Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Judges get slammed often; here is an example of a good decision.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/19/daughter.pedophile.ap/index.html

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- A federal appeals court threw out the 10-year prison sentence of a woman who rented her 9-year-old daughter to a pedophile more than 200 times, saying the punishment was too lenient.

The woman often held the girl down in their home while Joe J. Champion molested her, according to court documents. Champion typically paid the mother $20.

The Associated Press is not naming the woman, to protect her daughter's identity.

"The factors of this case are no less than horrifying," Judge William Jay Riley wrote in the unanimous opinion released Monday by a three-judge panel.

Champion pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The woman, convicted in 2003 of aggravated sexual abuse and conspiring with Champion to help him molest the girl, was sentenced to 17-1/2 years in prison -- the minimum provided under sentencing guidelines.

She appealed, and a panel of judges sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Charles A. Shaw, saying he might have given her a lighter sentence if he had known he was not bound by the guidelines.

Shaw then sentenced the woman to 10 years, saying mental problems and drug addiction had influenced her behavior. The judge also noted that she had taken parenting classes and had vocational training while in prison.

The judge said he did not believe the woman posed a danger to the public and was unlikely to repeat the actions, according to court documents.

The appeals judges disagreed. They found the woman's efforts to rehabilitate herself neither "lessen the horrendous treatment" of her daughter, nor indicate that she would not again offer her daughter to an abuser for money.

Kevin Schriener, the woman's attorney, said Tuesday he would ask for a rehearing of the appeal.

She deserves alot more than the death penalty.  I can't wait for someone to come and defend her actions and view her as the victim.

I can't think of one person on this board or in real life who would defend her actions by any means.

There are no Republican members of Congress that post here, that I am aware of.

Liberal judges for you, thats worse than the judge in Vermont who gave a child rapist 90 days.

I could see Lisa coming in and defending her against severe punishment saying "she made a grave error" and will pay for it in prison and all that jazz.  Calling me a redneck for wanting to put the bitch down.  I say this because she essentially did that same thing last week.

Where are these Republican child molestors at?  I'm sure you're trying to reference Folley, but he wasn't a child molestor.  In fact, Republicans were the ones asking for harsher penalties, not the Democrats.  But I won't try to attack the other side by saying Dems condone child molestation, as neither party does.

well wait until somebody does before posting that you think someone will....its like you're trying to goad someone into an arguement or something.  I don't think you'd need to stir up the hornets nest that would transpire if someone posted defending or minimizing the actions of that bitch.  she should be sterilized and never able to see that poor kid again.

I think you should not speak on behalf of others, especially for something of this nature.

You should apologize.



Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own.......


(yawn)

so she's crazy. so what ? you gonna kill all the crazies ?

Crazies and old people it seems........

so you would just pat her on the head and give her some candy?

(... I think she'd prefer drugs)

Judges like that give not only liberals a bad name, but humans in general.  That is totally disturbed.  I tend to lean left of center, but my stance on crime is to the right of Genghis Khan's.  While I think the death penalty is useless as a deterrent, this woman should be doing hard time in a nasty prison for the rest of her miserable life. 

to go beyond the DP issue, which absolutely stupid and do not need any argumentation

you're talking about the general issue of punishement

why do we punsih ? what's the point ? is it to "get back" at someone?
i dont think so
we're a society, a worlwide society now, so our actions must have reasons and objectives

at a local level,  if you hit me, i will hit you, and that's ok,  we're 2 kids, no big deal; my actions do NOT always have to be senseful and be "useful"

but we're talking about society

it's pretty simple, if there is not outcome / output  out of an action, then it's useless

putting that girl in prison so she can be miserable is simply stupid. what will that do ? what do you get out of it ? what do WE get out of it.

i'm saddened by what the wittle girl had to suffer, but when the woman goes the prison, it doesnt do anything for me, it doesnt make me feel good, and i dont feel like we've created something, it is just a useless act.

we have to think further than the act

i kill her so _____ i feel good ? she won't hurt anymore ?
i put her in prison so ______ she feels bad and i can laugh at it?
i put her in a mental institute and try to help here change so _______ i've changed something ?


i dunno, i dont have the answers. but we really should look at how useless some actions are.

i'd rather have her work for free in africa , building roads or serving poor people than haveing her in prison.

that's what we should do.
you steal a car ? we send you 3 months in africa and you make food for a village and clean their shit.
at least the world get something out of it.

