ClimbingPanther Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 As I read through this, I was hoping to read more about some of these amazing "options" people knew about for dealing *effectively* with violence... I say live and let kill. Hmmm, that just doesn't have the same ring to it. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) I'm amazed at how many otherwise intelligent, well spoken people on this forum are so quick to accept, embrace, and even revel in barbarism. It seems to me that one of the primary purposes of society is to prevent it. As for the 'violence is everywhere' theme; bullshit. Violence happens, that's obvious, and it certainly is everywhere...on the news, but it is an anomaly, and nearly always preventable. Most people on this planet do not live in Gaza, Darfur, or Iraq. They live in non-violent settings, because of the many, many long term advantages of doing so. That is, and should be, the norm that we strive for. Conflict is and always will be a part of human nature. Violent conflict is an unecessary aberration of that nature. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Bogen Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) They live in non-violent settings, because of the many, many long term advantages of doing so. That is, and should be, the norm that we strive for. Conflict is and always will be a part of human nature. Violent conflict is an unecessary aberration of that nature. Wrong. It is only by virtue of violent conflict that you are able to enjoy the bizarre privelege of a peaceful existance in a non-violent setting. Sometimes things are sad, even barbaric, and necessary at the same time. Edited January 2, 2007 by Bogen Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 What an oft parroted load of shit. How many democracies were established peacefully after the fall of the Soviet Union? Your information is dated and tainted by repetitive propoganda. Quote
Bogen Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 What an oft parroted load of shit. How many democracies were established peacefully after the fall of the Soviet Union? Your information is dated and tainted by repetitive propoganda. Was the fall of the Soviet Union peaceful? Quote
gambo Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Presenting (ta da)...for your viewing pleasure... the Dictator's of the 20th Century....... Whoa Nellie The men who helped make the 20th century the bloodiest on record Sani Abacha Nigeria Ahmadou Ahidjo Cameroon Idi Amin Uganda Ibrahim Babangida Nigeria Hastings Banda Malawi Jean-Bédel Bokassa Central African Republic Samuel Doe Liberia Hissène Habré Chad Felix Houphouet-Boigny Cote D'Ivoire Mu'ammar Quathafi Libya Laurent Kabila Democratic Republic of Congo Mathieu Kérékou Benin Maaouiya Ould Taya Mauritania Haile Mariam Menghistu Ethiopia Mobuto Sese Seko Zaire Daniel Arap Moi Kenya Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe Milton Obote Uganda Didier Ratsiraka Madagascar Haile Selassie Ethiopia Ali Solih Comoros Ahmed Sekou Touré Guinea Hafez Al-Assad Syria Chiang Kai Shek China/Taiwan Ngo Dinh Diem Vietnam Hussain Muhammad Ershad Bangladesh Kim Il Sung North Korea Kim Jong Il North Korea Yahya Khan Pakistan Ruhollah Khomeini Iran Mao Tse Tung China Ferdinand Marcos Phillipines Pervez Musharraf Pakistan Mohammed Najibullah Afghanistan Nursultan Nazarbayev Khazakhstan Ne Win Burma Saparmurat Niyazov Turkmenistan Turgut Ozal Turkey Reza Pahlavi Iran Park Chung-Hee South Korea Pol Pot Cambodia Rhee Singman South Korea Saddam Hussein Iraq Thojib Suharto Indonesia Ahmed Sukarno Indonesia Nguyen Van Thieu Vietnam Tojo Hideki Japan Zia Ul-Haq Pakistan Heider Aliev Azerbaijan Ion Antonescu Romania Leonid Brezhnev USSR Josip Broz Yugoslavia Nicolae Ceausescu Romania Francisco Franco Spain Adolf Hitler Germany Erich Honecker East Germany Enver Hoxha Albania Miklos Horthy Hungary Dimitrios Ioannides Greece Wojciech Jaruselzski Poland Leonid Kuchma Ukraine Vladimir Ilyich Lenin USSR Alexander Lukashenko Belarus Slobodan Milosovic Yugoslavia Benito Mussolini Italy Ante Pavelic Croatia Vikdun Quisling Norway Antonio Salazar Portugal Joseph Stalin USSR Franjo Tudjman Croatia Todor Zhivkov Bulgaria Fulgencio Batista Cuba Carlos Castillo Armas Guatemala Fidel Castro Cuba Alfredo Christiani El Salvador Roberto Suazo Cordova Honduras Porfirio Diaz Mexico François 'Papa Doc' Duvalier Haiti Jean Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier Haiti Maximiliano Hernandez Martínez