# W to Bomb Iran before leaving office?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Seems like a simple enough proposition.

I'm down for the first "Yes" vote.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ah GWB, the president we love to hate. Truth is much of America expects him to do his worse. It gives a reason etre' to my love hate listenership to Pacific Radio when they'r not playing desperately needed latino programming about Castro, Victor Hada or the Pocho News hour absent from 50% of the radio band. Truth is, without 9/11 we'd be in some deep debate over the failed chinese goods boycott over the recon plane collision or abortion. It's a poor apples and oranges comparison, except both go bad, but bombing Iran would be an unacceptable expansion like Cambodia. Not that Teheran doesn't need a jerk on it's leash. It would hurt the republican bid for the whitehouse. We may go the old proxy route if Israel has recovered from the shock of lebanon.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

No, Bush will not bomb Iran before leaving office. We are currently spread too thin military-wise than is generally wise without getting into a spat with Iran. Most likely, if Iran gives us a reason to bomb them, it will be Israel and not us that takes action.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I went with a "no". I sincerely hope that some of the Euro powers step in a do something. I would think France, for instance, has a much bigger immediate stake than the US or Canada, with its closer proximity reachable by shorter range missles and it's rather unrestful muslim population.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think if Hillary wins the nomination, they will bomb Iran to solidify the need for a "war president" in 2008. I wish I wasn't so cynical, but they think an air strike won't risk that many lives and they have a lot to gain. I think Russia's (I mean Iran's) air defenses are going to be a bit of a shock to the Pentagon. Heck, the Chinese stuff is probably better than Russian by now. I have a friend who studies these things that thinks an airstrike is a lock the last time I asked (about 3 months ago). I'll ask him for an update on Iranian capability.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

No. The "preventive invasion" nonsense, which a dozen previous U.S. presidents have listened to and rejected, has proven to be catastrophic. And Bush/Cheney no longer have carte blanche from the House to play out their fantasy game of Global Dictator.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think Russia's (I mean Iran's) air defenses are going to be a bit of a shock to the Pentagon. Heck, the Chinese stuff is probably better than Russian by now.


I seriously doubt that. Russian air defenses were being used in Iraq (both wars) and failed miserably. Russia has not invested in new R&D and the "chinese stuff" has not been tested however its probably in its infancy. The thing to remember is that any air defense system has to be integrated into a system that is continuously war gamed. Additionally, the war games include simulations against enemy technology which neither side has a grasp of.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I seriously doubt that. Russian air defenses were being used in Iraq (both wars) and failed miserably. Russia has not invested in new R&D and the "chinese stuff" has not been tested however its probably in its infancy. The thing to remember is that any air defense system has to be integrated into a system that is continuously war gamed. Additionally, the war games include simulations against enemy technology which neither side has a grasp of.


Air defense is not an issue with the US arsenal. B-2 bombers fly so high and are so stealthy, their bombs so accurate, that the defensive systems are obliterated before they ever realize a plane was in their air space. Add to that a strike form nuclear subs that launche precision guided cruise missles and then descend back into the depths of the waters without leaving any indication they were ever there.

Special forces are already there, guaranteed, and are pinpointing exact targeting information they need for such an attack, augmenting what our satellites are telling us from space. Before any fighter jets and more convential bombers will start bombing them into the stone age, their air defenses and power to generate them will have been wiped out, for the most part. The only thing left will be the mobile launchers, but that will not be an issue on such a short terms bombing campaign. Tjis will not last as long as Gulf War I, since we are not removing an invading force from another country this time.

Make no mistake about it, with our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, massive air bases in them all, this IS going to happen. Absolutely no way we can allow Israel to do it, and they would if we did not, because the Arab world would be far angrier at them than they are already are and are going to be at us.

I say this as the father of two sons serving on active duty and with no desire for them to be put any further into harms way, but it is absolutely coming and they have been preparing for it for quite some time.