I agree.

Have her clean shit or work repairing a leaking nuclear plant for life.

People go to prison as punishment for their crimes. Positive side-effect; for the duration of their sentence they're not a threat to their victims or the general public.  How is that a bad thing?

And that last sentence you wrote might just be the silliest idea I've ever seen expressed on the issue of crime and punishment. "Yeah, make 'em work at a car-wash in des moines for six months, that'll achieve. . . something!"

A rather disturbed individual - lets be grateful the police found out to begin with

That is EXACTLY how I am too.  We seem to be on the same page, we should run for office together hahaha  : ok:   

However, as for the DP as a deterrent, I'm not 100% sure I agree with that because nobody is going to come forward and say, "I was going to kill that son of a bitch, but then I realized if I get caught i'd get the DP".  nobody is going to admit to anyone they were close to committing a crime...

When i'm trying to fight for my son, reading this makes me wonder.

The guy's sentence is not sufficient, let alone what they said about the mother.

I wonder why judges seem to think it is not " that bad" to have a kid raped.

I have asked myself the question so many times without having an answer that the only rationnal one that comes to mind is disgusting and i question their moralities.

No one ever investigates judges BECAUSE of that, they are judges.

But before anything else, they are humans.

But who are they  ? what do they like ? what's their family life like ? are their kids happy ? what are their vices ?

I am sure there would be judges ( and lawyers) who would NEVER work again if they were investigated once every 5 years throughout their careers.

You have to be neutral to judge, but what if they are not, if their personnal lifes enter in the game,  if they don't sentence sexual offences or crimes because THEY REALLY THINK IT IS OK ?

WHAT IF ?

the idea how having her removed from society so she does not commit other crime is
1- natural, any kind of solution (prison, institute, forced work abroad) does it
2- so it's not the property of the prison system.


so prison positive outcome is : they are not a threat
forced work : they are not a threat AND they create value

you do the math

prison and DP comes from an old need of human beings to be closer to god. they process the will of god on earth.

just watch the reaction of people when they hear the sentence of a criminals: " oh man ! im so happy !! he got what he deserved !! "

deep inside we are scared. and seeing a criminal paying for his crime in a ruthless way, makes us more safe, as a society. it's all about " getting back at someone" and as we know
getting back at someone does not bring anything but .... a sinful pleasure.

I actually somewhat agree with your analysis of the DP, as I have expressed on this board on prior occasions.? Nonetheless, this is one of those cases that makes you attempt to justify retribution.? If people can assure me that someone like this can never ever get out of prison for the rest of their life, I may reassess the merits of the DP.? However, so long as there are idiot judges that will say that people like this are one day rehabilitated, I will not advocate abolishing the DP.

Why is it that anytime someone does something outrageous like this, people call them "crazy" and advocate special treatment like a mental hospital.  Whatever happened to people just being plain "evil" and committing horrendous crimes because they don't think they'll get caught.  This woman isn't mentally challenged, nor is she a child who could not understand or distinguish between right and wrong.  I have no sympathy for this piece of shit.  I wish nothing but pain and suffering on her as her child will be traumatized for the rest of her life.  If this woman was truly sorry for what she did, she'd off herself as no self-respecting person could live with the shame and guilt.

"Forced" labor (slavery, I think it's actually called) is a violation of human rights as agreed upon by, you know, all of the civilized nations of the world. It's not something that you visit upon the citizens of your own country just for fun and profit. What you're advocating is a dangerous and immature (or at best, poorly thought-out) non-solution. Imprisonment is a natural form of punishment in a free society; You have abused the freedoms granted you by society and so you are denied the opportunity to abuse those freedoms. It is a just punishment. Violation of civil ethics punished by the denial of civil liberties. What you're advocating is a far worse punishment, denial of their basic rights as members of our species. Prisoners do work, or are at least given the opportunity to work, in many prisons. It's their choice whether or not to participate and they're paid a small wage for their efforts.   Enslaving prisoners into forced work gangs is comparitively excessive punishment, has absolutely no rehabilitation value, and is a completely unrelated "solution" to the problem at hand. And if you think it's a safe and productive idea, I suggest reading up on the subject. It was common practice until the dawn of the 20th century and didn't entirely dwindle away until fairly recently. Try googling "convict work gangs" for a taster of how successful the idea hasn't been in the past.   


