Bush says silly things again

[Wooz]

Part of the culture? You may be right, but I just want to point out that tribal genocides took part for centuries and happen to this day in central Africa, but that doesn't mean they're not genocides anymore nor that they're acceptable as a cultural aspect... are they?

And set aside the possibility of bush having dislexia, even "filtering" his words, or re-building them from the non-grammatical vomit he execrates, the sentences still set a new standard for presidential stupidity in the 21st century.

I mean
"A country which has been under attack can respond by loving your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself."

ROTFL

 

[Silencer]

The death penalty is a part of Texan culture. It is, this is not just northern (let alone Chicagoan) prejudice. Comparing something as heinous as POW killing to the Death Penalty when one is as much a part of the culture as using the Alamo as the Mecca of Texas.

With all due respect: Death penalty is a part of Texan culture as much as suicide bombings are a part of the Islamic culture...

Dealing death cannot possibly be considered a culture-building factor, for then we ought to consider ancient Assyrians and XIII century Mongols civilised and cultured nations....

I am not opposed to the death penalty and at times I am at grief that it is not instituted in Poland any more. Nevertheless, capital punishment is an constituent of lawkeeping, not of culture

 

[Ratty Sr.]

The death penalty is a part of Texan culture.

Cannibalism is part of several tribal cultures, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Bradylama]

I don't see how you can compare the death penalty to executing prisoners of war. There's a huge difference between killing helpless combatants in cold blood and executing murderers.

Its increadible how far your twisted logic can stretch.

 

[Wooz]

I don't see how you can compare the death penalty to executing prisoners of war. There's a huge difference between killing helpless combatants in cold blood and executing murderers.

Its increadible how far your twisted logic can stretch.

It's easy: Both acts consist in the same thing, legally putting a term to someone's life with the approval of a majority, in one case it's the part of society that approves the death penalty, in the second case it's the army that captured the prisoners.

"Increadable" indeed.

 

[Bradylama]

I don't see how you can compare the death penalty to executing prisoners of war. There's a huge difference between killing helpless combatants in cold blood and executing murderers.

Its increadible how far your twisted logic can stretch.

It's easy: Both acts consist in the same thing, legally putting a term to someone's life with the approval of a majority, in one case it's the part of society that approves the death penalty, in the second case it's the army that captured the prisoners.

"Increadable" indeed.

The rules of war concerning POWs, however, is universally accepted. Execution of enemy combatants is considered one of the worst possible atrocities next to the intentional murder of civilians.

Executing murderers is no atrocity. I don't care what you say, but if you've taken somebody's life with no reason or justification then you don't deserve to live.

And besides, its not like Bush is the only governor to sign a death warrant.

 

[Silencer]

I don't care what you say, but if you've taken somebody's life with no reason or justification then you don't deserve to live.

.

Hence, the aforementioned POW's didn't deserve to live; At least that's what your logic would seem to dictate

 

[Bradylama]

So you're saying that combatants in a military conflict aren't justified in attempting to kill the enemy?

The way you've tried to twist this around on me, you're trying to make it look I said the Israelis were justified in executing POWs which willingly surrendered and removed themselves as combatants from the conflict. Which is not what I'm saying at all.

Don't confuse the difference between a murderer and a soldier.

 

[Silencer]

Aw, come on... these Sudani POW's must have killed *someone*, so your logic would deem them unworthy of living... And perhaps the Israeli culture is comprised with killing POWs? That's what war is about, killing, right?

But that is not the issue. I agree that killing POWs is an atrocity when contemplated in terms of international conventions and the rules of war. But in therms of morality, be it Christian or other widely adopted moral code, killing is not to be excused. Soldiers at war do just that - kill, and it is not a question of whether it is justified or not. They take lives away for no reason. Surely, they will be regarded heroes by their compatriots...

But then again, think of the Wehrmacht. Weren't they just following orders? Weren't their actions justified? And had hundreds of Soviet and other POW's just disappear in thin air?

Law codes (apart from court martial) condemn murderers, not soldiers, and that is why death penalty can be legally instituted only upon the former. Legitimately sentencing an offender to death and slaughtering POWs are two different things. However, as I have said before, culture can be attributed to neither.

I'm not saying that death penalty is, in it's core, barbarous. I concur that a murderer willingly discards his integrity with the society,and therefore cannot be protected by it's laws, including the law securing his right to live. He is surely to be outlawed.

However, it is not a matter of heritage, culture or religion, but of justice, righteous retribution and securing the life and well-being of other, upright members of society, and it must be taken seriously.

 

[Bradylama]

So you actually believe that the death penalty is a part of Texan culture? -_O

The death penalty is a part of law, not a cultural must-have. Texas is the second largest state in the country, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that 50+ people would be sentanced to the death penalty.

