Condi Rice: Any "functioning democracy" would insist that guns not be in private hands

[bobernet]

imported post

utbagpiper -

Good post. We can take it to PM if this is straying too far off-topic, but the founding fathers repeatedly warned against getting mired in entangling alliances. Many of the "wars" we have fought were not legally declared wars, but international police actions. They continue because the administrations in the past have already proven they can get away with it. Without getting into any kind of moral equivalence or justification of truly "terrorist" actions... I think it is not unreasonable that people believe the majority of our problems in the Middle East stem not from our "way of life" but from our prior meddling over there.

It's interesting that you can see that trend repeated over and over and over in America's recent history. Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Iran, Iraq, Israel.

Food for thought... why do you think Hitler was so easily able to rally support in Germany for a European conquest and the pathological level of nationalism? Would Hitler have been successful if not for WW1? What about America's role in WW1?

Finally, I consider it a false analogy to compare Hitler's marching across Europe and planned world conquest + a direct attack by the government of Imperial Japan to a handful of guys with box cutters on airplanes.

If Iraq had sent a Navy or ICBM our way and Congress declared war, we'd be having a different discussion right now. The constant waffling about our motives for being there should be a clue that this action is not right.

First it's WMD's. What WMD's? And what threat were they to us anyway? No one ever believed he had ICBMs. Then it's saving Iraqi's from an evil dictator. Well, that's done, let them get on with their lives. Then it's spreading democracy and freedom to the oppressed. Nevermind that many (most?) of them don't care for our particular brand of government or what they see as the lifestyle and culture it engenders. Now it's protecting the "peace-loving" Iraqis from rogue gangs and militias.

America is rapidly becoming a fascist bully, both to the world at large, and more importantly, to her own citizens. That doesn't mean that I think some other country is better. And the constant implication (or in many cases clear statements) that anyone who disagrees with anything the US government does should "go move somewhere else" is juvenile and insulting. (I'm not necessarily saying you intended that in your post.)

As men of moral character, it is not for us to judge our actions as "better than" someone else. We have an obligation to ourselves to do what is right, not what is just better than anyone/everyone else. Setting current US policy against some other foreign regime that is worse is a false dichotomy. We are better than that.

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

bobernet,

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Just a few corrections/thoughts.

I did not compare Hitler to the 9/11 hijackers and I very specifically avoided mentioning Iraq at all in my response to your post regarding "decades" of foreign policy. I compared the mistakes and successes of WWII to the mistakes and success of the cold war which was waged not with huge and direct battles, but via foreign policy, small proxy wars, and the like.

While I have deep concerns about Vietnam and Korea and many other military actions, research has convinced me that it is legal and constitutional to take military action without a formal declaration of war. Formal authorization from congress is sufficient to meet constitutional requirements. In fact, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison themselves ALL too military action (against the French and Barbary Pirates) without declarations of war, but with only formal authorization from congress. Wiki "united states declarations of war" to find a couple very interesting articles on this topic.

It is commonly accepted to believe we are targets because we "meddle." Similarly, some will suggest we "provoked" WWII even as they turn around and act as if we were not provoked in a host of our military endeavors. In any event, from what I can see and discern, we could pack up and leave the middle east entirely and we'd remain targets. Look at the attacks in Spain and England. Or even the riots and calls for cartoonists' heads in Denmark. First and foremost, we are a target because we are not muslim. Even among muslims, those who are not devout enough, or the wrong sect are targets. Islam seems to be stuck about where Christianity was 1000 years ago: adolescently in-secure and violent. Secondly, so long as Israel exists we will be a target. I doubt we are going to withdraw aid and watch the Jews subjected a second holocaust. And even if we did, so long as Israel exists, we will be blamed for supporting them. How could the radical muslim mind ever accept that the much hated and sub-human Jews could ever stand against Islam and Allah except for the help (overt or secret) of the great satan? And if not that, the old conver the world at the point of the sword routine presents a problem for everyone.

No argument our nation has problems and many aspects of our foreign policy are included in that. Indeed, the treaty of Versaise was a terrible mistake that we've mostly avoided sense. But that is the point, EVERY war has its mistakes. I might suggest our biggest foreign policy problem today is our refusal to use our own oil, coal, gas, and nuclear abilities to very quickly be independent of foreign oil. All I'm saying is that 40 years of foreign policy ought to be viewed in the context of war for survival (the very real cold war) rather than simply through the liberal media view of needless, arrogant, or mindless "meddling." No one ever called Patton's march through Africa and Europe to German "meddling." Yes, we meddled and still do. But we also fought a lot of little battles to avoid fighting a really big MAD battle. Maybe the strategy was flawed. But we survived and I'm suggesting we view those 40 years through that context rather than the imperialistic view so many would like us to adopt.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Right! The *PRIVILEGE* of self-government doesn't apply to Muslims. :quirky After all, the USA owns Iraq and whoever fights back is a terrorist.