Hey, here's an even better idea! Let's round up all of the homeless people and force them to work for us! It might be a violation of their rights but it would get them off the streets! Throw in a clean shirt and a free lunch every day, lock them up in sheds overnight. Clothes, food, shelter, their lives will improve immediately. They won't be homeless, and they'll create value! SOLVED!

Yeah, that's the other thing. I don't think that anyone can claim that this woman's behaviour resembles irrational thought. Utterly vile, disgusting thought - but far from insanity. Saying that she's crazy is a cop-out. Some mentally "healthy" people do sick, perverted things. Deal with it. This woman doesn't belong in a hospital, she belongs in a cell. 

Damn, that's a good idea. ?Either that or we could go Patrick Bateman on their ass ?: ok:

It's a solid business solution! Haliburton will be all over that in a second. Hey, maybe we can send all of the prisoners and all of the homeless guys to Iraq! They can help pretend to rebuild the country and double as body armor for the troops! Something for both sides of the aisle there. I'm a uniter. 

the homeless would just fit in with the native people in Iraq though (no homes, no jobs, no security)....then they'd just be recruited into the ranks of Al Queda  :-\

The retribution vs. rehabilitation debate has been around forever. ?My guess is that most people are in favor of a combination of both. ?

In this case, what if 1 year into her sentence there is a scientific/medical breakthrough whereby through some pill or otherwise this woman can be instantly converted into a fine upstanding citizen, where not only would she never be a threat to anyone, she would be a great asset to her community. ?Should she be immediately released from prison?

No. Make her take the pill first. Duh.
That's the kind of oversight that's going to ruin the magic pill's reputation.

Good one, but you forgot the snare drum.  I should go to prison for that mistake.  Anyway...

No, because what's stopping me from going on a crime spree knowing that I'll be forced to take the pill and be released.  I could make a fortune doing talk shows and books because I killed 80 toddlers before I was "redeemed."  Since we hold everyone to the same standard, you can't whipe the slate clean because now they know better.  If Ted Bundy had a vision from God and repented all he did, would you let him out?

Okay, new rule, you can't have the magic pill if you kill 80 toddlers. That's going way too far. I'm drawing the line at 43.



The "magic pill" idea is fundamentally flawed on two levels;

1) Knowing that what you did was wrong doesn't make it retroactively not happen. The fact that, in hindsight, maybe you wouldn't have killed so many people (or whichever crime you like) isn't grounds for appeal. I'm sure that many people in prison wish they'd had better impulse control.
2) It's not a quandry that can be effectively argued because NO-ONE WILL EVER CREATE THAT PILL. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that we, as a people, can collectively agree to cross that bridge when we come to it.

Well Ted Bundy was executed and I don't think he saw much of God... rather, I'm pretty sure he's hanging with the real Randall Flagg these days.

Well, nothing can be done to make it retroactively not happen.

And, no, it won't ever happen, but do you think it impossible that inmates with life sentences can be genuinely rehabilitated?? If it is possible, does that mean that people are released at the point of rehabilitation or do they need to suffer the punishment originally doled out?

I don't think that these are hard questions to answer, or at least not moral stumpers. Some criminals can be rehabilitated, some can't. There's no way to know which ones are which until they're released, and that's a pretty huge flaw. Certain types of criminal are more likely to re-offend (such as career criminals and sex offenders) and I'm sure that's taken into account both in the sentencing and parole process. That aspect of system is about as scientifically accurate as it's going to get (or, in other words, it's a delicate esoteric art - or a sixth-grader's lab experiment).

