Definition of Democracy - Page 4

10-13-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Those people are now a LOT freer than ever they were under Saddam

Exactly... now they are not getting snatched out of their homes in the middle of the night, home searched while their families are held in the front yard with no rights, then toted off to some hidden prison with no explanation, questioned without representation or rights, not tortured, nope... not now!

Ibby · 10-13-2007, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Eventually, the idiots elsewhere in Iraq will have grown tired of cutting each other's throats and all of Iraq will settle down and behave a lot more like Iraqi Kurdistan.

Yep, the same way the Israelis and the Palestinians grew ti... er, the same way the filipinos and the seperatists grew tire... um, the same way the...

Undertoad · 10-13-2007, 05:49 AM

UG, remove your blinders, your confirmation bias, and take a moment out of your self-aggrandizement that makes everybody puke.

1. Your proposition is that guns keep people free.
2. Iraq is lousy with AK-47s now AND was lousy with them while Hussein was in power.
3. But the people were not free.

The Kurds were armed. The Kurds were gassed. It took no-fly zones to keep them from being annihilated.

Freer people: unarmed Brits, or armed Iraqis under Saddam?

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2007, 03:26 AM

The Brits are in chronic danger of becoming slaves of Parliament. They will not escape that danger until their populace rearms. That is what an understanding of the historic prevalence of human cussedness tells the objective observer. If it hasn't told you as much, are you even paying attention?

My proposition is much better phrased as "a free people can't stay free without arms, especially private arms."

I can't make head nor tail of "your confirmation bias." What is this?

Ibram: seventeen going on eighteen, and you have no optimism, no hope? What, just because we, the United States, are trying to do something about all this? Jay-zus, kid. I'm fifty-one. Am I pessimistic? And if not, why not?

Zen: one thing they are not doing is starving, as agriculture took off when Saddam, Uday, and Qusay all headed for parts unknown -- the Fertile Crescent is fertile yet, and look what happens when you take oppression's dead hand off. One thing they have now is cell phones and satellite dishes -- connectivity with the world's Functioning Economic Core, which they did not enjoy under the previous management.

Yeah, Zen, there's a civil war on -- in that war are the seeds of favorable change that will bring Iraq out of the Non-Integrating Gap (where it would have remained under Saddam, as is not open to dispute even between Cellarites) and develop it towards the globe's Functioning Core, to borrow two terms from Barnett's ideas.

It's very difficult to impeach me on matters of fact, as you've noticed, and so the opposition resorts to complaints about my style -- as if that might be a rebuttal of any weight! It just means I've been less than insinuating -- overt, in a word. The people who are puking -- well, their minds are made ill by being too far left, their values a pismire's weight, their cultural assumptions all a-crumble, under the weight of more careful scrutiny than they've given, themselves. Naturally, they are upset, and their stomachs upset along with them. The thing is, they are wrong to be upset. The question is, how much purging will they need to be rid of these toxins?

Ibby · 10-14-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Ibram: seventeen going on eighteen, and you have no optimism, no hope? Jay-zus, kid. I'm fifty-one.

Hope does not make for smart foreign policy.

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2007, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yep, the same way the Israelis and the Palestinians grew ti... er, the same way the filipinos and the seperatists grew tire... um, the same way the...

"Think of it as evolution in action."* I do.

And despair is an improved basis how...?

*Jerry Pournelle

Ibby · 10-14-2007, 04:03 AM

Its realism. The world's problem's can't be solved by "well maybe they'll get tired of fighting for centuries on end, and everyone will live happily ever after".

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2007, 04:19 AM

I might point out that the Palestinians and Israelis have not been allowed to get tired of it to the point where all parties will end the thing in good faith. The thing about that is how leashed to foreign sponsors both parties are -- the battle's never been taken a` outrance.

Undertoad · 10-14-2007, 07:40 AM

It's circular logic, is what it is.

People who have guns are free!

Well some people don't have guns and seem free, while other people have guns and clearly aren't free. How do you know if a people are free?

I define free people as... those who have guns!

By the way, may I just give you a hint and note that "slippery slope" arguments don't work for me. They are usually a form of logical fallacy. Predicting the future is not a form of proof. It's sloppy thinking.

DanaC · 10-14-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

The Brits are in chronic danger of becoming slaves of Parliament.

Say what?

TheMercenary · 10-14-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Exactly... now they are not getting snatched out of their homes in the middle of the night, home searched while their families are held in the front yard with no rights, then toted off to some hidden prison with no explanation, questioned without representation or rights, not tortured, nope... not now!

