Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:You make a good point about appeasing the Iraq populace that wishes to see Saddam killed. It could help to empower the pro-west side of Iraq. But, it it also could empower the pro-Islam side of Iraq. One of the things most often cited in why we need to keep Islam from ruling in Iraq is that they have barbaric executions. Seems like another execution is nothing more than a step towards an Islamic government in Iraq. Like I said, time will tell.

A justifiable execution, one that's handed down by the courts appointed by an elected government, is a little f'n different than the death squads employed by Saddam and other dictatorial regimes. As for the "Pro-Islam" side, you guys can't have it both ways. I thought Saddam was a secularist?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:As for Zarqawi, he was killed June 7th. I have yet to see very little positive change in the number of deaths in Iraq so I find it difficult to attribute his death for many positive changes. This site shows an increase in coalition casualties and an increase in Iraqi deaths since Zarqawi's death. Iraqis stepping forward is difficult to quantify, maybe you can point me to a source that shows quantifiable evidence that Iraqis are "stepping forward."

As a former NCO and current defense contractor, please don't give me that Iraqi Casualties site bullsh-t. That site serves one purpose, and that is to pander to the anti-war, terrorist-appeasing left. I know damn well how many troops are killed and wounded. I see'em all the time. As for Zarqawi being killed and you "thinking" it helped nothing, I invite you to visit Iraq sometime and stop being spoon-fed what you hear from the agenda-driven media. Most of those idiots reporting never got out of the damn Green Zone. They never made it up to Mosul to see a thriving Kurdish population. They never saw the droves of people showing up to cast their vote for a free Iraq. Why? Because they didn't need to. To the ignorant populace, just going to Iraq was enough. These spin-meisters knew full well what they were going to report and why they were going to report it, and that is, to push their anti-war agenda.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I do, indeed. But I'm in favor of criminals being given true life sentences and living the rest of their life in prison. I think the death penalty is the "easy way out" for criminals. I'm not asking for anyone to reform Saddam, I just disagree with the whole "eye for an eye" mentality.

As for Saddam's followers, that is a compelling argument. If they were to regain political power in a few years, the idea that they could absolve Saddam from his crimes and free him would cause nothing more than more violence.

So in the long term it might be best to execute him and eliminate a variable.

Again, not our choice. Would you have been against executing Hitler's minions as well? You have never lived in these conditions, BR. Don't start judging them on how they wish to deal with it. If it is needed to bring closure, so be it.

Quote:A justifiable execution, one that's handed down by the courts appointed by an elected government, is a little f'n different than the death squads employed by Saddam and other dictatorial regimes.

You're right, now show me where I was equating them.

Quote:As for the "Pro-Islam" side, you guys can't have it both ways. I thought Saddam was a secularist?

Saddam certainly was one when it suited his purposes. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that the Islamists could use the execution as a rallying point for them.

Quote:As a former NCO and current defense contractor, please don't give me that Iraqi Casualties site bullsh-t. That site serves one purpose, and that is to pander to the anti-war, terrorist-appeasing left. I know damn well how many troops are killed and wounded. I see'em all the time. As for Zarqawi being killed and you "thinking" it helped nothing, I invite you to visit Iraq sometime and stop being spoon-fed what you hear from the agenda-driven media. Most of those idiots reporting never got out of the damn Green Zone. They never made it up to Mosul to see a thriving Kurdish population. They never saw the droves of people showing up to cast their vote for a free Iraq. Why? Because they didn't need to. To the ignorant populace, just going to Iraq was enough. These spin-meisters knew full well what they were going to report and why they were going to report it, and that is, to push their anti-war agenda.

Kev, you really need to read my posts better. I completely respect what our troops are doing in Iraq. If you have a better dataset that shows improvement, please point me to it. I can't just take your word that things are getting better. I'm not there to see it, and to say that everyone should go there to see it is absurd to say the least. I showed some stats that seemed to show that Zarqawi's death did little to affect the deaths in Iraq. Now if you have counter data that shows improvement, I'd love to see it.

Quote:Again, not our choice. Would you have been against executing Hitler's minions as well? You have never lived in these conditions, BR. Don't start judging them on how they wish to deal with it. If it is needed to bring closure, so be it.

True, it is not our choice. I have never lived in those conditions, I have lived a very comfortable life, and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to judge them on how they want to deal with it, I'm just looking at the possible implications.

As for Hitler's minions, I find this to be an obvious appeal to emotion but I would have to take it on a case by case basis. Obviously my mind can be changed, if you read my post, I can clearly see the argument for executing Saddam and I find it compelling. What I fail to see is why you feel the need to come after me as if I'm beating children. And please stop referring to me as a liberal, it is emotional language that I don't think actually describes me.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Kev, you really need to read my posts better. I completely respect what our troops are doing in Iraq. If you have a better dataset that shows improvement, please point me to it. I can't just take your word that things are getting better. I'm not there to see it, and to say that everyone should go there to see it is absurd to say the least. I showed some stats that seemed to show that Zarqawi's death did little to affect the deaths in Iraq. Now if you have counter data that shows improvement, I'd love to see it.