As to the impact on the 2008 presidential race? If it is not already clear to everyone by now that George W. Bush does not care about polls - that he could care less who the next president will be - that he does not believe in trusting the next president to do what he deep down in his heart knows must be done - well, you have not been paying attention. Right or wrong, he has many times indicated that he believes God put him into this job for a reason, at this time in history, and he will not shirk his duty to both country, and God, as he sees it. Some will call that dangerous and crazy, others will call it principle. Whichever it is, he will act on it and the polls be damned.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Make no mistake about it, with our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, massive air bases in them all, this IS going to happen. Absolutely no way we can allow Israel to do it, and they would if we did not, because the Arab world would be far angrier at them than they are already are and are going to be at us.


I disagree that we cannot allow Israel to do it. They set a precedent for such attacks back in 1996 when they destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor through a covert air strike. Besides, nearly every state in the Middle East hates Israel anyway, so it is not as if they will be sacrificing any goodwill in the process. On the other hand, as you mentioned, the United States has significant interests in the Middle East, from oil production to our presence in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. A strike on Iran would significantly inflame Islamic militants to escalate strikes against our ground infrastructure in the Middle East, making the entire region even more unstable than it already is. Israel has no extra-territorial considerations in the area to speak of, and would be a far wiser choice.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So then I have some questions. If we are so powerful and not vulnerable in the air, how come we keep getting things shot down in Iraq? Everything in the arsenal is not stealth. I think that's an assumption we make over and over that there is no risk because we have stealth fighters and bombers, but then I keep hearing in the news how our guys get shot down and killed? Just a week ago, I remember something was shot down and I think about six or eight of our guys got killed. The Chinese are putting up satellites at an alarmingly successful rate aren't they? Didn't they just test shooting down a satellite? I also remember reading that China threatened U.S. private/commercial interests because of a backlog of U.S. satellite capacity companies where going to China. I'm not so sure China hasn't caught up to us in a lot of ways.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So then I have some questions. If we are so powerful and not vulnerable in the air, how come we keep getting things shot down in Iraq? Everything in the arsenal is not stealth. I think that's an assumption we make over and over that there is no risk because we have stealth fighters and bombers, but then I keep hearing in the news how our guys get shot down and killed? Just a week ago, I remember something was shot down and I think about six or eight of our guys got killed. The Chinese are putting up satellites at an alarmingly successful rate aren't they? Didn't they just test shooting down a satellite? I also remember reading that China threatened U.S. private/commercial interests because of a backlog of U.S. satellite capacity companies where going to China. I'm not so sure China hasn't caught up to us in a lot of ways.


I believe you are mistaking the destruction of helicopters from those incidents involving airplanes. Only fourteen Coalition fixed-wing aircraft have been destroyed since our campaign started in 2003, and only three of those incidents actually involved our aircraft being shot down by the enemy. None of these aircraft have been those with stealth technology; only one stealth aircraft has ever been shot down and it was not in the Middle East. Helicopters, as they fly at much lower altitudes and speeds, including the tendency to hover, are much easier targets for surface to air missiles.

As to the Chinese anti-satellite weapon, its test was more of a political gesture and maneuver than any real threat to U.S. security. For one, we have had the capability that the Chinese have just tested since 1985, and if needed we are just as capable of developing defenses for our satellites if needed. The Chinese are attempting to get us to the bargaining table in regards to space-based weaponry, including our anti-missile network in progress. Our two countries have far too much common economic interest for any thoughts of serious conflict between our two nations.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Yes, sadly. It's inevitable. Bush 43 has been headed in this direction for a while now, and barring a last minute decisive challenge from Congress, he'll have his way.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WHOMEWHAT, Shock and Awe has turned into awe shucks in Iraq. Why don't we just send old Third Riech propaganda films of Stukas to Iran?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CCabot said:


> I believe you are mistaking the destruction of helicopters from those incidents involving airplanes. Only fourteen Coalition fixed-wing aircraft have been destroyed since our campaign started in 2003, and only three of those incidents actually involved our aircraft being shot down by the enemy. None of these aircraft have been those with stealth technology; only one stealth aircraft has ever been shot down and it was not in the Middle East. Helicopters, as they fly at much lower altitudes and speeds, including the tendency to hover, are much easier targets for surface to air missiles.
> 
> As to the Chinese anti-satellite weapon, its test was more of a political gesture and maneuver than any real threat to U.S. security. For one, we have had the capability that the Chinese have just tested since 1985, and if needed we are just as capable of developing defenses for our satellites if needed. The Chinese are attempting to get us to the bargaining table in regards to space-based weaponry, including our anti-missile network in progress. Our two countries have far too much common economic interest for any thoughts of serious conflict between our two nations.