The punishment is based on the type and severity of the crime. If someone is convicted and goes through all of their appeals and is still staring down the barrel of a life sentence without parole then yes, they should serve their time. You don't end up in that situation just because the judges think it's funny to see the look on your face, you've usually earned it.

I don't see why so many people are so eager to look at alternatives to imprisonment. Sure, on one side you have the people who complain about the cost of keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, but those people are plain stupid. What I don't understand is the people who want other options for the sake of options. The system of punishment that we have is good.  The death penalty is questionable, and parole is hit and miss, but the prison part works just as it's supposed to. High walls, big locks. It's simple and effective. 

Interesting hypo Steele.? May I also comment, the effect on the victims and family of the victims of having that person back out on the street - even if there is absolute assurance that the person will never commit a crime again - may be a basis to keep that person in prison for reasons other than pure retribution.

Put her in a male prison. That should teach her.

Probably because imprisonment has shown not to work.

Now you can't be serious! Just have yourself stand in the kids shoes. I'm pretty sure a part you want to pay back.

And also, you don't want that to happen to anyone else.

How come, even dog has morals, take a dog who sees something "wrong" and it will pull it's leash and bark and if it get's loose I doubt it will attack the little girl.

And someone doing this has not.

Ask 1000 people their oppinnion about this and the majority will want to put these motherfuckers down. And I, for a fact, despise people like this share our genepool.

so we're dogs ?  dmx ?

i know 1000 people would go for it, but hey, people think with emotions. your words sweat emotions and feelings, not reasoning.
when you want to beat up someone, it's not your brain thinking, it's your heart. weakness.

violence has NEVER EVER solved anything ... at a macroscopic level.

^^^I think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima solved a lot if you ask me.

one, you know, things like that makes me want to wish that a bomb drops on your town and burn all your family and friends.

that was one disgusting thing to say.
sometime i even wish god exist so all you fucked up americans and international warmongers can burn in hell.

Real nice WAT-Ever.  You really have no understanding of war and tactics.  War has solved plenty fo problems, let's say allowing you to speak French instead of German.  No one should pray for war, but to say it has never solved anything at the macro level is just loony.

you're a real asshole dude - calm the F down.  I'm sorry if you want the world to hold hands and sing love songs all day and night but thats not reality.  The fact of the matter is dropping the bomb on Japan in WW2 ended the war, which saved hundreds of thousands of lives (on both sides) and it did solve the conflict.

was it a nice and neat solution, no, the bomb is terrible, but in the end it justified the means.  In that case, violence solved something.

and if it wasn't for us "warmongering americans" you'd be speaking German right now.  Dipshit.

Couple of points;
Dropping "the bomb" (an entirely different kind of bomb, actually) on Nagasaki ended "the war".
"The war" it ended was the ongoing Japan vs America conflict, WW2 was already over for pretty much the rest of the world.
And we'd all be speaking Russian, not German. And the reason that we aren't has more to do with the existance of the Allied alliance than the US itself.

For the record, I don't want to see a bomb drop on your town just because you were revelling in a war crime. I would, however, advise reading up on the subject a little. Perhaps from sources other than your high-school history textbook.   

It works fine. You lock people up, they stay where they are. Very, very rarely does it fail.

I assume you're alluding to some other aspect not working, such as rehabilitation. One thing has nothing to do with the other, imprisonment and rehabilitation are two seperate subjects. To say that the physical structures of imprisonment have any effect on the outcome of rehabilitation efforts is a little short-sighted. I'd probably look at it a little harder and ask why the ideas which drive rehabilitation never seem to work out, instead of blaming the failure on the existence of prisons.

So you get 10 or less years for molesting a child but if you have child porn you get several times that.  Am I the only one that thinks that makes no sense at all? 

relax dude, i wasn't trying to give wat-ever a history lesson, i think anyone with an ounce of common sense would know what i was referring to by "dropping the bomb" and "ending the war".

and i was far from "revelling" in the bomb being dropped - not quite sure where you made that conclusion (infact I said it was terrible).  the simple point i was trying to make is that violence can and has and does solve things.  Not who ended what war or what language anyone would be talking or banging my chest screaming "america, FUCK YEAH".  I love how some of you always try to make mountains out of mole hills to start other nit picky arguements and go off topic.

