far as the innocent people, they don't. The innocent men, women, and children (and their pets too since they probably own cats, hamsters, budgies) do not have weapons, did not resist anything, and were killed none the less. Saddam himself did not engage in any armed assaults against the U.S. (recently anyway) and was I believe hiding in a hole when they found him. So, don't apply ROE here, apply them where they rightfully should. ROE in the US applies to enemies that are resisting SOMETHING... Saddam was convicted of killings from over 10 years ago. These rules are not applicable.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 08:45 pm

JEW wrote:

Tishwitch wrote:

It cost even more to fund the "George Bush wants to rid the world of the middle east" project, but your tax dollars are still being used!

so your one of those "george bush is evil and we don't belogn in the middle east" retards?

So you're bothered when I call you a retard, but you'll jump to the chance of calling me one? nice.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 09:08 pm

When does a felony warrant expire? Never, I believe. He's getting killed because his own country wants it that way, and he was convicted in a fair trial.

OK, so maybe fair is a stretch. But it was a trial.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Tishwitch wrote:

ROE in the US: The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

So, don't apply ROE here, apply them where they rightfully should. ROE in the US applies to enemies that are resisting SOMETHING... Saddam was convicted of killings from over 10 years ago. These rules are not applicable.

Two things, I think the war in Iraq and the subsequent hanging of Saddam are being tied together in one big cluterfuck.

As for the Rules of Engagement... all due respect Tish, but you quoted the continuum of force that the US Marines follow in close combat. The quoted rules of engagement above refer to what US Marines do when encountered with people in the street. They have pretty much zero to do with what justifies the declaration of a large-scale war. There's likely another set of rules for that written somewhere.

Second, as far as resisting something: Do these count as resistance? Note the other resolutions later on in the document.
What about the continued violation of US-UK enforced no fly zones over Kurdistan in the north and the heavy Shiite populations in the south? Resistance?
Whether or not these justify war is debatable. But the Iraqi government was in full resistance mode at the start of the war.

And if you still want to make the "Saddam did it, not his people" argument, then every country on the planet would be up for war crimes for World Wars 1 and 2. Not to mention EVERY other war that has ever been fought.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Char Aznable wrote:

When does a felony warrant expire? Never, I believe. He's getting killed because his own country wants it that way, and he was convicted in a fair trial.

OK, so maybe fair is a stretch. But it was a trial.

This is a really good point, Char. Warrants repeating...

Iraq carried out the execution. Not the US.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 09:23 pm

I suppose it is true that he was executed in Iraq... though he was captured and held by the US... though I don't know what else to say in reference to the ROE and other military stuff, I won't try to pretend I know what I'm talking about, I'll just look like a douchebag, and there's enough of that already floating around.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 09:25 pm

Hey, the UN had a warrant out for him. Any country in the UN would be required to capture him.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Tishwitch wrote:

If the only criteria for execution is that they have killed innocent people, then I'll be back later tonight: I have to round up a crew to nab George Bush, because he certainly fits the criteria.

Collateral damage is significantly different from intentional genocide. To be unable to differentiate the two is myopic.

Tishwitch wrote:

I think George Bush would like nothing more than to be able to get rid of all people of color, one race at a time.

If you honestly believe that I feel sorry for you. It's an immature attitude to think someone is prejudiced and evil just because you disagree with their foreign policy. I expect that sort of attitude from an inexperienced 13 year old, not an adult woman such as yourself. I'd be the first to admit that Bush and Rumsfeld have made some pretty stupid tactical mistakes since 2003, but be reasonable. I might think Clinton was an awful president predominantly because of his foreign policy, but I don't equate him with evil. He was just an incredibly intelligent man who was severely flawed because of his enormous ego and his obsession with his image. Please, have some perspective.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 10:52 pm

Unfortunately, in the case of Bush being racist, neither one of us can really know for sure. I think he is based on several events that have seemed racist, you could say that I am wrong. The only person to truly know this is Bush himself, and though he's made countless mistakes in the past, and will likely make several more before the end of his presidency, he'll likely not let us all know that his is blatantly racist. So, I'll leave it at that.

edit: Wasn't he overheard saying something racist in a restaurant somewhere? I believe there was some news coverage on that.

Posted: Jan 04 2007 10:53 pm

Colin Powell.