Thanks. I do appreciate your answers. Yes, I know a lot are helicopters. I'm sure they will be in there with the Spec. Ops. targeting as was previously mentioned and some will probably go down. But, I'm really shocked that "insurgents" and "terrorists" managed to shoot down three U.S. Aircraft! Is Iran less capable of defending their own air space than Iraq and the insurgents/terrorists? Iraq sure didn't seem to make any progress against Iran in their war.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Thanks. I do appreciate your answers. Yes, I know a lot are helicopters. I'm sure they will be in there with the Spec. Ops. targeting as was previously mentioned and some will probably go down. But, I'm really shocked that "insurgents" and "terrorists" managed to shoot down three U.S. Aircraft! Is Iran less capable of defending their own air space than Iraq and the insurgents/terrorists? Iraq sure didn't seem to make any progress against Iran in their war.


 Iraq's military arsenal included some of the most sophisticated Russian and European military technology available anywhere. Saddam was an enormous purchaser of weaponry from all states that would sell to him. The result was Iraq's military was the most sophisticated of any Middle Eastern nation bar Israel. Iraq in fact made quite good progress in the beginning stages of the Iran-Iraq war, but was eventually repulsed because of a combination of Saddam's strategic incompetence and Iran's usage of millions of ill-armed fanatics known as the Revolutionary Guard in suicidal human waves against the numerically outnumbered Iraqis.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CCabot said:


> Iraq's military arsenal included some of the most sophisticated Russian and European military technology available anywhere. Saddam was an enormous purchaser of weaponry from all states that would sell to him. The result was Iraq's military was the most sophisticated of any Middle Eastern nation bar Israel. Iraq in fact made quite good progress in the beginning stages of the Iran-Iraq war, but was eventually repulsed because of a combination of Saddam's strategic incompetence and Iran's usage of millions of ill-armed fanatics known as the Revolutionary Guard in suicidal human waves against the numerically outnumbered Iraqis.


Interesting. Thanks!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> WHOMEWHAT, Shock and Awe has turned into awe shucks in Iraq. Why don't we just send old Third Riech propaganda films of Stukas to Iran?


You are talking apples and oranges. Gulf War II had a very different military objective than Gulf War I, where we did not suffer the same casualties. Gulf War III (Iran) would be different still in that we would not be invading another country (Gulf War II) nor would we be expelling an occupying force (Gulf War I). The objective here would be to simply take out their nuclear capability, similar to what Israel did to Iraq only on a much larger scale. Iraq had all of its eggs in one basket and, thus, was a much easier target. Iran has spread their nuclear infrastructure throughout the country, so it will not be as easy as it was to take out Iraq's single plant.

No one is talking about sending in ground forces into Iran, other than covert special ops. This would be much more like the bombing of Serbia in the late 90's, only the goal is not to remove a tyrant like we were trying to do then, only to destroy military targets, period. The Serbs had a very sophisticated air defense and even managed to get one of our stealth fighters, but in the end the military targets were obliterated. The same will be true here, only, it will not last as long given the very limited objective.

There is a huge difference between sending in ground troops to take on other ground troops, which requires the use of support helicopters and other low flying aircraft that are, in fact, vulnerable, and a limited air only bombing campaign to destroy particular nuclear targets. High flying B-2 stealth bombers and cruise missiles will be the primary weapons of choice. Cruise missiles are totally invulnerable (pilotless) and the B-2 is not far behind. By the time they realize the bombs have been dropped the B-2 will be long gone are far out of reach. This is not boisterous, it is a simple fact.