El Salvador Efrain Rios Montt Guatemala Manuel Noriega Panama Anastasio Somoza García Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza Debayle Nicaragua Omar Torrijos Panama Rafael Trujillo Dominican Republic Hugo Banzer Suárez Bolivia René Barrientos Ortuño Bolivia Desi Bouterse Suriname Juan Maria Bordeberry Uruguay Humberto Branco Brazil Forbes Burnham Guyana Carlos Ibanez del Campo Chile Morales Bermudes Peru Manuel Odria Peru Marco Perez Jimenez Venezuela Juan/Eva Peron Argentina Augusto Pinochet Chile Gustavo Rojas Pinilla Colombia Alfredo Stroessner Paraguay Juan Velesco Alvarado Peru Getulio Vargas Brazil Jorge Videla Argentina Juan Vicente Gómez Venezuela George Speight Fiji Quote
Winter Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 And how did they control the area? Through violence. All these other options that everyone who is soooo smart talks about--where are they in use? Where are all the smart people living happily without any violence (including the threat of violence) in their culture? If that works so well, why aren't we all doing it? And how would we get rid of all those nasty violent people in our non-violent utopia? What are the options for dealing with them? As for dooming ourselves to living in a culture of violence---I don't know where you live, but here on Earth, that's pretty much how it is. I'd like it to be different, but it ain't. And I wish I knew how to fix it, but as Jack Handy says, "you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first". Scandinavia, Holland, Britain - many European countries have outlawed capital punishment and yet the violent crime rates have not gone up and in fact are lower than what we see here in the US. There are other systems and they work. Do a little homework before throwing your hand up in and saying "Earth is violent, we need to kill the killers." Here in the US, you are MUCH more likely to be put to death for killing a white man than a black man - what does that tell you? There are also several well documented cases of people being exonerated for crimes after their executions. Is that really the system of criminal justice you want to defend to fulfill a need for revenge? Quote
archenemy Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) And how did they control the area? Through violence. All these other options that everyone who is soooo smart talks about--where are they in use? Where are all the smart people living happily without any violence (including the threat of violence) in their culture? If that works so well, why aren't we all doing it? And how would we get rid of all those nasty violent people in our non-violent utopia? What are the options for dealing with them? As for dooming ourselves to living in a culture of violence---I don't know where you live, but here on Earth, that's pretty much how it is. I'd like it to be different, but it ain't. And I wish I knew how to fix it, but as Jack Handy says, "you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first". Scandinavia, Holland, Britain - many European countries have outlawed capital punishment and yet the violent crime rates have not gone up and in fact are lower than what we see here in the US. There are other systems and they work. Do a little homework before throwing your hand up in and saying "Earth is violent, we need to kill the killers." Here in the US, you are MUCH more likely to be put to death for killing a white man than a black man - what does that tell you? There are also several well documented cases of people being exonerated for crimes after their executions. Is that really the system of criminal justice you want to defend to fulfill a need for revenge? If homework is learning about history, you may wish to read a little about Scandinavia honey. First of all, a number of the countries in Europe only outlawed capital punishment because it was required in order to become a member of the EU. It was not because they suddenly became enlightened. Furthermore, subsequent decreases in violence cannot be attributed to this change in policy. Most often, decreases in violent crimes (I mention these because they are most often the common capital crimes)are attributed to increases in economic and political security. Countries in the EU enjoyed this increase--as far as I have heard. I lived there before the EU was around, so that part I can't speak from first hand knowledge. What I can say from first hand knowledge is that even though Scandinavia has a brutal violent history, they have been pretty calm and safe during my lifetime--even before outlawing capital punishment. As for black and white crime: that is a different discussion altogether. That is not an issue here, I believe. And as for your statement that I am defending the system; you have deeply misinterpreted my intentions here. Edited January 2, 2007 by archenemy Quote
