Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: 8 & 9 year old girls riding bicycles

On 12/25/2024 6:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Wed Dec 25 13:15:14 2024 AMuzi  wrote:

On 12/25/2024 12:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Tue Dec 24 07:35:57 2024 AMuzi  wrote:

On 12/24/2024 3:53 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
>
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/

>
>
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
>
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.

>
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."

>
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
>
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
>
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
>
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...

>
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
>
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
>

What were the arguments in favor of it?

>
There is probably no justification for discussions  (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
>
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."

>
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
That defies a categorical conclusion.
>
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait.  A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed.  Hard to
argue against it.

>
>
>
>
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.

>
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
>
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.

    What was its cause and what did it achieve?

Iraq invaded, pillaged, raped and enslaved the Kuwaitis.
Rather than holding a press conference and warning about some mythical 'red line' while dithering (that really happened, 2012) or holding a press conference and warning the invader , "Don't" (same team, different spokesman, ten years later), Mr Bush defined victory as 'liberation of Kuwait', drew sensible plans, marshaled the resources to pursue them, authorized competent military commanders, notably Gen Norman Schwartzkopf, and routed teh Iraqui army out of Kuwait in four days.
Not twenty years. Four days.
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare victory and stopped. No nation building, no social experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971