"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and,
in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed,
the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we
gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."

-- From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"
by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine, 1998

Yeah, too bad Iraq has this Constitution (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html) thing now though.

and spain pulling all of their 1200 soldiers out of iraq by june and next the on list will be poland ., the polish parlament discussing the issue for weeks already ... damn this old europe.
do you really believe this constitution will change anything if noboby in iraq agrees with it or even accept it , exept for the vasalls of america ??
paper is very patient ....

Though we're alike in our views, allow me to say: You're a twat, Hartmut.

Carry on.

Fuck face.

Before they had zero freedom and no rights. Now they have a chance.

Democracy is not the end-all be-all solution to the world's problems, but at least Iraq's citizens will have a chance now.

If anything this proves Bush jr. didn't go into Iraq to "finish the job" as so many communi..I mean liberals thought.

do you really believe this constitution will change anything if noboby in iraq agrees with it or even accept it

This may be the weakest argument..ever..

I am sad to see Spain leave Iraq, hopefully they won't abandon the entire war on terror.

'I am sad to see Spain leave Iraq, hopefully they won't abandon the entire war on terror. '

- I bet you had no idea they were even in Iraq, did you?
Come on now. Ya didn't.

If you call 1200 soldiers being in the war /shrug.

Thanks for the help though.

Needless to say we were in Kuwait as a UN sanctioned mission, and the U.S. as usual was thier funding and military force. Invading Iraq at that time would have had to be a UN sanctioned move, which we can see from recent events was not going to happen. The incalculable human costs would have been the innocent Iraqi people killed in the bombing runs we would have used to finish off any Republican Guard units and chemical weapons left before letting a soldier set foot in Iraq. If you don't think they had chemical weapons at that time, you may possibly interview a few Kurdish people, or Iranians. The political losses do not seem to be so much of a loss to us now seeing that most of Europe and the Middle East show such contempt for Americans regardless of what international policy we support.

Spain pulling it's troops out of Iraq is not going to have any affect on what terrorists think of them, unless they totally pull out of the war on terror, and hide behind thier borders. IF Al Queda was responsible, pulling the troops out will just give them a victory to hang on thier wall. :D

P.S.

Hartmut, if you are the same one from ages ago, Doc is looking for you, check the boards.

Hartmut, you are a fine example of why it was so easy to push radical propaganda onto the masses over there 70 years ago or so.

That boy ain't right.

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

-Bill Clinton

Wow hartmut look me! I can dig up quotes from the past too! I R EREET LIK U!

'If you call 1200 soldiers being in the war /shrug.'

- You underestimate (spitefully and intentionally of course) Spanish participation. Besides Britain, Spain was your biggest ally here in Europe. Spain was also your largest supporter and voice in the EU, standing up for NATO and Euro/American relationships. Besides that, along with 1300 troops (who would be glad, I've no doubt, to crack you in the face with the butt of their gun for your remark) had some of the highest skilled peacekeepers to contribute to the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq, if that's what you can call it.
Yet there is still Italy, Denmark, Poland and a number of Eastern European countries in your favour. But none were more profound than Spain.

Don't put down the Spanish soldiers because of a new Spanish leader.

Shame on you, go to bed!

>>"Before they had zero freedom and no rights."

Aye.
And they still have zero freedom and no rights.

>>"Now they have a chance."

I hope so.
We'll see.

>>"Democracy is not the end-all be-all solution to the world's problems,"

It's the closest thing to a end-all be-all that mankind have ever had. Great idea.

>>"but at least Iraq's citizens will have a chance now."

We'll see if they'll manage to get a real chance for democracy in spite of the invasion. Would be great.

In any case, the constitution comes from invaders, not from the iraqi people itself, and thus it's a extremely fragile foundation for democracy.

If they manage to use it for real elections and then form a real constitution of their own, then all is great. For the iraqi people, and for mankind as a whole. But I must admit I'm rather pessimistic about their chanses. :(

Halo

Its a Weapon Halo not a gun, here is a simple way to remember the difference.

This is my weapon, this is my gun(grab your limited manhood), this is for fighting, this is for fun(again grab your limited manhood). Thank you LT. Sanchez you crazy SOB.

Hey Hartmut,

As soon as Iraq violated the cease fire from the Gulf War, we had the responsibility to go in there (not to mention the right) to go in there and kick Hussein till he cried uncle.

Funny how people forget that little detail.

Revellie, put down the drugs, and pass them here.
I'll take your packet of crisps too.

i would like to know what a packet of crisps is plz!

Me also! I seem to always be behind on da slang

Skeet!Skeet!Skeet!

And they still have zero freedom and no rights


Really?

So you don't think their lives have changed with him out of power?

Are you that out of touch with reality? I doubt even Hartmut would suggest that.


We'll see if they'll manage to get a real chance for democracy in spite of the invasion


Invasion? You are also suggesting that the formation of a democracy is contrary to the coalition agenda?

Are you familiar at all with what is happening in the region or are you just reading bits and pieces from websites Hartmut's buddies post "inside information"?


In any case, the constitution comes from invaders


Invaders? Again? Do you believe the US and its allies are there to conquer and pillage Iraq? That is what invade means, in case you (understandably, given that it is not your first language) are not aware of it. Liberators would be the term you are looking for, as it means to free from oppression such as the regime that was in place.