The kind of engagement we are involved in currently in Iraq, I agree, is out of the question. We are stretched too far to attempt that, nor is such even necessary.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No. The "preventive invasion" nonsense, which a dozen previous U.S. presidents have listened to and rejected, has proven to be catastrophic. And Bush/Cheney no longer have carte blanche from the House to play out their fantasy game of Global Dictator.


I agree with Frank. Don't see how Bush has the political leverage to pull this off.

An attack would basically sell out the Republicans politically.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Like I said, obviously we can bomb Iran with impunity. And like Ralph Nader pointed out, we can't even stop illegal aliens from walking across the border, let alone a terrorist.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

JRR said:


> I agree with Frank. Don't see how Bush has the political leverage to pull this off.


You are confusing the War Powers Act, which does rest with Congress, with the President's authority to bomb a nuclear facility as part of the global war on terror. He simply does not need "permission" from Congress. Political leverage, as you put it, is not necessary for the Commander in Chief to launch some cruise missiles and drop bombs from B2 bombers. The Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton launched a few missiles at the aspirin factory, if you remember, and Republicans were not happy about it, but could do nothing to stop it either. Clinton did not need permission when he launched a similar attack on Iraq after it was learned they had tried to assassinate W's dad in Kuwait. He did not need it there either.

My point was and is that this President is going to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country, regardless of any political fallout. He cares first and foremost about doing what he believes is necessary to safeguard this country and will not leave it to the next President in the hopes that he will take care of it. Depending on the scope of the attack, the success or failure of the attack, it may or may not have a huge impact on Republicans. He will do it anyway, without any consideration of its impact on Republicans. That is the point.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Heaven forbid a president act out of conviction and a sense of duty than from political considerations!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

True, but what convictions and duty to whom?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I don't think the US will strike Iran before the next President assumes office if at all, for two reasons. 

First there seems to be growing domestic disastisfaction with the regime in Iran. Recent local election results were a blow to Ahmadinejad's faction plus the Iranian economy is dire shape which is only partially masked by high oil prices. Time might be against the regime though in all honesty that is something which has been said since at least 1997.

Second Bush, rightly or wrongly, lacks international legitmacy and a new President, regardless of party, will get if not a clean slate, at least a fresher start. If by 2009-2010 very little progress has been made on the nuclear issue a new President can correctly point out that diplomacy has been given 5-6 years without success and Iran is now 5-6 years closer to a weapon. By that time Sunni states like Jordan and Saudia Arabia might not only sanction a strike against Iran but might actually champion one.

There also exists a few wildcards - namely that a diplomatic solution is reached or that Israel launches a unilateral pre-emptive strike. To the first possibility I am skeptical about reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran but who would have thought we could reach one with North Korea (though the long term success of the recent accord with Pyongyang remains to be seen.) And to the second possibility there still remains much debate whether Israel possesses the long range (for them anyway) conventional strike capability that would be necessary.

Karl


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> . . . a new President can correctly point out that diplomacy has been given 5-6 years without success and *Iran is now 5-6 years closer to a weapon.*


5-6 years closer to a weapon? In 5-6 years Iran will be fully armed with a nuclear weapon and then we will be able to do nothing without them retaliating, against Israel! Hence, the reason Israel will NEVER permit Iran to get a weapon.

In any event, I have voted yes and will refrain from further comment until the bombs begin dropping, probably before the end of this year. Then we can start a new thread: "Was the President right for bombing Iran?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Diplomacy will have been given 30 years with Iran by 2009.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, if you will recall we had a short naval engagement and shot up the iranian navy. Unfortunately an overaggressive ship's captain dreaming of scrambled eggs on his visor blundered and shot down a civilian airliner. The iranian people, largely weary of a repressive regime but not ignorant of our own past political blundering in iranian affairs since Mossadeq are that airliner.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> You are confusing the War Powers Act, which does rest with Congress, with the President's authority to bomb a nuclear facility as part of the global war on terror. He simply does not need "permission" from Congress. Political leverage, as you put it, is not necessary for the Commander in Chief to launch some cruise missiles and drop bombs from B2 bombers. The Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton launched a few missiles at the aspirin factory, if you remember, and Republicans were not happy about it, but could do nothing to stop it either. Clinton did not need permission when he launched a similar attack on Iraq after it was learned they had tried to assassinate W's dad in Kuwait. He did not need it there either.
> 
> My point was and is that this President is going to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country, regardless of any political fallout. He cares first and foremost about doing what he believes is necessary to safeguard this country and will not leave it to the next President in the hopes that he will take care of it. Depending on the scope of the attack, the success or failure of the attack, it may or may not have a huge impact on Republicans. He will do it anyway, without any consideration of its impact on Republicans. That is the point.