You can't take first-hand knowledge of the situation? How about second-hand? GI's can't force reporters to have "fair and balanced" reporting of the situation....and this is completely what you base your argument on. You want to talk about shallow? You sit there and digest every negative thing that comes hot off the press. Why don't you do some research and you'll realize that "good" stories aren't reported because violence sells.

I read both positive and negative. I understand that there is spin put on the news and I look at multiple sources in order to filter through that spin.

I do not put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence. It, too, can be biased.

Frankly, I'm sick of your condescending tone. You can't seem to formulate an argument where you aren't putting me down, attacking my so-called inability to see political spin, or handwaving the evidence that put before you. There are many people on this board who have the ability to have discussions civilly most of the time. You are not one of them.

I've got what I wanted out of this discussion, which is a reason to execute Saddam.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I do not put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence. It, too, can be biased.

Yeah, there are actually two agendas being pushed, one wants to defeat terrorism, the other does not. So yeah, I am biased. I am agenda-driven. I want to win. Which side are you on?

...and I apologize for being condescending but this is one issue that means more to me than anything going on in this country today. When I see reporters reporting only the negative and I know it's being manipulative, it pisses me off. When I see troops wondering why these idiots are allowed to stay "reporting" when the good they do outside of the FOB's isn't being reported, I get pissed. This is the very reason that the military feels it is fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. They are giving their lives and limbs to bring democracy to a region that was decided by both Democrat and Republican alike, to include Kerry, only to have these same fools with a D behind their names completely turn their backs on them. ...while they're still in the field. There is no more cowardly of an act than what has been occurring with the Democrat Party. To top that, one Senator had the stones to call the very people he voted to send less than intelligent because they went to a war he voted for.

So yes, I've seen these guys. I've seen'em coming through the gates, rolling up in their Strykers bloodied. I've seen Stryker's smoking by IED's that didn't destroy the vehicle, but injured it's occupants. I've seen blown up HMMWV's. Do you know what else I've seen? Re-deployment ceremonies at Ft. Lewis, Washington when they returned from Mosul. I've seen men and women amputees, one in a wheel chair that was completely paralyzed from the neck down after he was shot through the upper part of his spinal cord. I have seen how emotional it can be for troops to lose someone like my friend losing his platoon leader on the day of election.

I have also seen anger and frustration at not being able to complete the job because liberals here are retarding their efforts by not giving them their proper due. I have also seen troops wanting to go back after being severely wounded in action. This is the American I know. We were sent to do a job. You don't go there for a little while and when it doesn't go COMPLETEY your way after 3-4 years, leave, ESPECIALLY when what you people here see is skewed to fit into the Murtha/Dean/Pelosi/Kerry camp.

How do I know all this? I am a defense contractor with the 172d Bde(Stryker) from Ft. Wainwright and Ft. Richardson, Ak. deployed to Iraq right now, the 1st Bde, 25th ID(Stryker) from Ft. Lewis, Wa., the 3rd Bde, 2 ID(Stryker) from Ft. Lewis, Wa., and the 2nd Cav. Reg't(Stryker), Ft. Lewis, Wa. These units I travel with and support.

...and again I say, as condescending as it may sound, don't come to me with that f'n bullsh-it about what you read in the damn left-wing media.

RebelKev Wrote:I have also seen anger and frustration at not being able to complete the job because liberals here are retarding their efforts by not giving them their proper due.

How are our soldiers' efforts being "retarded" by the liberals at home?

uhmump95 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:I have also seen anger and frustration at not being able to complete the job because liberals here are retarding their efforts by not giving them their proper due.

How are our soldiers' efforts being "retarded" by the liberals at home?

When you hear nothing but negativity coming from the main news outlets, even though YOU know them to be false, added with congressmen/women calling you murderers, rapists, terrorists, telling you that you can't win the war, yes, it demoralizes the troops. Use that UH education you have and research some of the main problems of the Vietnam War and how liberals on the homefront hindered progress on the ground.

These idiotic Dems that voted to send them there better nut up and start supporting the people they sent. Otherwise, get the f' out of congress.

uhmump95 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:I have also seen anger and frustration at not being able to complete the job because liberals here are retarding their efforts by not giving them their proper due.

How are our soldiers' efforts being "retarded" by the liberals at home?

...and you don't have to put retarded in quotes. ...unless you don't know what it means.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa...1106c.html

gruehls Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Poor RobertN. First Lenin, then Stalin, then communism as a whole, now Saddam. Just been a bad century for you all around huh?

I'd like to add one more thing that will happen. Left wingers like RobertN will take no joy in it whatsoever.

you forgot those famous liberal defenders of personal freedom, mao and pol pot. robert has their autographs and biographies.