The difference is that there is usually good reason to do such searches. Their families know where they are. Many of them are returned to their families. In the previous administration the individuals would just disapear. You can find their bodies amonst the numerous mass graves uncovered in the deserts around Bagdad.

richlevy · 10-14-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The difference is that there is usually good reason to do such searches. Their families know where they are. Many of them are returned to their families. In the previous administration the individuals would just disapear. You can find their bodies amonst the numerous mass graves uncovered in the deserts around Bagdad.

..and Haditha. You can call it deliberate revenge killing or you can call it a tragic case of collateral damage, but the end result is the same

Quote:

But Ware's concerns in the past have gone beyond issues of evidence. He also expressed concern with the impact a harsh sentence might have on the morale of Marines. "Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy," wrote Ware in the Sharratt report. After weighing all the evidence available, Ware ultimately concluded that Sharratt had acted according to his training: "Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCpl Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force."

From here:

Quote:

House #1 -- 7 killed, 2 injured (but survived), 2 escaped 1. Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, 76 -- grandfather, father and husband. Died with nine rounds in the chest and abdomen. 2. Khamisa Tuma Ali, 66 -- wife of Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali 3. Rashid Abdul Hamid, 30. 4. Walid Abdul Hamid Hassan, 35. 5. Jahid Abdul Hamid Hassan, middle-aged man. 6. Asma Salman Rasif, 32. 7. Abdullah Walid, 4. Injured: Iman, 8, and Abdul Rahman, 5. Escaped: Daughter-in-law, Hibbah, escaped with 2-month-old Asia House #2 -- 8 killed, 1 survivor: Shot at close range and attacked with grenades 8. Younis Salim Khafif, 43 -- husband of Aeda Yasin Ahmed, father. 9. Aeda Yasin Ahmed, 41 -- wife of Younis Salim Khafif, killed trying to shield her youngest daughter Aisha. 10. Muhammad Younis Salim, 8 -- son. 11. Noor Younis Salim, 14 -- daughter. 12. Sabaa Younis Salim, 10 -- daughter. 13. Zainab Younis Salim, 5 -- daughter. 14. Aisha Younis Salim, 3 -- daughter. 15. A 1-year-old girl staying with the family. Survived: Safa Younis Salim, 13. House #3 -- 4 brothers killed 16. Jamal Ahmed, 41. 17. Marwan Ahmed, 28. 18. Qahtan Ahmed, 24. 19. Chasib Ahmed, 27. Taxi -- 5 killed: Passengers were students at the Technical Institute in Saqlawiyah 20. Ahmed Khidher, taxi driver. 21. Akram Hamid Flayeh. 22. Khalid Ayada al-Zawi. 23. Wajdi Ayada al-Zawi. 24. Mohammed Battal Mahmoud.

I won't go into rules of engagement, but I will ask a few questions.

Did anyone in these houses vote to be liberated from Saddam?
Is there any indication that anyone in these houses was sheltering insurgents (no weapons found) other than that a bomb went off in proximity to the houses?
If a soldier shoots and kills a 1-year-old, does that make him or her a 'baby killer', or does there need to be proof of premeditated intent?
Is anyone going to serve any serious time for killing all of these people?
If you were a relative of one of these people, who would you blame? Who would you have a right to blame?
If the Iraq war is really about liberation and justice, why is the effect on morale of a guilty verdict even being brought up instead of purely focusing on actual guilt?

Even if the soldiers actions can be defended as justified under rules of engagement and the deaths brushed aside as 'collateral damage', the question remains as to whether Iraqis haven't simply traded one kind of horror for another. When little girls are killed in American cities in the crossfire between drug dealers, and in cases where the killer is caught, the defense inevitably boils down to the fact that the killer did not deliberately shoot the little girl and was engaged in self defense. This defense usually falls flat.

There will be no jail time for anyone who shot these people. The defense will be that they had the right to defend themselves and that they could not be expected to put the safety of civilians above their own lives. This is the true difference between police and soldiers, and the end result of a military rather than police solution to the 'war on terror'. Soldiers are trained mostly to kill, sometimes to pacify and occupy, and not to 'protect and serve'. Each civilian death at the hands of soldiers undoes thousands of hours of community service, negotiations with local leaders, etc.

It will probably be decided that there is no compelling evidence to convict, but this will just compound the error. The soldiers who shot those civilians played into the hands of the insurgent who planted the roadside bomb. It wasn't liberals, the press, lawmakers, or anyone else who failed to suppress the story in the US who can be blamed for this, because the Iraqis knew what happened. The only people in the dark were in the United States.

There will always be a justification for killing civilians. A car was traveling too fast or too close and might contain a car bomb. A man or woman did not stop or raise their hands fast enough, so they might be a suicide bomber. These can be reasonable explanations for people fighting an insurgency and who value their own lives above those of the people whose country they are occupying. Except that if the insurgents have gotten us to the point where we are shooting civilians, then the insurgents have found a winning strategy.