No sir, we are going to force them to be "free" to make their own decisions,wether they like it or not.

The right of self government does not apply to those who incite, declare, and then lose a war and find themselves a conquered people or nation.

OH...till that last part, I thought you were talking about the US.

Conquered nations get disarmed.

By tyrants.

That and a host of other things normally inflicted present a number of good reasons not to lose wars, hopefully not to start them in the first place

Great so then we agree. Don't start wars. I would assume that also means don't incite revolts and overthrow governments and fund wars between two countries you hold out as your friends (like, say, what we did with Iran and Iraq in from the 1950's on) because then they might get really pissed at you for destroying their country for no reason.

At least you're honest that you we're not "spreading freedom and democracy" and will admit that we're just playing the role of the Roman Empire in the world.

More broadly speaking, any nation or people that proves it/themselves incapable of peacefully coexisting with their neighbors should not be surprised when those neighbors take measures to reduce that nation or people's ability to present a threat.

I like how you use the word "neighbors" since, I'm assuming, you would be one of those people carping about how horrible it is that Iran is "meddling" in the affairs of Iraq by forming a friendship with them....whereas we, their "neighbors" from half way around the world, aren't "meddling" by overthrowing their government and occupying their country at gunpoint.

The country that can't peacefully coexist is the same country that overthrew the Iranian government in the 1950's (along with multipledemocratic governemnts in South America - what you might call our "neighbors")and started and funded the Iran-Iraq war that devestated both countries. The same one that sold the weapons to Saddam that he used to kill the Kurds (when he was supposed to only kill Iranians with them...dammit...bad dictator).

If Islamic nations don't like being disarmed, they probably ought to stop threatening to exterminate the Jews, destroy the USA, behead every editorical cartoonist who offends their particular sensibilities, and generally converting the entire world at the point of the sword.

The only sword pointed at me is the one held by my own government. The same one that's keeping me safeand taking awaymy freedoms to protect me. If there were Iraqis in my backyard, you better believe I'd be singing death to Iraq. It wasn't the Muslims that overthrew dozens of South American democracies and a handful of democracies in the middle east. It was the US government.

No ranting there about the whole world and certainly no forced coversions to Judiasim of which I'm aware. Even Christianity, as a whole, outgrew the whole forced conversion thing quite some time ago.

No, only forced conversions to Americanism.

I agree that Middle Eastern Islam is not a culture I would want to live in as it is a culture based on theocratic tyranny. Which is why I would resent it if they tried to force their "superior" way of life on me and assume that a few yeards under occupation would somehow make me into a good little Muslim the. Wait, make that 100 years under occupation.

if Islam wants to be treated like an adult and allowed access to adult items like guns, it needs to collectively grow the hell up

Right, because you are their parent and are going to take good care of them. And as I said earlier, you think that you own Iraq. It belongs to you. But your megalomania aside, assuming the Iraqis don't deserve the rights that real Americans understand are inalienable and endowed by our creator, do you then think that they will be able to maintain a democracy?

So much for bringing freedom. Wasn't that our latest reason for being there? Freedom, that you now say, in your collectivist mindset, all Iraqis are not ready for? Won't those disarmed Iraqis be so glad we got rid of Saddam.

PLEASE do NOT make the libertarian mistake of equating all nations as equal or even assuming that relations among nations do or even should follow the exact principles

First of all, libertarianism has nothing to do with nations being equal. Learn before you speak please. It is you collectivists that like to categorize people and treat them the same. I look at people as individuals. Libertarianism is a belief in ummm...liberty...which is summed up in the non-agression principle.

It's you that are trying to force the "exact same principles" on other nations at the point of a gun, not me.



You know, I was looking at the Declaration of Independence and thinking Iraq could probably get some good use out of it since they would probably understand the train of abuses and usurpationsmuch better than the modern collectivist neocons.

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

OH...till that last part, I thought you were talking about the US.

Conquered nations get disarmed.

By tyrants.

I think we'll simply have to agree to disgree about the fundamental nature of the USA and most of the rest of this material.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

s
Oh,a constitutional republic ismuch less vulnerable than a democracy.

... snipped only for brevity....

The lesson for today: Rights are anti-democratic by their very nature. To invoke a right is to deny democracy. That means - and here's a shocker - the Bill of Rights is one of the most anti-democratic documents in the free world.

...

One of the finest explanations I've ever read on this important topic. Thank you.

Charles