I am sorry but I don't care much for any of those people but it is a very nice way to skirt the comment. The whole Bush philosophy that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

BTW, Bush is now basically admitting that this war is about what most of us thinking people knew what it was really about-OIL.

RebelKev Wrote:RobertN's friends:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...64x2581494

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...32x2929494

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...64x2584475

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...21#2597581


Yes people, this is the party that wants to take control of the defense of this nation.

That first one is stupid because almost everyone(except for that guy) knows he has had them and used them in the past-we gave it to him!

The second one: It is a bad thing for our troops.

3rd: Hard to argue w/ Unionthug. But I disagree w/wholetruth00. He will never go to the Hague.

RobertN Wrote:3rd: Hard to argue w/ Unionthug. But I disagree w/wholetruth00. He will never go to the Hague.

Yeah, hard for you to argue with someone that calls Bush a murderer and has a f-ucking Che Guevera avatar. Yeah, YOU'RE consistent. /rollingmyf'neyes

....or do you think Che was just a freedom fighter as well? People in that camp also praise Chavez and Castro.

Shall I show you those posts as well? I am able.

RobertN Wrote:The whole Bush philosophy that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Sorry to get back so late but do me a favor, point me to one site (credible) that shows where Bush said this.

RobertN Wrote:BTW, Bush is now basically admitting that this war is about what most of us thinking people knew what it was really about-OIL.

I don't think that GWB is saying this, or that it is true, but even if it was I would be OK with it. There are lots of ways to attack our country other than with bombs and bullets. Short-sighted policies have helped maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and that is an Achilles heel for the USA. Reducing our dependence on our enemies is a good thing.

History is full of wars that were fought because entity X controlled something vital to entity Y - oil, water, trade routes, iron, coal, access to seagoing ports, gold, etc.

The same people who sneer that the war is about oil are generally the same ones who want to restrict drilling and exploration, and raise or enact taxes on the industry. Yes, it will be nice when we all have vehicles that will get 60 miles to a quart of corn syrup, but that is not going to help us much in 2010 or 2020. For the foreseeable future, no matter which party is in control of Congress or the White House, we are dependent on oil. The more we can get from Iraq or ourselves, the less we have to depend on Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I don't think that GWB is saying this, or that it is true, but even if it was I would be OK with it. There are lots of ways to attack our country other than with bombs and bullets. Short-sighted policies have helped maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and that is an Achilles heel for the USA. Reducing our dependence on our enemies is a good thing.

History is full of wars that were fought because entity X controlled something vital to entity Y - oil, water, trade routes, iron, coal, access to seagoing ports, gold, etc.

The same people who sneer that the war is about oil are generally the same ones who want to restrict drilling and exploration, and raise or enact taxes on the industry. Yes, it will be nice when we all have vehicles that will get 60 miles to a quart of corn syrup, but that is not going to help us much in 2010 or 2020. For the foreseeable future, no matter which party is in control of Congress or the White House, we are dependent on oil. The more we can get from Iraq or ourselves, the less we have to depend on Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

Please, OO, always take into account who you are responding to. Here is where their "information" is coming from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01025.html

Yeah, this seems like a plausible stance to me. We went into Iraq, defeated the Saddam regime, and now it would be a mistake to leave the oil reserves to terrorists. Does this mean we went INTO war because of war? Well, only if you're a dumb*** liberal.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:BTW, Bush is now basically admitting that this war is about what most of us thinking people knew what it was really about-OIL.

I don't think that GWB is saying this, or that it is true, but even if it was I would be OK with it. There are lots of ways to attack our country other than with bombs and bullets. Short-sighted policies have helped maintain our dependence on foreign oil, and that is an Achilles heel for the USA. Reducing our dependence on our enemies is a good thing.

History is full of wars that were fought because entity X controlled something vital to entity Y - oil, water, trade routes, iron, coal, access to seagoing ports, gold, etc.

The same people who sneer that the war is about oil are generally the same ones who want to restrict drilling and exploration, and raise or enact taxes on the industry. Yes, it will be nice when we all have vehicles that will get 60 miles to a quart of corn syrup, but that is not going to help us much in 2010 or 2020. For the foreseeable future, no matter which party is in control of Congress or the White House, we are dependent on oil. The more we can get from Iraq or ourselves, the less we have to depend on Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

We already have some pretty good fuel efficient cars. The fact remains there are still people who think they "need" something more like this

niuhuskie84 Wrote:We already have some pretty good fuel efficient cars. The fact remains there are still people who think they "need" something more like this

Ok, so? I think it's ugly as **** but why are you trying to dictate what someone can drive? You won't see this on any liberal site, but check out scientific data about how much pollution volcanoes like St. Helen's spew.

True, so true, but even if every vehicle on the road got 30 or more MPG, we would still be highly dependent on oil from our enemies. And we are a long way from achieving even that standard. One of the main ways to increase mileage is to reduce weight, which is at odds with the mandate to improve safety. Those who think we can minimize domestic drilling AND at the same time achieve oil independence through mileage savings need to think again.