What question of yours have I "hidden behind smoke screens?" It may not make me uniquely qualified to speak about war, but myself and the thousands of other combat veterans are far more qualified to speak about war than you ever will be because we have first-hand experience. Sadly, it's the people who study war that decide when to go to war. I guarantee you that if the president himself had to be the first one on the ground (like when this country was founded) we would spend a lot less time at war.
I'm also a combat veteran, I do not believe that just because a person has not gone to war they are not qualified to talk about it. Every person has a right to their own opinions based on their knowledge or experience or both in any subject. However it is sad that yes people in countries like the middle east have to deal with things such as collateral damage. However, the middle east has been dealing with war way before America got involved over there. They have been tearing themselves apart. The people who live there are use to violence and war. It's sad, but not inherently the United states fault. Also in a perfect world every country would get along and help each other out to keep our earth clean, and abundant in resources, researching new methods of fuel and energy....but.... instead we are killing each other, having wars, groups of people trying to wipe out other groups of people, terrorist groups blowing up innocent people, I believe we live in a society where we need fight fire with fire. There are many issues today that can't be solved by being politically correct. Somewhere someone is going to get hurt, whether it be the target or the person standing next to them.
You asked him what gave him the right to talk about war, someone who's fought and risked everything for their country in a war zone has more right to talk about it than some fool who went to a class
First of all, thanks for your service. Second, this simply isn't true. The Middle East was largely at peace up until the UN planted the Jews in Palestine. Ever since the Israeli occupation, the Middle East has been bombarded by the US with war because the US saw that the Middle East countries were aligning themselves against the Israeli occupation. And the US supported Israeli occupation, not because it believes it's the right thing to do (even Obama admits the occupation is illegal). The US supports Israel because Israel is a strategic foothold in a region where America has access to a natural resource they want - oil. And as long as they don't have to negotiate with a stable country to buy it from, we will continue to get it for dirt cheap. A United, stable and peaceful Middle East means higher oil prices, which means a weaker dollar, which means a weaker US economy. And the US can't have that. So we sent in the CIA and started civil wars in all the oil exporting countries.
Lol, ever heard of a trial? It's when a plaintiff, and a defendant sit down in a court room for HOURS and then a jury decides whether or not the defendant is guilty. Literally: unless you don't blink for hours, then your statement is false Metaphorically: plenty of time goes into deciding whether or not someone is guilty of a crime they're accused of, and the decision isn't instant.
Hang on, 2 points. One is if she paid her LOVER to kill her husband, I highly doubt she would be suffering, so yes she does need punishment, her soul is rotten. Second point, by the motto you stated "only those who have killed deserve to die" makes the fight vs all terrorism immoral unless those specific people have killed.
America is worried about the death penalty when America allows the murder of unborn children. What kind of humanity is that? Life is life, and it should matter from conception to hospice.
Every country has been in war if you look back far enough. The Middle East is not exceptionally war-prone, contrary to the ignorance spewed at your face by the media.
I think the death penalty does not a very good penalty as a punishment... I personally see it fitting better as a form of making society better in some cases. For example, I think that some people deserve to die. There's many people who are a plague to the world and people which the world would do better without. Death penalty is not part of the justice system. It's part of the revenge system. It's not going to deter crime. Criminals don't intend to get caught. On an unrelated note which I do not agree with: Nazi Germany took an interesting approach to the killing people. They used murder as a form of rehabilitation of the system... That is, they took people who could not be healed (such as mentally handicapped or retarded) and simply killed them. If you look at it from an economic standpoint, you're saving the state and families quite a bit of money and you're saving those handicapped people some suffering. Win-win. On the other hand you're not giving anyone a choice in the matter, and you're basically killing people's family members without consent. They also extended this killing to people who weren't even deserving of death, such as Jews, and Jewish babies/kids.
Prepare to derail this whole thread into an abortion debate. The post assumes that abortion is wrong and that a collection of cells, or a "potential human" is equal to a human. A foetus cannot even feel pain, let alone think a thought, until 3 months into growth. There's an infinite amount of potential humans you can make. Where do you draw the line at what constitutes a human? Also, what of the foetuses that have genetic disorders that will cause them to die within a year after birth? Do you let them develop a nervous system so that they can feel themselves slowly dying? Do you force a women to make her child go through that? Do you force a woman to make herself go through that? Or do you prevent that altogether?