They say that one of the reasons we are in this war was because our president did not have personal experience with war. So maybe we should choose our next president more carefully. Maybe we should find and elect a 'baby killer', someone who did shoot an unarmed kid, or woman in a car, or who ran over a kid in the middle of the road because that's how insurgents stop convoys. Someone who wakes up every other night screaming and knows how very dirty this kind of war is, what it takes to win it, and how very much it is worth to avoid it. Someone who will plan beyond the carrier photo op and realize that occupation means more than catching flowers riding in parades.

10-15-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The difference is that there is usually good reason to do such searches. Their families know where they are. Many of them are returned to their families. In the previous administration the individuals would just disapear. You can find their bodies amonst the numerous mass graves uncovered in the deserts around Bagdad.

So, we're just mostly like them, LOL!

Happy Monkey · 10-15-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The difference is that there is usually good reason to do such searches. Their families know where they are.

Unless they are rendered to some Eastern Bloc country.

deadbeater · 10-15-2007, 06:58 PM

Urbane, Liverpool soccer fans can beat up and beat down the entire English Parliament, and the monarchy, if they feel like doing so.

10-14-2007, 03:26 AM	#49
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	The Brits are in chronic danger of becoming slaves of Parliament. They will not escape that danger until their populace rearms. That is what an understanding of the historic prevalence of human cussedness tells the objective observer. If it hasn't told you as much, are you even paying attention? My proposition is much better phrased as "a free people can't stay free without arms, especially private arms." I can't make head nor tail of "your confirmation bias." What is this? Ibram: seventeen going on eighteen, and you have no optimism, no hope? What, just because we, the United States, are trying to do something about all this? Jay-zus, kid. I'm fifty-one. Am I pessimistic? And if not, why not? Zen: one thing they are not doing is starving, as agriculture took off when Saddam, Uday, and Qusay all headed for parts unknown -- the Fertile Crescent is fertile yet, and look what happens when you take oppression's dead hand off. One thing they have now is cell phones and satellite dishes -- connectivity with the world's Functioning Economic Core, which they did not enjoy under the previous management. Yeah, Zen, there's a civil war on -- in that war are the seeds of favorable change that will bring Iraq out of the Non-Integrating Gap (where it would have remained under Saddam, as is not open to dispute even between Cellarites) and develop it towards the globe's Functioning Core, to borrow two terms from Barnett's ideas. It's very difficult to impeach me on matters of fact, as you've noticed, and so the opposition resorts to complaints about my style -- as if that might be a rebuttal of any weight! It just means I've been less than insinuating -- overt, in a word. The people who are puking -- well, their minds are made ill by being too far left, their values a pismire's weight, their cultural assumptions all a-crumble, under the weight of more careful scrutiny than they've given, themselves. Naturally, they are upset, and their stomachs upset along with them. The thing is, they are wrong to be upset. The question is, how much purging will they need to be rid of these toxins? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 10-14-2007 at 03:37 AM.

10-14-2007, 04:03 AM	#52
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Its realism. The world's problem's can't be solved by "well maybe they'll get tired of fighting for centuries on end, and everyone will live happily ever after". __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-14-2007, 04:19 AM	#53
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I might point out that the Palestinians and Israelis have not been allowed to get tired of it to the point where all parties will end the thing in good faith. The thing about that is how leashed to foreign sponsors both parties are -- the battle's never been taken a` outrance. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

10-13-2007, 05:49 AM	#48
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	UG, remove your blinders, your confirmation bias, and take a moment out of your self-aggrandizement that makes everybody puke. 1. Your proposition is that guns keep people free. 2. Iraq is lousy with AK-47s now AND was lousy with them while Hussein was in power. 3. But the people were not free. The Kurds were armed. The Kurds were gassed. It took no-fly zones to keep them from being annihilated. Freer people: unarmed Brits, or armed Iraqis under Saddam?

10-14-2007, 07:40 AM	#54
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's circular logic, is what it is. People who have guns are free! Well some people don't have guns and seem free, while other people have guns and clearly aren't free. How do you know if a people are free? I define free people as... those who have guns! By the way, may I just give you a hint and note that "slippery slope" arguments don't work for me. They are usually a form of logical fallacy. Predicting the future is not a form of proof. It's sloppy thinking.

10-15-2007, 06:58 PM	#60
deadbeater Sir Post-A-Lot Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 439	Urbane, Liverpool soccer fans can beat up and beat down the entire English Parliament, and the monarchy, if they feel like doing so.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)