Im along side arathorn here. Invasion of Iraq is justified because of their violations of human rights. Hyprocrisy or not, Iraq will be better off now indefinately.

The same applies for other countries who violate HR or show unprovoked agression. When USA dropped A bombs on japan, they deserved to be invaded, unfortunately they didnt. Iran chops off the hand of citizens when they steal and women are stoned to death when they cheat on their husbands.

Thus, Iran should be invavded.

The question of who should invade is simple. He who is able and likely to install a better way of life.

Solution: USA= Mass Global war on primitive rapist countries.

End of story.

Violation of Human Rights, any ideas in for how many countries that applies. And i'm not even talking about Guantanamo Bay and the stuff that happens there . For instance they should invade Turkey, mm that's not a primitave rapist country i believe.
And Iraq is better off without Saddam, i totally agree, but does better life equals the american way of life i wonder.

Iran chops off the hand of citizens when they steal, we could argue about that wether it's totally wrong or not, but what about death penalty? Do you think it's NOT okay to take a man's hands but it is okay to take his life or how do you think about that?

Just because some laws are morally wrong i see no reason to invade a country and force them to undergo your own political system and rules, wether they like it or not.

America should be carefull to play the world judge, because it's easy to make enemies with such an attitude.

It should apply to the entire world. It is a beneficiary system of protection. I dont give a shit if one country doesnt have it, they should, and if they dont, then invade and implement it.



I too am against how prisoners are treated in Guantanamo Bay. It shouldnt be allowed. A prison should be a prison, there should only be one type of prison.



They tortured hundreds of people. Unnacceptable. It is unfortunate that no military action was therefore taken out.



Yes it does. Who are more free Iraquis? Afgans? or civilised countries? Which laws and governments are fair?



No need to argue. There was a very interesting documentary on the TV. It showed a little contraption built by the police, basically the thief was to insert his hand into it and the police officers would drop a lever and a blade would cut off the hand/fingers. However the example they showed was of a faulty machine and so the guys fingers were not properly cut off and were hanging off his hand by the skin.



Try tellling that to the countries citizens.



Yes it is, but it is a worthy risk to take.

America pretty much forced Japan into WWII. They deserved to be invaded?

I was kinda interested how you felt about deathpenalty derf, since according to Amnesty International it's against human rights. So america should invade itself in your theorie ... mmm (and again not mentioning guantanamo bay )

And who made america world judge? They did. I guess that's democracy too right.

And if properly excecuted, chopping off hands is imo not more right or wrong than taking a person's life (for criminals of course).

US should have been invaded for the 2 a-bombs they dropped.

It makes sense for a government to kill a murderer. Some fucking idiot decided to remove a bunch of people from existence should be punished with the equal offence. This of course ONLY after a very very thorough trial and investigation.



The US is a "judge" because no other country is capable of doing so currently. They have a sound basis of social development in comparison as well as economic feasiblity and so therefore i think that they are justified to push the world forward.



Chopping off hands is the most uncivilised form of punishment for such a meagre crime.

Death penalty is fair, but only fair for the most severe of cases, e.g. multiple murder.

Can I make some comments. I'm glad Saddam is captured as well, but what about the trial how fair will that be. America judges of the world?



America were made the judges cos they have the biggest weapons, not democracy. America have the most influence cos they stayed out of 2 world wars until the near end when they helped topple the Germans. The plunge into the Cold War helped America retain this position, power resides where people believe it resides



Yes but it depends, Harold Shipman yes, Saddam Hussein, although he has done worse, he can be seen as a martyr for his cause, best thing to do is life imprisonment, strict conditions might make him relent but thinking on the atrocities he has commited should be a worse punishment than death, unless we know what goes on after?

Now we're shitfing off into death penalty discussion anyhoo:

The problem is; if you're gonna make exceptions to the rule (law) there isn't much point in having rules in the first place. Yes, saddam deserves in many ways to die, but you can't bend the law for him or anyone else. which sux, but blah.


In that way the river serial killer dude in the US case (forgot his name) is a dangerous precedent...if you shoot someone and get convicted to death penalty (assuming we're in the US), you can say "wtf? that dude killed tons of ppl and doesn't get death penalty!". Blahblah, too tired to make more sense than this

As a general rule, I'm against death penalty.
I think it's a little barbarious, in civilized countries it's abolished for ages. Even we abolished it the late 19th century, and as soon as the 17th century we figured out that it simply doesn't work.

Bullshit. There are a greaty many people out there that have committed crimes so atrocious that they have forfeited their right to live. What if someone walked into a daycare and gutted every child? Would they not deserve to die? What if someone raped and murdered children, repeatedly? An individual like that deserves death. Are you defending their right to live?

No, some people definitely need to die. I'm not saying it should be as widely or as carelessly as it is many places. To be honest, I am ashamed at how it is abused in Texas. For instance, there was a man that was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Before he could be executed it was proven that he was innocent. Further it was shown that the police had beaten him and threatened acts against his family until he confessed. The man was undboubtedly innocent, but Texas has a short limit on how much time you have to reverse the judgement. The state of Texas knew he was innocent, knew it was their fault that he was in there, and decided that he should be executed anyway. The story is on the NPR website, if you can find it.

In Washington, that would not have happened. The people would have immediately organized, raised hell and shook the state capital walls until he was released. The policy makers that were responsible and the police officers involved would have been torn from office.

I make no apologies to the Texans on this board, BTW. I can't believe Texas still prosecutes sodomy. Any state that wants to prevent me from sticking my dick up my wife's ass is no place I want to live.

Bla bla bla yeah yeah. Sadam has been captured wahoo!

I just want to know what he ate while he was in his hole?

well, actually, i'm just guess that he hid there once he knew that he was under attack

I ditn say anything about democracy being the reason why the Us is the world leader.



Both punishmets are pretty equal to me. Ulitmately there is no real difference. However it is important to remain impartial and use the law which stands and use no exceptions.

probably somewhere between nothing and canned foods.

I wonder if they found someone else at the farm aside from him, they probably did i just havent been listening to little details too much.

No exceptions, I think that it would be better to perhaps apply the sentence that might fit the person, no point letting an islamic extremist die if the other extremists believe that this will turn him into a martyr, I think that would depend on the person rather than the standard punishment.