I know he can do it without the consent of Congress. Sheesh...

I just don't think it would be very poltically wise.

If I am a Republican running in 2008, I want Bush to leave Iran alone.

IMO, the American people are tired of the war stuff. People basically want all of this unpleasantry to go away. Bush attacking Iran will be spun into "getting us into another war".

Do I agree with this general sentiment? Nope! Iran needs to be neutralized.

However, our country has turned very soft...

Andrew McCarthy with National Review can explain my point better:

"Meanwhile, the once-shining clarity of the Bush Doctrine has dimmed. The great calling of our age, President Bush declared while smoke billowed from 9/11's wreckage, was to defeat jihadists and quell the rogues who might abet them. He couldn't have been more right. Five weary years later, though, the administration seems at times to be running on empty. The answer to our great calling has tapered to stabilizing Baghdad - while we abide Russia and China's enabling of Iran, promote Fatah terrorists in their standoff with Hamas terrorists, and indulge Kim Jong-il's remaking of the same dozen-year old promises whose flouting has graduated North Korea from extortionist to nuclear extortionist.

It's hard to blame the president. He's got to fight for every inch now. He is trying to move forward by meeting his critics halfway - decency they meet with bile. But he is in this fix because his administration has failed to rally the American people to the cause, to make them own it, rather than delegate it to 150,000 of our best and bravest while the rest of us go shopping. The Left has gleefully filled that void. With the help of its media allies, it daily saps the national will to stay on guard and take the fight to those determined to kill us."

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjA5MzhhYTk5N2E2NzI3MTgwYWU4OTNkMWEyYWNhZWQ=

I particularly enjoy the part about how Americans just want to shop....

Cheers


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JRR said:


> IMO, the American people are tired of the war stuff. People basically want all of this unpleasantry to go away. Bush attacking Iran will be spun into "getting us into another war".


You're so right about this. Unfortunately our enemy has not tired of it. Yes we have gone soft.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

i just dont understand republicans who are pro-life, but are ready to annihilate life in the middle east.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

bulla said:


> i just dont understand republicans who are pro-life, but are ready to annihilate life in the middle east.


Thank you for that shocking relevation!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

bulla said:


> i just dont understand republicans who are pro-life, but are ready to annihilate life in the middle east.


I hear this nonsense from Pro-Abortion advocates all the time: "How can you support the death penalty and be Pro-Life?"

It has always puzzled me why this very simple concept is so very difficult for some to understand. Those who are "Pro-Life" support the right of an INNOCENT human life, one that has never harmed a soul in its entire short life in the womb, to be born.

When we support the death penalty, or the annihilation of our *enemies* (no one is "ready to annihilate [all] life in the middle east," as you hysterically :crazy: suggest), we are not talking about INNOCENT life, we are talking about criminals, murderers, those who want to destroy us. If you cannot understand the difference, well, to be perfectly blunt, you are simply ignorant. :teacha:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JRR said:


> IMO, the American people are tired of the war stuff. People basically want all of this unpleasantry to go away. Bush attacking Iran will be spun into "getting us into another war".


Spun? What else would you call it? Wait, I know: "preventive invasion".

Considering the hindsight of Iraq, has this policy proven itself to be something other than catastrophic?

Most of the world now views the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than North Korea, China or Iran. Meanwhile a large segment of Bush's remaining supporters pray daily that he is the catalyst for Armageddon.