First, death penalty and abortion go hand in hand because it is terminating life. Even Richard Dawkins makes that connection in The God Delusion. Dawkins's approach to "when does an unborn baby feel pain" is interesting, because as technology advances, we find that any developing baby can feel pain at very early stages in the womb. We can't feel for the child, but we can observe that the child writhes and if brought outside the womb it horrifically shows pain, just as if a calve was aborted and poked/prodded while still alive. As to fully grown humans, I'm not an advocate either way. I see this as a states right, as it is not a provision for the Federal Government. My personal belief is that swift justice, is more humane than keeping people in prison on death row for 20-40 years. What that justice is, is up to the people of the counties where a jury is sitting.
As to the second part of your question, i would ask of it is ok to terminate live children that develop tick borne illnesses or other autoimmune diseases post birth? Or develop severe allergens? If not, why would someone terminate a developing child inside a womb because of a doctor's guess that there is a problem? Many predicted problems are guesses without knowing how the child will develop. There are serious problems such as conjoined twins that have very high risk of death post birth, but you're really saying we should chose death over life. I would never advocate for termination of a child just because there is a chance they might have a genetic problem. Those children are special and are a gift. You probably won't agree that they are a gift, but they are. Children most certainly are not a defect or cast away second thought.
I want to have it like in the movie 300 where some crusty old dude in a banana hammock stands at the edge of a high cliff while he inspects the newborn for defects before deciding whether to toss the baby over. Imagine all the money we would save on healthcare!
The main difference between abortion and the death penalty is quite easy. When a convict is sentenced to death, (assuming for this discussion he is really guilty) he is being executed because of some terrible thing he/she did. When a baby is killed in utero, the baby has done nothing wrong. It's an execution of the innocent. That baby hasn't warranted the treatment he/she is receiving. Does this mean I'm pro death penalty. Not really, I'm more ambivalent about that, but I sure as hell am opposed to taking the life of those who are guiltless. I think there is more apathy/support for abortion because no one sees the life they are taking. It's impersonal. Executing a hardened criminal is much more difficult because you see the man/woman.
Moral identity which starts with a lie. She conspired to commit murder. That's a crime. She committed said crime. As for does she deserve the death penalty. She conspired to murder an innocent person. She forfeit her right to life when she decided her needs were so important that another innocents persons life should end to ensure her happiness. She could have quite easily filed for divorce. No sympathy and sets an example to the populace that murder is not a viable alternative to divorce. Should a child see a parent die prematurely? Not in an ideal world. But she took that away from her children when she had their father killed. Or doesn't he count?
The hard right would tell you that ALL life is precious, and it's not our right to take it, even if we feel justified. I find this logic very difficult to counter. However, now that i have stated that, I'm a pracical guy. I can bend on some things to gain a larger consensus. Here woiod he reasons for an abortion that are palatable to most. 1. the baby has a terrible genetic disorder that guarantees pain and death with in a few short ugly months. 2. The baby is already dead in the womb. Sadly, from what I've seen, many people say that we should not restrict abortions AT ALL because we don't want to cause needless suffering for those sick babies that will die anyway, thus, America has a booming abortion business and people can and do have abortions because 1. They don't like the child's gender 2. I just don't want a baby right now 3. We can use dead baby parts for research! 4. Insert any non medical excuse here Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control, but currently, in America, it is. And planned parenthood actively encourages and promotes abortion over other life giving options like adoption , because abortion is big bucks. So, what's my solution? The government should be handing out cheap or even free birth control to any/all people who want it. Let's or event unwanted pregnancies right out of the starting gate. And if a person does accidently get knocked up, give them as much assistance medically as they need. Have the government near the cost of the birth, and have the unwanted children go into adoptive homes. If you're curious, the wait in Canada to adopt a healthy infant is roughly 5 years because there is a shortage of kids. I imagine the same is true in the United States