Execution of Saddam?

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
America being under imposition by others, you mean?

Well let's see here:

The U.N. and foreign whizzkid George Soros endlessly funding a treaty for 06' that would impose on the U.S. 2nd Amendment by making all private gun ownership in America totally illegal with the exception of military, police, and oh yeah i forgot, Michael Moore and the UN and the society rich and elite (including the politicians.)

All of our hunting and shooting traditions taken away from the public and given to hypocritical "gun haters" like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clunton and Ted Kenndy, the man whose car killed more people than most legally bought and owned guns now in America's hands. Foreign and international case law imposed on our Bill Of Rights and our Constitutional amendments.

What makes politicians and other rich people any more deserving of
the right to hunt, shoot, and bust a few clay pigeons at a trap range? What because they're rich and we aren't? we don't need Kofi Annan's permission to own a gun (or Michael Moore's for that matter.)

America's religious and holiday traditions under attack from Atheists,
as well as Jews and Muslims. (funny considering the last 2 have disagreed with each other for the last 200 years) You can say
Kwanzaa or Hanukah all you want on TV, but God forbid you say "Merry Christmas" or "God Bless" to someone, you're automatically stepping on someone and forcing God down their throats...

Oh not to mention the idiot down the street who sues his neighbor because her Christmas decorations go against HIS religious edicts. Oh and the people who have strokes over Santa Claus being on the side of a soda can...here we go. This is a REAL winner.

The ACLU standing behind people who print books instructing illegal immigrants on how to infiltrate America from the Mexican border, saying it's a violation of Free Speech to not print such material. Dosen't matter if violent gangs are shooting back at police on our borders, it's still Freedom Of Speech..Where does it say America has to accomodate illegal activity as part of it's concession to others?

The human rights people screaming because Mexicans die from dehydration in their illegal treks across the border, screaming for watering stations, while they say absolutely nothing about the kidnapping, beheading and torture of every Western or pro-Western person Al Qaeda gets their hands on in Iraq or elsewhere.

Yeah as you can see, no other country, or any special interest group attached to them, has ever used THEIR ideals religions, or principals to impose on the good old US of A.
🙄

Its like you took the words out of my mouth. 👆

Originally posted by ash007
Its like you took the words out of my mouth. 👆

Seriously, or sarcastically? Just curious because I have a feeling I'm being eyed like a side of beef at this moment as a result of the simple fact that the street runs both ways...

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Seriously, or sarcastically? Just curious because I have a feeling I'm being eyed like a side of beef at this moment as a result of the simple fact that the street runs both ways...

no really 😄 i loved what you wrote.

yeah i know how its like thats why i stopped contributing recently.
Just keep writing what you believe in and don't give a damn what people might think. Because there will be someone who disagrees with you and there will always be someone who aagrees with what you are saying. 😉

Originally posted by Lana
And who are you to decide who deserves to live or die? You don't have that right, unless you like being a murderer.

Execute him, and we risk turning him into a martyr for the terrorist cause. Keeping him alive but in prison is the much better option because it'll not only show his followers that he is only human and subject to the same punishments as anyone else, but also that we took the moral high ground because we chose to not kill him.

It dosen't really matter at this point: martyrdom is something Islamic extremists live for, and they already have decided that no matter how many of them die, they will always aim to take a larger number with them because as the old Viking saying goes, "the condemned man will kick at anything one the noose starts to tighten.."

We execute him, and we're bastards, but then if we let Saddam LIVE, Al Qaeda will turn around and say we're being too "soft" or they'll say that we're doing it to embarrass him and keep him as a symbol of American power and imperialism.

Moral high ground means nothing to a group of killers who behead innocents and send the videos to their families for extra traumatization, or to Al Qaeda after their murder of 3,000 innocents on 9\11.

But play their game and you lose, so we're ****ed no matter what we do. Kill him or keep him, either way we're still bastards.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Aww...big HUG 😮

😂

Originally posted by BobbyD
Killing someone and letting them spend the rest of their life in confinement are two totally different things, Soleran.

yes in one instance we end their life

the other we decide their life isn't worth ending and we let them suffer for as long as possible........which of course is SO much more humane.......lol ✅ 🐰

OH....I say public executions should be brought back......Makes for good friday nights.

