Saddam - sentenced to death for killing 148

[MDC 7,888]

And what crime is this?

 

Deliberately misleading the public into a war that was not based on self defense.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

Being deep d!cked in the ass by a Haitian > Toro > MDC

 

Deliberately misleading the public into a war that was not based on self defense.

 

This is a crime? link?

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

Sorry - I thought my point was obvious but I should remember to never take a single thing for granted here.

 

Saddam was convicted of the murder of 148 people and he'll be sentenced to death for that crime alone. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, but he'll get nothing. Why do people here seem to consider Saddam's murder of 148 to be a crime punishable by death, but they don't even consider Bush's actions to be a crime?

 

I only brought up numbers because you did. Saddam Hussein is a convicted murder. The punishment for murder, at least in Iraq, is death. I don't know why Bush's actions aren't considered a crime as I'm not a constitutional (or any other kind of) law expert. You got any ideas?

 

Your estimates are just that - estimates. It is debateable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives and it's been debated for decades. The big moral issue I have with it is the decision to murder hundreds of thousand civilians as a way to bring the enemy to its knees - big difference between that and killing the same number of men on the battlefield IMO, one reason why the 9/11 attacks were so despicable. HTH.

 

They are not my estimates. They are US military estimates based on good experience in battle.

 

Further, you have missed my point. Civilians were already being killed at an alarming rate in Japan by napalm bombing. It is not debatable that the nuclear bombs saved lives versus continuing napalm attacks and a follow-on amphibious landing. The moral decision to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians has nothing to do with nuclear bombs, it was happening already and was going to continue to happen with or without them.

 

What has been debated was whether the bombing (napalm, nuclear or otherwise) was necessary to force unconditional surrender at that time in the war. Some would argue that it was in fact unnecessary as Japan was on the brink of capitulation. I don't agree.

 

Ignorance is nothing to be embarrassed about. You continue to argue from a position of ignorance, which makes you look foolish.

[Snuff 10]

Deliberately misleading the public into a war that was not based on self defense.

 

Again I ask...link? Proof?

[Toro 3]

Being allowed on the big boy ride at the carnival > Toro > MDC

 

[MDC 7,888]

I only brought up numbers because you did. Saddam Hussein is a convicted murder. The punishment for murder, at least in Iraq, is death. I don't know why Bush's actions aren't considered a crime as I'm not a constitutional (or any other kind of) law expert. You got any ideas?

 

None. Unfortunately I don't think Bush is ever going to be held accountable for his actions. I asked this more as a moral question. Obviously, he hasn't been convicted of a crime.

 

They are not my estimates. They are US military estimates based on good experience in battle.

 

Further, you have missed my point. Civilians were already being killed at an alarming rate in Japan by napalm bombing. It is not debatable that the nuclear bombs saved lives versus continuing napalm attacks and a follow-on amphibious landing. The moral decision to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians has nothing to do nuclear bombs, it was happening already and was going to continue to happen with or without them.

 

What has been debated was whether the bombing (napalm, nuclear or otherwise) was necessary to force unconditional surrender at that time in the war. Some would argue that it was in fact unnecessary as Japan was on the brink of capitulation. I don't agree.

 

Ignorance is nothing to be embarrassed about. You continue to argue from a position of ignorance, which makes you look foolish.

 

Rosenpen1s, I won't claim to be an expert on the subject but I know these issues have been debated by historians for years - whether the bombing saved lives, whether it was necessary in order to force surrender, etc. At any rate, I think there's a big difference between bombing and killing 200,000 civilians by radiation burns and killing the same number of people on the battlefield - there is IMO something deeply wrong with deliberately targetting civilians in an act of war, one big problem I have with the terrorists AND what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Again I ask...link? Proof?

 

There is no proof. There is overwhelming evidence but I know from experience that you folks are in denial.

[Snuff 10]

there is IMO something deeply wrong with deliberately targetting civilians in an act of war, one big problem I have with the terrorists AND what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Even though the experts all agreed that it would save thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives?

 

There is no proof.

 

Classic MDC.

[MDC 7,888]

Even though the experts all agreed that it would save thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives?

 

Yes. We could have carpet bombed the entire middle east instead of occupying Iraq. That would have saved thousands of US lives. Should we have done that?

 

Classic MDC.

 

I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist either, but the evidence - like the evidence that Bush lied about Iraq - is pretty overwhelming.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Yes. We could have carpet bombed the entire middle east instead of occupying Iraq. That would have saved thousands of US lives. Should we have done that?

