Sadaam Captured Alive

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Joeiss

So, by sinning, you are creating good?

I thought you were a harcore Christian man....

I guess I myself don't think it's right to execute Saddam. I've never agreed with the death sentence.

But even though I disagree with BJW, I also disagree with you to a degree. I've always believed that if you are a "Christian", you don't judge other "Christians" as to how "Christian" they are. If they do or believe something you think is morally wrong, then say so. But I would just say that it's really not for anybody to tell anybody else they're sinning or un-Christian. Only one person can decide that.

[BigJustinW]

Vamp... it would help the democracy over there, that's a good point, but I believe keeping him alive can only hurt. As long as he is alive, his true followers will always be trying to free him and they will always have a reason to fight. Also, what jail would they be putting him in? A US one or Iraq one? By making an example of him they are just making him bigger than what he is, a hero in a way. (I forgot the word for it)

Think about it, if Jesus Christ just got his head chopped off like he was a normal man instead of being nailed to the cross do you think his story would have had just as big of an effect on people?

All US is doing by giving him a trail over there is focing his own people to betray him... what happens if the jury decides that he shouldn't go to jail? US kills him... the only way he lives is in prison. I don't see the point. US can make then think it's there own decision, but the truth is it isn't. If Saddam could, he would kill each and every one of us, and god forbid he get ahold of the president, do you think Bush would live 30 seconds under that man's watch? Hell no. And pics of Bush's dead body would be all over the news in Iraq (just like he had his own people), so why on earth should we let Saddam live?

and Joeiss, from what I know, war isn't a sin, he should have been killed on the battlefield just like all the others who died because of him.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally Posted by BigJustinW

Think about it, if Jesus Christ just got his head chopped off like he was a normal man instead of being nailed to the cross do you think his story would have had just as big of an effect on people?

Yaaay... religious remarks.

I'll try responding to this from a few viewpoints.


Christian:
Jesus is a very, very important part of our religion. It matters not how he died, but the fact that he did die for mankind's sake. He was the ultimate martyr.

Skeptic:
What makes you sure he was nailed to a cross? The bible wasn't written by the hand of God, but rather by humans. Humans definately listen to the will of God, but as you can see by the actions of some "Christians", they do not yield to the word of God entirely. There could've been some glorifying of Jesus' death.

Non-Christian:
How would that be possible? Man created Jesus as the ultimate martyr and role model. He could not "sin"... he was a flawless quasi-human. When designing Jesus, man made sure he could create the biggest impact possible. Fiction is created a way for a reason. Perhaps this should not be discussed in this forum.

Christian "Scientist" (aka: uncertain but wishes for "accuracy"):
There's a fairly good chance that being hung on a cross wasn't as obscure as you imagine at the time. Mayhaps regular "thieves" would be nailed to a cross... in fact, weren't there others with him nailed to a cross? Beheading, I imagine, wasn't a very common method of execution at the time.

Choose your pick =¬Þ, I really don't care which one you imagine I'd say. Based on my mood, I could've straight out said any of them and "meant" it.

[Ginkasa]

Let's try not to turn this into a religious debate. We've had too much of those in the past few months. Besides, its off topic anyway.

Anyway...

About in a war you have to use nukes and A-bombs, etc. to show the other country that they shouldn't "F" with us is just plain wrong. All that is is bullying only to an extent where millions of people would be killed.

War is not always just countries at each other's throats wanting to wipe each other out. This war in particular was not a war with Iraq as a whole but with Saddam's regime. Nuking the place not only would have made the war much larger than it would have to be (it would almost certainly draw other countries into the mix) but it would have also killed countless numbers of the people we were trying to save.

Thinking that war is just a school yard fight where the sole goal is to hurt the other guy as much as possible in any way possible is naive. Its people thinking things like that that will lead to nuclear war and holocaust.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Let's try not to turn this into a religious debate. We've had too much of those in the past few months. Besides, its off topic anyway.

Anyway...

About in a war you have to use nukes and A-bombs, etc. to show the other country that they shouldn't "F" with us is just plain wrong. All that is is bullying only to an extent where millions of people would be killed.

War is not always just countries at each other's throats wanting to wipe each other out. This war in particular was not a war with Iraq as a whole but with Saddam's regime. Nuking the place not only would have made the war much larger than it would have to be (it would almost certainly draw other countries into the mix) but it would have also killed countless numbers of the people we were trying to save.

Thinking that war is just a school yard fight where the sole goal is to hurt the other guy as much as possible in any way possible is naive. Its people thinking things like that that will lead to nuclear war and holocaust.


*shrugs and walks away*

Ginkasa...Ginkasa....

Im not getting into this argument again, either. I had it a while back in the World Civ. forum. But it really gets under my skin...people who believe dropping the bombs in WWII was a bad idea, and think that it was "immoral" and "monstourous" or "unethical". It saved alot of peoples lives...and We would do it again if we had too.

In todays age, though, we dont go around droping Nukes and A-bombs on everyone that challenges us for a few reasons...:

1. In todays age, most countries have Nukes, unlike when the first A-bomb was dropped. So if we nuked some place right now, we would be hit with some pretty bad retaliation. Becuase they could drop a Nuke right back on us.

2. We wanted to keep Iraq on the map. We had interest to rebuild it. You dont go around dropping nukes in order to kill one man. (Saddam)

I never said that we should have dropped a Nuke on Iraq...that really would have been stupid. What I was trying to say is that if your in an all out war with an entire nation of enemies that will not give up, (Such as the Japs in WWII), then using the most brutal force possible is neccessary.