It's not about being humane essentially though.

Killing someone because it's wrong to kill isn't the best way out is it?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not about being humane essentially though.

Killing someone because it's wrong to kill isn't the best way out is it?

-AC

Originally posted by ash007
no really 😄 i loved what you wrote.

yeah i know how its like thats why i stopped contributing recently.
Just keep writing what you believe in and don't give a damn what people might think. Because there will be someone who disagrees with you and there will always be someone who aagrees with what you are saying. 😉

That's nice to hear, mate. Cheers *raises glass*

There's a lot of stuff I'd like to explain here but at this point it would be redundant. My views were made clear in the post.

Suffice to say that I am all for preserving America's heritage, from guns and ammo, and shooting sports and hunting, to the holiday seasons, and I WON'T kiss ass on anyone who hates our traditions because THEY don't believe in them.

Wal Mart can kiss my ass. I don't need their permission to believe in Christmas...

I don't see how a day at the shooting range with my father is contributing to the criminal gun element in America, or how saying Merry Christmas is shoving God down someone's throat. But that's OK, because Moore, the ACLU and Green Day say that if you do this or you do THAT....... 🙄

Our country and traditions were here first, not Moore, not the ACLU,
and not the soccer moms and politicians who use the delusional political expertise of Hollywood to infringe on others because they don't like something.

It's not enough that people have freedom of choice and freedom from other peoples' choices, now they want to bend the rules so that NOONE can have certain things THEY personally don't agree with.

It's bullshit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not about being humane essentially though.

Killing someone because it's wrong to kill isn't the best way out is it?

-AC

I am just trying to understand the thoughts on this............

ok place them in jail for the rest of their life.........you are taking their "life" away from them except prison.

or kill them and move on. Either way you are TAKING something from them.........its just comical to say one is more humane then the other because death is worse...........but who's to say jail's not worse.....?

Originally posted by soleran30
I am just trying to understand the thoughts on this............

ok place them in jail for the rest of their life.........you are taking their "life" away from them except prison.

or kill them and move on. Either way you are TAKING something from them.........its just comical to say one is more humane then the other because death is worse...........but who's to say jail's not worse.....?

Yeah and you're taking years of tax dollars from the taxpayers by keeping him alive while all of his victims lay dead and missing from their loved ones...same with that Tookie Williams guy. The co-founder of one of the most violent street gangs in America. He gets a second chance while all of his victims have been missing from their loved ones for the last 30 years? Yeah, real fair.

You can't teach democracy to those who have never had it, any more than you can take old habits out of hardened people like Saddam and Tookie.

Screw it...

I have plenty of compassion, but what are you gonna do with these type of criminals?

Originally posted by debbiejo
What is?....curious...your idea then..

Well it's not killing them, obviously. Yes, let's go give every terrorist in the middle-east ANOTHER huge excuse to get pissed and start attacking out countries.

The only people who have a problem with locking the man up for the rest of his life are die hard vigilantes who believe it's "right" to kill him because he himself has killed. What does that achieve?Dead dictators can't do anything can they? No. Neither can living dictators locked away for the rest of their lives. So why not take the way that ISN'T stooping to his level and being hypocritical?

"Because he's kil..." No, before you even say it.

Originally posted by soleran30
ok place them in jail for the rest of their life.........you are taking their "life" away from them except prison.

or kill them and move on. Either way you are TAKING something from them.........its just comical to say one is more humane then the other because death is worse...........but who's to say jail's not worse.....?

Think about what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that condemning someone for being a murderer, then murdering them for eternity, is not as bad as being above the killing, locking them away and having done with it.

You're suggesting we can't "move on" if he's in prison. Why? I'm fine with locking him away. Why is him being in prison stopping you from moving on? Killing him is not only overblowing things and being extremely hypocritical, but it could also cause more trouble. It's almost as though you are saying there's no point keeping him alive, might as well kill him.