And for the record, had the US not landed in Normandy, I think the French would be speaking German.  The Germans would have had a much easier time dealing with Russia if they didn't have to worry about fighting us as well.

I don't know what books you've read, but had it not been for America, England would have fallen (Churchhill said they could only go another month or so) and all of Germany would have been focused on Russia. ?Now I'm well read enough to know that the Americans were no supermen, and won by shear numbers and manufacturing capabilities. ?We couldn't have won the war in Japan without the bomb, plain and simple. ?Had the emperor of Japan not told his people to not-resist, even the bombs woulndn't have mattered. ?Could America have beat Germany on its own, probably not. ?But without America, England wouldn't have been a factor and Russia would have soon followed. ?That can't be said the other way around.

The reality is that Germany took France with out much of a fight.  The French just laid down their weapons.  Every other nation involved fought tooth and nail but for one.

I really doubt it. By the time that the US got involved Germany had already lost 2/3rds of it's army on the Russian front. If they hadn't had to defend the western front, it's likely that they would have kept sending their soldiers to their death in the east and could well have lost the war even faster. Had the Allied forces not taken western Germany it's unlikely that the Russians would have stopped there, they'd probably have taken all of mainland Europe besides Spain and Portugal. Then again, would Russia have been so quick to march if there wasn't the threat of the US and UK claiming western Europe for themselves? We'll never know. But what we can know is that none of us were in any real danger of speaking German at the end of 1942,  even the Germans, who were pretty lucky to get invaded by nations terrified of Communism.  :P

Will you guys ever stop saying that? It is so dumb.  ::)

If it weren't for the French we'd be singing "God save the Queen" right now.........how 'bout that one?

You would be correct.

I agree, it's a dumb thing to say, but there's more creedence to it than saying the French helped American with the revolutionary war.  We had already turned the tide and that's when the french came, much like the US did in WWI.  A more valid argument for why the US won the Revolutionary war would be England's lack of interest here and being more oriented in what was going on in India.

England would have fallen at any time, had Germany actually been able to manage the logistics of mounting an attack across the channel. What saved England was not timing or the US involvement but a thin strip of water sperating them from northern France.

Germany was already focussed on Russia and, besides an early push into the territory, were doing very poorly. Germany was desperate to take the southern Russian oil fields and industrial areas so we can safely assume that they weren't just going to sit tight and watch their resources dry up. The eastern front was the most important theater in the war for the Reich, and it went poorly from, what, day 2? I mean, the historical facts and figures remain, the more resources Germany committed to the eastern front the more resources they lost. To say there was some danger of them winning in that arena, with the perspecive of hindsight, is delusional.


I don't know so much about the US/Japan side of things, if obliterating two civilian cities with the most dangerous technology of the age was the only way to beat Japan,  that doesn't say much for the US military at the time. Or maybe it just speaks volumes for the Japanese. Could go either way.

Quick factiod; not every other nation fought tooth & nail. Austria and the Sudetenland for example. Though it isn't fair to point fingers at the latter. Our bad.

 :rofl: what does this shit have to do with some pervert, a sick freak of a woman and her poor kid.

Man what a fucked up world we live in :no:

I don't think Austria or the Sudetenland had much reason to resist Germany.  Hitler himself was Austrian, they were annexed, they weren't invaded. 

With regard to Japan, I think it speaks more of their determination than the quality of the American soldier.  Next to the German soldier, i think the Japanese soldier would be ranked second best in the war, followed by the Russian closely followed by the American.  Actually having your country invaded is great motivation.... well for most countries at least.

It's enirely related! In so much as we ran out of things to say about that, so now we're talking about this.  :hihi:

A blame the French for this woman's actions......

I think both territories had every reason to resist, Austria didn't have the means and we gave Germany the Sudetenland because we were pussies. Austria was annexed, by invasion. The Germans literally told the Austrian government that the German army would be marching on their capital and that they could either concede power to Hitler or fight for it. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put that on my top ten list of mutually beneficial and diplomatically successfull annexations.