I was not saying you drop bombs on a country who metaphorically "flips you off."...

[BigJustinW]

Originally Posted by Rndm_Perfection

Yaaay... religious remarks.

I'll try responding to this from a few viewpoints.


Christian:
Jesus is a very, very important part of our religion. It matters not how he died, but the fact that he did die for mankind's sake. He was the ultimate martyr.

Skeptic:
What makes you sure he was nailed to a cross? The bible wasn't written by the hand of God, but rather by humans. Humans definately listen to the will of God, but as you can see by the actions of some "Christians", they do not yield to the word of God entirely. There could've been some glorifying of Jesus' death.

Non-Christian:
How would that be possible? Man created Jesus as the ultimate martyr and role model. He could not "sin"... he was a flawless quasi-human. When designing Jesus, man made sure he could create the biggest impact possible. Fiction is created a way for a reason. Perhaps this should not be discussed in this forum.

Christian "Scientist" (aka: uncertain but wishes for "accuracy"):
There's a fairly good chance that being hung on a cross wasn't as obscure as you imagine at the time. Mayhaps regular "thieves" would be nailed to a cross... in fact, weren't there others with him nailed to a cross? Beheading, I imagine, wasn't a very common method of execution at the time.

Choose your pick =¬Þ, I really don't care which one you imagine I'd say. Based on my mood, I could've straight out said any of them and "meant" it.

I agree with all four of those reactions to some extent... but the fact is if others were killed on the cross the evidence was supressed, and apparently Jesus was the only one to get the nails put through his palms and the big nail through both of his legs.... if the others did, like I said before, evidence was held back

(I would read and try to find out... but I'm not going to put that much effort into this post )

Oh, and thanks for finding the word for me "martyr"

[Joeiss]

Ya, dropping the A-Bomb in WWII was for the good. The huge sea/land battle in Japan would have left millions upon millions dead. Invading Japan would have been like D-Day multiplied by 27.45.

[ZEROCOOLER]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...shprecious.htm

[thatmariolover]

We definately needed to do something in Japan, but dropping that bomb was a bad idea in my opinion.

In Hiroshima, there were 120,000 casualties. 60,000 of which were deaths. That was out of a population of slightly over 200,000. It was mass murder. It wasn't to get to a specific target, it was just to flex some muscle and get some revenge. We could have done that without killing so many innocents.

That was a good find ZeroCooler. I particularly liked the point this one brought up.

[BigJustinW]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

We definately needed to do something in Japan, but dropping that bomb was a bad idea in my opinion.

In Hiroshima, there were 120,000 casualties. 60,000 of which were deaths. That was out of a population of slightly over 200,000. It was mass murder. It wasn't to get to a specific target, it was just to flex some muscle and get some revenge. We could have done that without killing so many innocents.

That was a good find ZeroCooler. I particularly liked the point this one brought up.

define "innocent" in a war situation... The only innocent I know are non-supporters of the war... and children. But the powerful contries are the only ones that seem to fight fair anyway.

As fr the Bush thing, remember, the media shows us what they want us to see, and he was showing Osama what he wanted him to see. We won't ever know if he's telling the truth about not worrting about Osama or not.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

The major theme of argument I’m going to use here is, “why now”.

1) 1.5 million Iraqi’s dead? Where did you get this number? I’m not discrediting you, but the highest I could find from an official government source (or any) was here: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/
It clearly states 340,000; which is definitely a huge number. But that was from 1980-1988. Not anytime recently. There’s no arguing that this guy needed to be nailed, but why all of the sudden?

2) That’s absolutely true. But how has that changed anything recently? It hasn’t.

3) There’s a lot more than 1,000 tons missing (http://armedservices.house.gov/press.../IraqiWMDs.pdf). But again, it’s been a while. I understand that we needed to go after this guy, but what was the urgency? Osama Bin Laden attacked us much more recently, and he suddenly took a back-seat to Saddam.

4) I’ve actually already reviewed that article, and it’s a great find. But we didn’t find this memo 9 months ago. We found it now. If we had found it 9 months ago, this would be a damn valid reason for having dropped (or shifted) the matter at hand (Bin Laden). But we didn’t, and it’s not.

Who are you to judge what I know? You know what I hate? People who think they know what’s best for everybody else; people who shove their beliefs down other people’s throats. Ignorance is a sin, yes. It is up to us to educate ourselves, but beyond that there’s so much more. Just because you know what is going on doesn’t make your plan of action right. There are so many different ways to deal with every situation. That’s why we have a democracy. Not a dictatorship. Saddam was a dictator; what are you?

Look, it's obvious that we aren't going to agree on this topic. So let's just agree to disagree. Enough with the debating.

Finally you show more than paper thin theories. You have expressed in detail your views, and I applaud ytou for that. Thats all I ever asked for to begin with. As you point out, I still don't agree with your reasoning, but mainly thats because your argument centers around the theory that because we didn't go into Baghdad in 1975 to remove him, there are no good reasons why we should go in and remove Saddam now.

You ask: "Why now?"

I ask: "If not now... when?"

[ZEROCOOLER]

We should not have even had to go in and take him out of power this time, the first Bush should've done it. Every American that is killed over there now is on Bush senior's hands.

[Bond]

Easy to say that now, isn't it?

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by ZEROCOOLER

We should not have even had to go in and take him out of power this time, the first Bush should've done it. Every American that is killed over there now is on Bush senior's hands.

Hind-Sight is 20/20.

[Canyarion]

It's exactly 1 year ago.