 

I think that you have a better chance of convincing us that carpet bombing would have been better. The stability of Japan post-WWII is more of a model than Vietnam is today.

[Toro 3]

I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist either, but the evidence - like the evidence that Bush lied about Iraq - is pretty overwhelming.

 

Except that whole space-time continuum thing and the whole getting down the chimney thing and the whole flying reindeer thing.

 

Idiot.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

Rosenpen1s, I won't claim to be an expert on the subject but I know these issues have been debated by historians for years - whether the bombing saved lives, whether it was necessary in order to force surrender, etc. At any rate, I think there's a big difference between bombing and killing 200,000 civilians by radiation burns and killing the same number of people on the battlefield - there is IMO something deeply wrong with deliberately targetting civilians in an act of war, one big problem I have with the terrorists AND what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

The morality of targeting civilians has been debated for decades, yes. My point is that civilians were targeted and killed in both European and Pacific theaters and that the use of nuclear devices has nothing to do with it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the first time civilians were targeted and killed and they would have come under attack from conventional methods - conventional methods that were leveling cities.

 

Debate the morality of targeting civilians all you like but don't confuse the issue with the use of atomic weapons.

[MDC 7,888]

I think that you have a better chance of convincing us that carpet bombing would have been better. The stability of Japan post-WWII is more of a model than Vietnam is today.

 

I don't think the war in Iraq or the war on terror resemble WWII or Vietnam at all. I'm actually kind of sick of those comparisons from the left and right.

[Strike 6,023]

I don't think the war in Iraq or the war on terror resemble WWII or Vietnam at all. I'm actually kind of sick of those comparisons from the left and right.

 

I'm kind of sick of your assertion that we are targeting civilians in Iraq, when you know for a fact that isn't the case.

[MDC 7,888]

Debate the morality of targeting civilians all you like but don't confuse the issue with the use of atomic weapons.

 

Hey fine, I didn't bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the discussion. Just don't tell me I'm a "scumbag" for saying that murdering 200,000 civilians with focking radiation burns is reprehensible. If saving US lives justified any actions we'd just turn the middle east into a radioactive glass parking lot rather than risk one soldier, but that would be morally reprehensible too.

 

I'm kind of sick of your assertion that we are targeting civilians in Iraq, when you know for a fact that isn't the case.

 

I never said we are targeting civilians.

[Strike 6,023]

 

I never said we are targeting civilians.

 

Then how the fock do you compare anything Bush has done with Saddam? Saddam was convicted of killing civilians. Bush has followed the rules of war and the geneva convention. Because you have a problem with us going in to Iraq and hate Bush, both well documented, you somehow create a worthless comparison. Again, Owned.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

Hey fine, I didn't bring Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the discussion. Just don't tell me I'm a "scumbag" for saying that murdering 200,000 civilians with focking radiation burns is reprehensible. If saving US lives justified any actions we'd just turn the middle east into a radioactive glass parking lot rather than risk one soldier, but that would be morally reprehensible too.

 

Burning them to death in their beds with napalm is better option? More civilians were dying in other Japanese cities from the napalm attacks than died in H and N. More would likely have died in H and N had they been targeted with napalm as opposed to nuclear devices. That's why I said the nuclear devices saved both American and Japanese lives.

 

Whether shot, burned, exploded or radiated to death, what's the difference? Also, most were probably incinerated.

[MDC 7,888]

Then how the fock do you compare anything Bush has done with Saddam? Saddam was convicted of killing civilians. Bush has followed the rules of war and the geneva convention. Because you have a problem with us going in to Iraq and hate Bush, both well documented, you somehow create a worthless comparison. Again, Owned.

 

You are joking, right?

 

Again - I never said we are targetting civilians. I said that Bush's decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

[Vikings4ever 568]

The Soviet Union didn't exist and Russia wasn't preparing to attack anybody. Russia declared war only after the bombing of Hiroshima so that they could weasel their way to the bargaining table in order to re-claim lands in Manchuria and Sakhalin Island lost to Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_ii

 

The Soviet Union did exist during World War II, and at Yalta, they'd agreed to attack Japan within 3 months of Germany surrendering.

 

Whether they did it only to weasel into the bargaining table is pretty much irrelevant. With the Soviets coming at them from the east, and America coming at them from the west, they were no longer in any position to win. The nukes were just a way to end the war quicker, and save lives.

[MDC 7,888]

Burning them to death in their beds with napalm is better option? More civilians were dying in other Japanese cities from the napalm attacks than died in H and N. More would likely have died in H and N had they been targeted with napalm as opposed to nuclear devices. That's why I said the nuclear devices saved both American and Japanese lives.