I have no idea what this is about anymore. ;_;

 

[Gwydion]

It's easy: Both acts consist in the same thing, legally putting a term to someone's life with the approval of a majority,

Actually, the decision is not voted on democratically. It will be applied by a jury or maybe by a judge. It depends on what local laws say. Either way, you're looking at someone examining facts to determine whether the death penalty is applicable.

 

[Wooz]

It's easy: Both acts consist in the same thing, legally putting a term to someone's life with the approval of a majority,

Actually, the decision is not voted on democratically. It will be applied by a jury or maybe by a judge. It depends on what local laws say. Either way, you're looking at someone examining facts to determine whether the death penalty is applicable.

Actually, as I mentioned on another thread, applying the death penalty on a murderer turns you into one. The loathing a murderer gets from society is from his decision to end some other human being's life, the murderer in this case becomes the judge, the jury and the executioner, but it doesn't change the core of the subject: The only excuse I could imagine for a "death penalty" is shooting the person who is going to press the launch button to a nuke that is going to blow up a city.

Besides, it's just my opinion on the subject, you guys don't have to take it so personally and accuse me of twisting your posts

Anyways, death penalty and dyslexia issues won't change the fact that bush is an utter moron.

 

[Bradylama]

I just find it outlandish that you could compare an institution of Justice to the execution of POWs.

 

[Sander]

I just find it outlandish that you could compare an institution of Justice to the execution of POWs.

I find it outlandish that you cannot understand that the link can very easily be made. You may not agree that people think that the death penalty is immoral, but when you do feel that the death penalty is immoral, it is very easily compared with other types of murder. Including the execution of POWs.

 

[Silencer]

Taking another's life is immoral as such; However, murderers must be punished to the greatest extent, for if one would-be victim can be saved by the execution of ten criminals, I am willing to see them executed

 

[MadDog]

Umm... Clinton did some massively stupid things as well. First, you don't lie on public television like that. If you did what you did, fess up. If you are a president, it will kick you in the ass later.

Second, near the end of his term, he bombed some country... he used it to try to cover up his affair and make THAT the headline. He tried to look good, not bad.

Economy has nothing to do with the president. They don't change the markets, its all based on businesses themselves.

I feel that all of these attacks against these countries are all a whole vandetta from Bush Sr. Bush Jr. is mad at Sadam for calling his daddy bad names. Notice how Jessica Lynch is now denying a bunch of stuff that happened to her? Go government! make up lies! whee! (not like they don't do that every day and every war, but still).

Oh, and all those new jobs? Are they good highpaying places? I bet they are minimum wage jobs that don't actually help families. If he's from Texas, than why doesn't he get his cabinet to kick out illegal immigrants all over the place. That will make unemployment drop a crapload.

 

[Bradylama]

-]Oh, and all those new jobs? Are they good highpaying places? I bet they are minimum wage jobs that don't actually help families. If he's from Texas, than why doesn't he get his cabinet to kick out illegal immigrants all over the place. That will make unemployment drop a crapload.

Look at it this way. Would you rather want a low-paying job, or no job at all?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

-]Second, near the end of his term, he bombed some country... he used it to try to cover up his affair and make THAT the headline. He tried to look good, not bad.

You mean Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia was attacked because Miloshevich brought it on himself by ordering a genocide in Kosovo. It was a joint operation of all NATO countries to stop a mad dictator and not some American adventure.

Economy has nothing to do with the president. They don't change the markets, its all based on businesses themselves.

Hmph, tell that to our prime minister, he'll be happy to hear it.

 

[Brother None]

-]Second, near the end of his term, he bombed some country... he used it to try to cover up his affair and make THAT the headline. He tried to look good, not bad.

You mean Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia was attacked because Miloshevich brought it on himself by ordering a genocide in Kosovo. It was a joint operation of all NATO countries to stop a mad dictator and not some American adventure.

I don't think so. Clinton ordered quite a number of bombardments. If memory serves, one was pointed to Iraq and hit a medicine-factory.

Clinton was typical that way. Bombardments have always been really easy to get past the UN anyway. It's a regime change, which is what Bush wanted for Iraq and Afganistan, that gets people riled up. Strange, no? Same number of deaths, but one has a regime change, the other does not.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Clinton is the pussy. He had a chance to take out Osama some years back, but he didn't, pulled out of Somalia, never disagreed with the UN, wanted to make the Americans so much like the rest of the world, let loose a bunch of American convicts if they promised him votes, and messed up the American military. Bush is just a simple man in not-so-simple times. He must clean up the spoiled child's (Clinton) mess and take care of whatever he didn't.

Edit: The war in the Balkans was supposed to prevent a World War or such. I personally think it could have turned into a major war, perhaps even world-wide, since both world wars started in or around that region. But Clinton went with NATO because France would have vetoed a UN resolution for a reason I am not too sure with. I think it was because they had some soldiers there or something of that matter.