Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (190872)	12/29/2006 4:23:00 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793915

Your post rang some bells with many of us here, Euterpe. And probably many of us understand the difference between supporting the war, and believing it might have been better planned, and possibly not undertaken at all. In my case, I do think it was necessary, as we had over 17 UN Resolutions, had continued to let Saddam do whatever he dang well felt like doing, including murder tens of thousands of his own people with WMD, paying $25,000 or more to a family who provided a child who would blow him/herself up in a crowd, and all the other things we are beginning to know. We have spent Billions over the years for the Pentagon to do necessary War planning. During the 1990's, as you know, the Military, and the CIA budgets were cut quite harshly. We don't yet know how all of that changed what happened. The Pentagon should have had much better planning, and should have had it on line in case we needed it, the very day we needed it. Obviously, we need to look at what Congress has been doing in the Committees who were supposed to be overseeing the various departments of the DOD and also the State Department. Especially auditing the Departments where there had been continuous, and not just the new political newcommers, but continuous employees who have been charged with the plans in the first place. I think we did win the war. Saddam fell. His evil sons were killed. In the largest parts of Iraq, life is better, if you read any of the blogs from there. The Triangle is another matter, including most of Baghdad. I don't think any of us thought it would take so long to help the Iraqi's win the peace. Maybe we will find that we need Soldiers to do what they are trained to do. And we may need an entirely new group of people to train citizens of the newly freed country to keep their own peace. There are only 9 (or did I hear 7 today) embedded journalists in Iraq today, versus over 5,000 after the war started. How do we know what we are getting is any good at all, unless the people are actually there? Remember Eason Jordan, News Head for ALL of CNN.. ...who finally admitted to the world that they ---CNN --- had NOT told the true story of what was happening in Saddams' Iraq because of his fear of reprisal to his news team in Baghdad....? He and CNN made the decision NOT to tell us how back it was under Saddam. Most of us have read and appreciated your comments, on the war and on other things. Me included .... I do think that most people who post here on PfP do appreciate our troops and are grateful for their efforts and sacrifices. I still have yet to hear a single, believable reason from anyone who is antianythingBushdoes....as to why they think he would do anything that would impact his legacy as President. Think of it.....why would ANYONE do that? Any American President? Even misguided Carter thought he might be doing something right...I guess. He certainly has sent messages to oru country and to the troops that indicates he doesn't support their efforts....(check out Jimmy Carter quotes Iraq) on google.... But I'm thinking that senility has been working overtime there, and that the MSM is afraid to say the prince is running amuck again. I think the biggest thing we can all do now is think what we will do when the next attack comes..........and no doubt it will. How many times can we spend thousands of lives like in 9-11 or worse, spend BILLIONS of dollars trying to repair the damage to our cities, and our economy, and all the survivors of the people who were killed. We gave a slap on the hand the first WTC I. Several other events and murders on a mass scale happened to US citizens after that. Then 9-11. What will happen next time? Another 17 or 25 UN Resolutions.... and another bunch of words telling those bad guys to stop? Or do what FDR did the day after Dec 7th?

To: Rambi who wrote (190872)	12/29/2006 2:44:50 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793915

After having been funded, organized, supported and encouraged by the resources of the USA, the Supreme Court of Iraq has ordered Saddam Hussein to be hung by the neck until dead. This event will likely take place today or tomorrow. It seems we are once again at an opportune point of debate with regards to capital punishment. Putting aside for a moment the fact that hanging is a particularly gruesome form of death by punishment, we should consider the conventions of wisdom that would authorise such a thing. The biggest problem with discussions on this topic come behind that word ‘Penalty’ or 'Punishment'. The fact is ‘death’ is a consequence of life and need not be termed a penalty except when exacted purely as a non-self defense punishment on another person. If I had my druthers, I’d rather we look at the role of the Justice system in dealing with criminal conduct. That is, to find and implement resolute judgments, which is not necessary always a penalty to the perp as much as it is a societal remedy. However, we seem to be stuck with the ‘Penalty’ terminology, so that is where we center our discourse on the topic. Death as a Penalty for one’s conduct carries with it certain connotations: Revenge, Vendetta, pay back, Cruel Unusual, Degrading Punishment, giving up, imperfect trial system carrying the risk of unjustly killing someone wrongfully convicted, lacks the element of mercy that lifts human beings to noble status. Whether you give someone a long life sentence which extends to decades of prison life followed by death in prison, or set a specific date for their death, you are determining the nature of their death circumstance. So, in that sense death is an element of the punitive consequence handed to all perpetrators of heinous crime. There is no way to reconcile heinous criminality for the victims or with society at large. Forgiveness and mercy is a resolute determination that is so entangled with the personal elements of heinous crime that no management of the perpetrator of a heinous crime can satisfy these issues. Therefore, it is no more just to say the death penalty lacks mercy and forgiveness than it is to say that withholding death as a consequence is merciful and forgiving. There are certain crimes that rise to the heinous category for which we have no just and resolute remedy. For example, lifers have been known to continue heinous conduct even while incarcerated, or to establish some alternative form of unwholesome deviancy within the culture of incarceration. I am left very uncomfortable with the fact that the urgency of carrying out his sentence, by some, is promulgated by a lust for vengeance. That doesn't have to be the case for this event to be justified. The questions I leave you with are: 1) Is killing Saddam a resolution to the societal crimes and crimes against humanity he has committed, and to his continued problematic presence? 2) Are there any alternatives that could offer an equally resolute and just determination?