joblo7 Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Presenting (ta da)...for your viewing pleasure... the Dictator's of the 20th Century....... Whoa Nellie The men who helped make the 20th century the bloodiest on record t Fiji your 'objective' list is missing quite a few our own leaders.we're in 60+ countries. it also fails to mention the fact that a large number of those you listed were put in power or kept there by our governement, often times replacing democratically elected leaders . Quote
Winter Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 All these other options that everyone who is soooo smart talks about--where are they in use? Where are all the smart people living happily without any violence (including the threat of violence) in their culture? If that works so well, why aren't we all doing it? Scandinavia, Holland, Britain - many European countries have outlawed capital punishment and yet the violent crime rates have not gone up and in fact are lower than what we see here in the US. There are other systems and they work. Furthermore, subsequent decreases in violence cannot be attributed to this change in policy. Most often, decreases in violent crimes (I mention these because they are most often the common capital crimes)are attributed to increases in economic and political security. You asked for an example and I gave you one. I didn't argue about cause and effect. Face it - there are other models of criminal justice that work and that do not involve capital punishment. End of story. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 the best thing we can do is be very careful not to elect full-on war mongers. lets change our policy. last time we voted for the most pro-war. just vote for the less pro-war this time. baby steps..... Quote
archenemy Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 All these other options that everyone who is soooo smart talks about--where are they in use? Where are all the smart people living happily without any violence (including the threat of violence) in their culture? If that works so well, why aren't we all doing it? Scandinavia, Holland, Britain - many European countries have outlawed capital punishment and yet the violent crime rates have not gone up and in fact are lower than what we see here in the US. There are other systems and they work. Furthermore, subsequent decreases in violence cannot be attributed to this change in policy. Most often, decreases in violent crimes (I mention these because they are most often the common capital crimes)are attributed to increases in economic and political security. You asked for an example and I gave you one. I didn't argue about cause and effect. Face it - there are other models of criminal justice that work and that do not involve capital punishment. End of story. My guess is that you may jump to conclusions a little quickly. I believe the example was for other options to violence. Capital punishment is not the only form of violence. Scandinavia came into being by birthing itself in one of the most violent campaigns the world has seen. Your example does not match the request in the least. Quote
ivan Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Presenting (ta da)...for your viewing pleasure... the Dictator's of the 20th Century....... Whoa Nellie The men who helped make the 20th century the bloodiest on record Sani Abacha Nigeria Ahmadou Ahidjo Cameroon Idi Amin Uganda Ibrahim Babangida Nigeria Hastings Banda Malawi Jean-Bédel Bokassa Central African Republic Samuel Doe Liberia Hissène Habré Chad Felix Houphouet-Boigny Cote D'Ivoire Mu'ammar Quathafi Libya Laurent Kabila Democratic Republic of Congo Mathieu Kérékou Benin Maaouiya Ould Taya Mauritania Haile Mariam Menghistu Ethiopia Mobuto Sese Seko Zaire Daniel Arap Moi Kenya Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe Milton Obote Uganda Didier Ratsiraka Madagascar Haile Selassie Ethiopia Ali Solih Comoros Ahmed Sekou Touré Guinea Hafez Al-Assad Syria Chiang Kai Shek China/Taiwan Ngo Dinh Diem Vietnam Hussain Muhammad Ershad Bangladesh Kim Il Sung North Korea Kim Jong Il North Korea Yahya Khan