I don't understand why the US had such a hard time with the Japanese though. Were they just unable to land a ground force, did the Japanses just fight too hard? Better weapons? Logistics? It's always logistics.

haha ok :hihi: in that case...wasn't germany's downfall the fact that their army was spread so thin?

actuallyyou guys want to go back far in history and build up a chain of event, and then you stop to " the bomb ended the war"

just like if history ended that day. no.

1st - we dont know what outcome the war would have arose if the americans didnt drop a freakin nuclear bomb on civilians.
2nd - the outcome of the drop go way further the simple end of the war: hate towards americans, it changed your country and it changed japan, it had massive impact on world geopolitics. america has turn way more extreme since that day, and i wouldnt be surprise if .... butterfly effect ... 911 comes from there: it built america and the way they treat things ... and in the end you guys get 2 planes in the head.

it would be just like saying " thank god for 911, at least we were able to attack iraq ... "

in the long run, the bomb was a bad idea.
and i stand my point NOTHING good comes from violence. (from a macroscopic point of view, me punchin someone is no big deal)
when there is violence, there are losers
when there are losers there is hate and jealousy, then the social fluid is broken, and you get more violence
easy.

financial violence > poor people > crime

i'm going very fast here, but you guys needs to get out of superman's comics and such. the story does not end when supermand kicks lex luthor ass.

PEACE

Sort of. By the latter stages of the war they were spread thin, but when they first took on Russia they were well-stocked and looking good for it. Then again, so was Napoleon.

In the long run the bomb had many positive effects. Fewer wars, way fewer casualties in war even in really bloody (by today's standards) wars. Fear of "the bomb" has kept western countries from fighting each other for decades. Millions of lives haven't been wasted in pointless wars because leaders have been forced into diplomacy (Mr. Bush is a rebel).

Of course, there was also the cold war. But how many people died as a direct result of the cold war? Hardly any. Maybe a few spies. That's it.

The bomb has been good to us. We've just treated it poorly.

Better training. ?America had the best logistics and our ground weapons were supperior to Japan, but we would have lost millions in a ground invasion. ?Too many Japanese and surrender was not perceived as an option. ?So America dropped 2 atomic bombs back to back under the illusion that we had plenty more where that came from. ?Fortunately, Japan didn't call our bluff and surrendered.

so if the bomb had dropped on the some us city and the war had ended, you would have thought the same way ?

the bomb was stupid. and you know it. it's just your mind trying to protect yourself from the fear of knowing that you're not safe.


anyway. maybe one day, if your whole family dies in pain and suffering in the warm blow of a nuclear strike, you'll understand :)
maybe i will too.

edit : on and yeah, 911 was positive effect too ?  ;D

Some people I definately would be able to kill without hesitation.
I want torture to be a legal punishment against paedophiles and shit like that, rapists etc.

The Japanese were the agressors in WWII. ?They bombed Pearl Harbor and we bombed two of their cities. ? I never understood the opposition to the "atomic" bomb. ?If you're against war in total, fine that's a different argument. ?But to oppose just the nuclear/hydrogen/atomic/cobalt bomb is just stupid. ?It's a more efficient bomb. ?WAT-Ever's comment are inane at best. ?Anyone who claims nothing good has come from war is an idealist and not able to discuss things on a rationale level. ?Topics like that may garner attention in academia, but no where in the real world. ?You can argue against the US's use in Japan, but to argue against war all together. ?

Since it's ok to wish hypothetical disaster on someone, I wish the allies never would have saved your country WAT-Ever and then you wouldn't have been able to live in France or whatever African/Asian country your family immigrated from because the Nazis would have destroyed both nations..


PEACE

You could blame Bush also.  The war in Iraq diverted resources that otherwise could have stopped this woman.