 

Whether shot, burned, exploded or radiated to death, what's the difference? Also, most were probably incinerated.

 

You are splitting hairs.

 

I think it is morally reprehensible to drop a bomb on a city of civilians. You can quibble with "maybe they would've died anyway" all you want but we'll never know, because we bombed the fock out of them.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

I said that Bush's decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

 

What crime should he be charged with?

[Strike 6,023]

You are joking, right?

 

Again - I never said we are targetting civilians. I said that Bush's decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

 

So any president who engages in a war where there are tangential civilian deaths should get the death penalty?

[GutterBoy 2,900]

I think it is morally reprehensible to drop a bomb on a city of civilians.

 

Is there a circumstance where it's justified?

[Guest Davaco]

They had the same intel.

 

 

 

but bush spun the intel to justify his war, and he was wrong.

[MDC 7,888]

What crime should be be charged with?

 

I'm assuming it'd be some kind of war crime but I couldn't name it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

You are splitting hairs.

 

I think it is morally reprehensible to drop a bomb on a city of civilians. You can quibble with "maybe they would've died anyway" all you want but we'll never know, because we bombed the fock out of them.

 

No, I'm saying they absolutely would have died because we were bombing the fock out of them - nuclear bomb or otherwise.

[Guest Davaco]

So any president who engages in a war where there are tangential civilian deaths should get the death penalty?

 

no

 

but in this case the war was illegal, Iraq has been disarmed, yet we are still there

[MDC 7,888]

So any president who engages in a war where there are tangential civilian deaths should get the death penalty?

 

You should really just sit quietly at the kids table. We're on three pages now and you are so lost.

[Strike 6,023]

no

 

but in this case the war was illegal, Iraq has been disarmed, yet we are still there

 

The war was illegal?

[MDC 7,888]

No, I'm saying they absolutely would have died because we were bombing the fock out of them - nuclear bomb or otherwise.

 

No one knows that for sure.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

I'm assuming

 

thanks

[Strike 6,023]

You should really just sit quietly at the kids table. We're on three pages now and you are so lost.

 

LOL. No answer. Figures

[MDC 7,888]

Is there a circumstance where it's justified?

 

We'd be talking about some crazy hypotheticals.

[Snuff 10]

I'm assuming it'd be some kind of war crime but I couldn't name it.

 

Exactly. You just enjoy bashing Bush, no matter what. We get it. We got it 4 years ago too.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

We'd be talking about some crazy hypotheticals.

 

[MDC 7,888]

LOL. No answer. Figures

 

It's just that I've answered this 2-3 times already and it's so tedious when the stupidest Geeks drag a discussion down because they can't keep up.

 

So any president who engages in a war where there are tangential civilian deaths should get the death penalty?

 

I already answered this. I've never said Bush should get the death penalty and I never said that any President should suffer a penalty because of civilian deaths at wartime, and I have said that civilian casualties are a part of war. Bush should be punished for the war in Iraq because it was totally unnecessary and based on lies.

[Strike 6,023]

There is no proof.

 

I asked this more as a moral question. 

 

I never said we are targeting civilians.

 

I'm assuming it'd be some kind of war crime but I couldn't name it.

 

Just a few quotes to summarize the strength of MDC's position

[MDC 7,888]

There is no proof.

 

I asked this more as a moral question. 

 

I never said we are targeting civilians.

 

I'm assuming it'd be some kind of war crime but I couldn't name it.

 

Just a few quotes to summarize the strength of MDC's position

 

I take it you realized now that I never said any president who starts a war that results in civilian casualties should get the death penalty. No need to admit you were wrong - we all know.

[Strike 6,023]

I take it you realized now that I never said any president who starts a war that results in civilian casualties should get the death penalty. No need to admit you were wrong - we all know.

 

I was just trying to get at your point. I don't think anyone knows what you think our president should be punished for and the quotes above illustrate this fact. You hate the president. Everyone knows that. So you start stupid threads like this with no real point.

[Snuff 10]

we all know.

 

"we" all know? You do realize that 99% of the board disagrees with you in reference to this thread, do you not?

[MDC 7,888]

I don't think anyone knows what you think our president should be punished for

 

Don't underestimate FFT - most people here are a lot smarter than you.

 

 

"we" all know? You do realize that 99% of the board disagrees with you in reference to this thread, do you not?

 

I think most people who've read this thread know I wasn't calling for the death penalty for any president who launches a war that results in civilian casualties, despite Strike's thunderingly stupid claim.