Pakistan Ruhollah Khomeini Iran Mao Tse Tung China Ferdinand Marcos Phillipines Pervez Musharraf Pakistan Mohammed Najibullah Afghanistan Nursultan Nazarbayev Khazakhstan Ne Win Burma Saparmurat Niyazov Turkmenistan Turgut Ozal Turkey Reza Pahlavi Iran Park Chung-Hee South Korea Pol Pot Cambodia Rhee Singman South Korea Saddam Hussein Iraq Thojib Suharto Indonesia Ahmed Sukarno Indonesia Nguyen Van Thieu Vietnam Tojo Hideki Japan Zia Ul-Haq Pakistan Heider Aliev Azerbaijan Ion Antonescu Romania Leonid Brezhnev USSR Josip Broz Yugoslavia Nicolae Ceausescu Romania Francisco Franco Spain Adolf Hitler Germany Erich Honecker East Germany Enver Hoxha Albania Miklos Horthy Hungary Dimitrios Ioannides Greece Wojciech Jaruselzski Poland Leonid Kuchma Ukraine Vladimir Ilyich Lenin USSR Alexander Lukashenko Belarus Slobodan Milosovic Yugoslavia Benito Mussolini Italy Ante Pavelic Croatia Vikdun Quisling Norway Antonio Salazar Portugal Joseph Stalin USSR Franjo Tudjman Croatia Todor Zhivkov Bulgaria Fulgencio Batista Cuba Carlos Castillo Armas Guatemala Fidel Castro Cuba Alfredo Christiani El Salvador Roberto Suazo Cordova Honduras Porfirio Diaz Mexico François 'Papa Doc' Duvalier Haiti Jean Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier Haiti Maximiliano Hernandez Martínez El Salvador Efrain Rios Montt Guatemala Manuel Noriega Panama Anastasio Somoza García Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza Debayle Nicaragua Omar Torrijos Panama Rafael Trujillo Dominican Republic Hugo Banzer Suárez Bolivia René Barrientos Ortuño Bolivia Desi Bouterse Suriname Juan Maria Bordeberry Uruguay Humberto Branco Brazil Forbes Burnham Guyana Carlos Ibanez del Campo Chile Morales Bermudes Peru Manuel Odria Peru Marco Perez Jimenez Venezuela Juan/Eva Peron Argentina Augusto Pinochet Chile Gustavo Rojas Pinilla Colombia Alfredo Stroessner Paraguay Juan Velesco Alvarado Peru Getulio Vargas Brazil Jorge Videla Argentina Juan Vicente Gómez Venezuela George Speight Fiji please repost in some sort of sensible order such as: 1) by last name 2) by country or 3) (my favorite)by most confirmed kills my attention span grew weary towards the end - did you include the CEO's of DOW chemicals and the fella who invented the AK-47? Quote
Winter Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 My guess is that you may jump to conclusions a little quickly. I believe the example was for other options to violence. Capital punishment is not the only form of violence. Scandinavia came into being by birthing itself in one of the most violent campaigns the world has seen. Your example does not match the request in the least. My guess is you can't admit when you're wrong. We were talking about Sadam being put to death - i.e. capital punishment. But you can keep moving the goal posts if it makes you feel better about all this nonsense. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) Please list all the countries and their leaders, since 1900, that were not involved in genocide, purges, or warfare. My next door neighbor cut down a beautiful doug fir that I really loved, so I hacked her up with an axe. No choice. After all, we're a violent species. Oh, and BTW, from a practical standpoint, executions in the USA work out to be three times more expensive to carry out than a life sentence. The European aforementioned experience, which was completely relevant (Archenemy must have gotten her threads mixed up there), proves that the death penalty is not any more of a deterrent than other punishments. DNA testing has shown that about 5% of the folks on death row are innocent. The death penalty has got to go. It offers society no advantages, and offers wrongly convicted death row inmates great disadvantage. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
ryland_moore Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Ah but Fairweather, I am not left-wing. I typically vote Rep. like for the Oregon Govs. race and almost anyone who is against illegal immigration. I even voted for Bush in his first Pres. election. Now I just think he is an idiot. I did read the entire poll, just pointed out the villian portion. He is an idiot and I am ashamed to have him as president and ashamed that I voted for him. As for the barbaristic nature of the Saddam execution, yes it is bad, but I still beliewve in an eye for an eye. The UN denounced the execution, but I whole heartedly disagree. What goes around, comes around. I would expect this for anyone regardless of nationality. If a leader in the U.S. was found guilty of such crimes, then they should be held accountable in the same manner as Saddam or even some murderous thug on the streets. Quote