Randall, trying to reason with wat-ever is impossible, he doesn't have rose colored glasses on, he got the lasik surgery for rose colored vision.  The US never would have had to drop the bomb on japan had it not been attacked at Pearl.  Oh but wait, Wat-ever probably thinks we shouldn't have retaliated for that right??  SO now we bring the fight to them and we start to win, we can continue to fight, prolonging an already bloody, terrible war YEARS in length, killing literally millions of american troops and japanese soldiers AND civilians.  The japanese mindset at the time was no surrender whatsoever.  There were ever hardly any POWs from the japanese side b/c they would just rush into machine gun fire or kill themselves with honor when they knew all was lost.  so what do you do?  drop a bomb to kill several hundred thousand, or wage a war that will kill millions?  How do you tell your troops to go to their almost certain death when we have a weapon that can end the war?  Watever has this notion that everyone should fight fair.  that everyone should get the same number of weapons and the same type of guns....its beyond retarded. 

25, your take on the bomb preventing wars, I 100% agree.  Violence can also work as a deterrant. 

I only say it as a witty way to prove a point that sometimes violence does solve things.  A lot of allied troops died on Normandy and on the way to France so the French could be free again.  To forget that it took lives and fighting and death and violence to do so is pretty ignorant.

The bomb on Nagasaki almost didn't happen, I forget all the details but the story is pretty riveting and really interesting.  I do vaguely recall the pilots dropping the bomb in an area with less population and more industry, for what its worth.

I don't think it says anything about the capabilities of the US military or about the Japanese but more about what it would have taken in terms of time and lives to take Japan.   Its sad that anyone at all had to die and the effects of the bomb are chillling to see/read about, but in the end, the bomb saved more lives then it took.

Who said that?

Our friend Wat-ever said NOTHING good comes from violence...

Yup, I must say, HannaHat and I do agree on alot of issues.  So much so, I'd definitely offer you the chance to be my vice president.  ;D

My goodness, someone brought up the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Give me a break.  Upwards of a million U.S. soldiers would have lost their lives...not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians that would have died with a land invasion. 

Unfortunately partisan politics gets in the way of very easy solutions to tough problems.  Why don't we agree somewhere in the middle.  To make the left happy (and me even though I don't and never have used illegal drugs) why don't we free the harmless marijuana users and make space in the prison system for the ones we really need separated from civilized society.  That's where we make the right happy and we severely punish the violent criminals.  Very long sentences for the most heinous acts.  Abuse of those who can't defend themselves cannot be tolerated and must be treated appropriately.  Rehabilitative prisons (for the 1st time offenders and small-time non-violent criminals) will be much different than the hell-holes I would put men and women like the one mentioned at the top of this thread in.  Food (bland gruel, bologna sandwiches every meal, etc.), water, shelter (cold winters hot summers) dark and dank, and air would be provided.  No books, no pictures, no human contact, no writing instruments, and like I said in an earlier post...on the 1 year anniversary, a gun provided to this miserable scumbag.........with no bullets.  99% of the time this human scum would try to off themselves.
 
  May I also add, tubes tied after a female tests positive for drugs while pregnant.  The root of crime begins in childhood.  Children who become parents statistically raise children that are more likely to be criminals than the general population.  I'm sick of our world being ruined by children who grow up raised by unfit parents.     

Wrong.

Violence solved the independence of my country.

And it really is my brain thinking, I don't want people like that to share my genepool.

Also, if you get in a fight, you usually lose if you're just plain angry. But if you're very big and angry you can win  : ok:

I stand by my previous post. Compare, for example, the number of soldiers and civilians who died during WW2 to the number of soldiers and civilians killed in any other war since the first atomic/nuclear bomb was dropped. The bomb has proven to be a fantastic deterrent against large scale ground wars.  IMagine how many people would have died in a USSR/USA conflict had there not been the threat of mutual destruction hanging over both parties. No other piece of military technology has been such a positive force. Perhaps you can appreciate it better if I word it this way;  As long as the missiles stay in their bays, the nuclear bomb is a major benefit.

I think your assessment is extremely accurate if you're talking about from the 40s through today.  but in the near future, possibly even today, i'm not so sure that still rings true.  more and more countries have the bomb or are on their way to possessing it - i think its only a matter of time before a nuke is sold to a terror organization or gets put in the hands of an unstable dicator/leader (N. Korea) and is used.  If one bomb drops there will be many more to follow. 

IN the last 30-40 years, the fear of the bomb was a great deterrant to mass war, but now the fear of the bomb is closer to a reality.   Scary to think about.