Did you leave your logic outside the thread?

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah and you're taking years of tax dollars from the taxpayers by keeping him alive while all of his victims lay dead and missing from their loved ones...same with that Tookie Williams guy. The co-founder of one of the most violent street gangs in America. He gets a second chance while all of his victims have been missing from their loved ones for the last 30 years? Yeah, real fair.

Life isn't fair, shit happens. What you are suggesting isn't justice, it's vengeance and eye-for-an-eye mentality. Which isn't needed. What you want done with the man, and what would solve more problems instead of causing them are clearly two different things aren't they?

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
You can't teach democracy to those who have never had it, any more than you can take old habits out of hardened people like Saddam and Tookie.

Screw it...

Every terrorist in the world is probably hoping Saddam is killed, gives them another reason, a bigger reason. You are talking about fairness to the families, so if anything you should be supporting locking him up. Death is not only a sentence no man has the right to deal, but it's also an easy way out. Saddam commits horrific crimes, gets put out of his misery and boom, mission accomplished for Saddam.

You are confusing personal feelings with practical action and that's not what is needed in this case.

Saying "Screw it..." doesn't make you cool.

-AC

Yeah and you're taking years of tax dollars from the taxpayers by keeping him alive

Wrong - it is far cheaper to put someone in prison for life than to execute them.

Originally posted by Lana
Wrong - it is far cheaper to put someone in prison for life than to execute them.

only in regards to manhours spent while they are on deathrow to make sure they have all the evidence. Otherwise it is FAR FAR cheaper to execute.

AC- You do realize that even in prison he is able to communicate outside of the jail..............anyway in the end what you try and justify as ok with keeping him locked up is no different then killing them.....you are making a descision to take away something from them...........LOL you focused solely on the put him to death piece however are you doing that because you think its not fair or you don't want to cause them harm? Like I said perhaps jail is a far far worse place and that would be torture do you advocate torture?

What punishment is more humane/just? Execution or imprisonment? Who are we to say what is more important to a person, what is degrading or kind. Ever heard of Patrick Henry? "Give me liberty or give me death" ? History is written by the victors, and it is commonly seen that Henry was a good person who defended freedom. Ours is not to judge humanity, but to be part of it.

Originally posted by soleran30
only in regards to manhours spent while they are on deathrow to make sure they have all the evidence. Otherwise it is FAR FAR cheaper to execute.

No, it's not. It costs much more in dollars to execute someone; I've posted the facts before but you chose to not read them all.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

Originally posted by Lana
No, it's not. It costs much more in dollars to execute someone; I've posted the facts before but you chose to not read them all.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

Yeah I read that in the past also Raven Gaurdia posted that and guess what.........that post is CRAP to what I just posted..........the reason it costs more is due to the fact man hours are spent up until they are sentanced to death.........when you are in jail without parole you are locked away and forgotten..........yes so much more humane.

Not one time in the article did they explain WHY it costs more and I posted the WHY from the florida budget as an example on the death penalty page........clearly you didn't read that or you chose to overlook it.

Originally posted by soleran30
AC- You do realize that even in prison he is able to communicate outside of the jail..............anyway in the end what you try and justify as ok with keeping him locked up is no different then killing them.....you are making a descision to take away something from them...........LOL you focused solely on the put him to death piece however are you doing that because you think its not fair or you don't want to cause them harm? Like I said perhaps jail is a far far worse place and that would be torture do you advocate torture?

A) Yeah, I hear he has this Jean Grey telekinetic mutant power thing going on. Because of course, taking away his communication privileges would still leave his ability to mentally contact his cohorts I'm sure.

B) Yes, it is completely different from ending someone's life literally, as in causing them to cease being alive and taking away their freedom to do things that make their life worth anything. What part of this do you genuinely not grasp? Curious.

I think it's extremely hypocritical to put him to death because....he killed. Not only that but it would cause more trouble than it's worth.

It wouldn't literally be torture with intent, would it? No. Let's not confuse torture with imprisonment and subsequent torturous effects in a person. You're already very far into hyperbole.

-AC