archenemy Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 My guess is that you may jump to conclusions a little quickly. I believe the example was for other options to violence. Capital punishment is not the only form of violence. Scandinavia came into being by birthing itself in one of the most violent campaigns the world has seen. Your example does not match the request in the least. My guess is you can't admit when you're wrong. We were talking about Sadam being put to death - i.e. capital punishment. But you can keep moving the goal posts if it makes you feel better about all this nonsense. Did you really forget this quote/question? All these other options that everyone who is soooo smart talks about--where are they in use? Where are all the smart people living happily without any violence (including the threat of violence) in their culture? If that works so well, why aren't we all doing it? And I can certainly admit I am wrong. I am wrong in thinking that we were discussing something important--our views toward violence. You labeled it as "nonsense"; so I guess I am wrong. My bad. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) If a leader in the U.S. was found guilty of such crimes, then they should be held accountable in the same manner as Saddam or even some murderous thug on the streets. Had Saddam invaded the US and won, you can bet that it would be Bush hanging from that rope right now. He's guilty of inflicting more than enough human misery to justify serious punishment. Bush hasn't paid for his crimes because he is still secure in his position, not because he's innocent. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
kevbone Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Had Saddam invaded the US and won, you can bet that it would be Bush hanging from that rope right now. He's guilty of inflicting more than enough human misery to justify serious punishment. Bush hasn't paid for his crimes because he is still secure in his position, not because he's innocent. Yah, what he said. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) The 'threat of violence' so often used to describe America, particularly 21st century America, is largely manufactured hooey. Sure, some bad guys want to blow a few things up here. That justifies a 500 billion dollar a year military? Come fucking on. The US is under no threat of invasion or strategic missile attack right now. No, we spend 500 billion a year because we believe the hype, and that includes 'projecting power' (which, in recent conflicts, has nearly always resulted in fucking up a region for decades). If we were really interested in countering threats, we'd be diverting most of that military budget towards resolving our little climate change problem. Edited January 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
archenemy Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 The 'threat of violence' so often used to describe America, particularly 21st century America, is largely manufactured hooey. Sure, some bad guys want to blow a few things up here. That justifies a 500 billion dollar a year military? Come fucking on. The US is under no threat of invasion or strategic missile attack right now. No, we spend 500 billion a year because we believe the hype, and that includes 'projecting power' (which, in recent conflicts, has nearly always resulted in fucking up a region for decades). If we were really interested in countering threats, we'd be diverting most of that military budget towards resolving our little climate change problem. Good point. Quote
gambo Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Iraq was created by the victors of World War I. Its Shia, Sunni and Kurdish peoples did not choose to be flung together, and their antagonisms made the country a powder-keg. Saddam believed that such a nation could be held together only by brutally effective repression. Current events suggest that he may have had a point. We are living in a time of enthusiastic globalization with increasing interdependence, integration and interaction among people. I agree with you - about the USA. We have our fingers in everyone's $ pie. Quote
kevbone Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Its all about the "NEW WORLD ORDER". there I said it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.