I'll be surprised if civilization survives this presidency.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> When we support the death penalty, or the annihilation of our *enemies* (no one is "ready to annihilate [all] life in the middle east," as you hysterically :crazy: suggest), we are not talking about INNOCENT life, we are talking about criminals, murderers, those who want to destroy us. If you cannot understand the difference, well, to be perfectly blunt, you are simply ignorant. :teacha:


I agree with the Catholic Church on this issue. Capitol punishment is simply a politically correct label for institutionalized murder. It does not deter crime, it is unnecessary for self-defense, in fact it serves no purpose whatsoever except to bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers, and give "closure" to vindictive half-wits.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Spun? What else would you call it? Wait, I know: "preventive invasion".
> 
> .


Frank,

You're a hard guy to agree with. I take your side on a point and yet get critized for dare suggesting that the Left leaning media will spin Bush actions as war mongering.

I don't understand the hostility, I can deduce per your previous posts that that you should have some basic understanding that in politics different sides will frame or dare I say "spin" issues to move toward their goals.

You should be happy, the American populace has accepted the "failure" of Iraq, and basically just want us to leave. As I stated above, I don't think that Bush can pull off an attack on Iran in this political climate.

Cheers


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JRR said:


> Frank,
> 
> You're a hard guy to agree with. I take your side on a point and yet get critized for dare suggesting that the Left leaning media will spin Bush actions as war mongering.
> 
> ...


I agree, and I wasn't criticizing you. My first question was directed to anyone: read any Bush or Cheney speech made in the last five years and tell us what "spin" is necessary to portray it as war mongering toward Iraq, and now Iran?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If your a caribou hunter standing on the tundra plain location of a future Paris and a band member murdered another what do you do? Your overriding concern is the protection of the band. You can't very well turn him out where he can later ambush and harm or kill the Band's further. Your mastadon bone and hide shelters are hardly secure enough for permanent incarceration. So you slit his throat with a flint blade. Society has a duty above all to protect itself from criminals. We have institutions to theoretically do that. They are called prisons.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

https://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

The EU seems resigned to Iran developing and deploying nuclear weapons. How ironic then that an international summit was held in Munich last week.

Note to Berlin, Paris, London and Moscow: An Iranian nuke is far more likely to be within range of your countries than it is the US.

Karl


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Capitol punishment is simply a politically correct label for institutionalized murder. It does not deter crime, it is unnecessary for self-defense, in fact it serves no purpose whatsoever except to bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers, and give "closure" to vindictive half-wits.


Much of what you say makes sense, or is at least worthy of debate, but then you muddy up a perfectly good point with utter nonsense.

"Capitol punishment is simply a politically correct label for institutionalized murder."

Again, murder is the taking of an INNOCENT life. You can debate the morality, or immorality, of capital punishment, and that is a legitimate basis for disagreement, but your argument loses any credibility when you make what truly are PC statements, like calling it institutionalized murder. Murder involves such things as malice of forethought, deliberation or premeditation in connection with a serious crime.

". . . it serves no purpose whatsoever except to bring an entire society down to the same level as murderers, and give "closure" to vindictive half-wits."

To then compare society as a whole to that of murderers, when society is trying to protect the greater good while a murderer takes innocent life, well, again it smells of ignorance. Maybe it is true that you cannot justify a wanton, immoral act simply because you believe it is connected to a higher purpose. Maybe we need to evolve as a society beyond capitol punishment. Personally, I would rather a murderer spend the rest of his/her life in jail, deprived of all basic rights, until the day they die. The problem is that convicted murderers enjoy more rights than many law abiding citizens. They have cable television, three meals a day, access to a bathroom, shower. They have healthcare. The homeless have it far worse than they do.

Society has a right to safeguard itself from murderers, and while capital punishment might be barbaric, it guarantees that the murderer can never commit murder again. Until and unless we can guarantee that those who commit the worst of crimes can never be let out, escape, be pardoned by some liberal governor, then capital punishment is the only protection against reoccurrence. It does "deter crime" in that it prevents the convicted murderer from ever murdering again, and for now, that is good enough for me.


----------