Moving on, that is -not- a real constitution..it is an interim law until they write a permanent one. If you bothered to actually read it, you could have discovered as much for yourself instead of going off half cocked and sounding ignorant.

>>"So you don't think their lives have changed with him out of power? "

A bloodthirsty dictatorship have been replaced with a meeker dictatorship and with chaos. Most of the terror have been outsourced. It's still there, but it's no longer run by the central government. That's a improvement, I guess. But not enough improvement to call it "freedom" and "rights".

>>"Invaders? Again? Do you believe the US and its allies are there to conquer and pillage Iraq? That is what invade means, in case you (understandably, given that it is not your first language) are not aware of it."

They did conquer Iraq.
If they are pillaging it or not is irrelevant.

Iraq is currently ruled by USA and it's puppets, not by the Iraqi people. And with puppets I don't mean in a conspiracy theory way. I mean the simple fact that the concil was elected by USA, not by the people of Iraq.

>>"Liberators would be the term you are looking for, as it means to free from oppression such as the regime that was in place."

The claim to be liberators, but they have yet to earn the title. So far they have removed one tyrant, replacing him with another regime that is not elected by the people and is thus a dictatorship. Replacing one dictatorship with another is NOT liberation. Successfully replacing a dictarorship with a democracy, that's liberation.

Will the invaders become liberators?
Time will tell.

USA wasn't invited by the people or Iraq like they was by the people of France when they liberated it from the third reich. Big difference there. France allready had a democracy, it meley had to be reinstated. In Iraq, the Democracy have to be built from the ground, and that's a really hard work to do. Even if you do it from the people. Building a democracy from above, that's extremely hard.

Good luck. And don't celebrate the victory of freedom until you have really achieved it. That's all I have to say.

>>"Moving on, that is -not- a real constitution..it is an interim law until they write a permanent one. If you bothered to actually read it, you could have discovered as much for yourself instead of going off half cocked and sounding ignorant."

I'm glad you agree with me!
However, you misunderstand one detail.
I never believed, or claimed to believe, that the document was meant to be a true constitution. I was merely correcting akpit, when he said this:

>>"Yeah, too bad Iraq has this Constitution thing now though."

In any case, the Bush administration is gambling at frightenly high stakes. The future of Afghanistan and Iraq will be very important to the future of the world.

If they fall back into despotism, much is lost. If they manage to achieve and maintain true democracy, then much is gained. Not only for their people, but for the entire world.

Step by step, dictators all over the world learns that their days are numbered. It have been proven that countries are their populations, not their dictators. And that every opressor is eventually doomed to fall, one way or another.

On the other hand, if these two quests for democracy fail, then the tyrants of the world will have two great examples of failure to show to their populations, and to the world. The fight for global democracy will become that much harder.

And global democracy we must have. Not only are dictatorships immoral and a crime against the peoples subjected to it, but it's also a horror that the world can not affoard to have.

In the big picture, it doesn't matter if Hussein still had WoMD:s. (On a smaller scale it matters because Bush and Blair claimed he did, but that's another question entierly.) What matters is that weapons of terror, on all scales, are becoming cheaper and more effective (that is, devastating) for each passing year. Fifry years from now, one single tyrant might be capable of holding the entire world hostage.

We must end this filthy mess now.

'i would like to know what a packet of crisps is plz! '
'Me also! I seem to always be behind on da slang'

- Lol, it's not slang. It's what we English call "an English word". It means.. hmm.. I guess you guys butchered it in to potato? Or chip?
Like you say chip for crisps, and where we say chips you say fries, and where you say pants we say trousers, and where we say pants you say.. well what do you call pants? Boxers? nickers?
Can't think of anymore :P

We call pants Chipmunks.

The Left leg is Chip, and the right leg is Dale.

*takes notes*

Uh huh, uh huh.

A bloodthirsty dictatorship have been replaced with a meeker dictatorship and with chaos.

Two points, please refer to their government now by "transitional government", not dictatorship. If not, you're just abusing the word. I'm quite positive the people of North Korea would agree with me on that.

From their current Consitution:

This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the transitional period until a duly elected government, operating under a permanent and legitimate constitution achieving full democracy, shall come into being.

Secondly, you might be able to claim that the Baghdad area is in chaos because of the road side bombs and other terrorism. The rest of Iraq, by a vaste majority, is not.

Lastly, you claimed they still had no rights under this new Constitution. Wrong. Forgive my copy/paste but if you had read my link above you wouldn't need this :p

1. All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law... No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
2. Public and private freedoms shall be protected.
3. The right of free expression shall be protected.
4. Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.
5. Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
6. Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.
7. The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.
8. Every Iraqi…has the right to stand for election and cast his ballot secretly in free, open, fair, competitive, and periodic elections. No Iraqi may be discriminated against for purposes of voting in elections on the basis of gender, religion, sect, race, belief, ethnic origin, language, wealth, or literacy.
9. The right to a fair, speedy and open trial shall be guaranteed.
10. All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
11. The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
12. After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.
13. Slavery and the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude, with or without pay, shall be forbidden.
14. Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.
15. Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant.
16. No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
17. There shall be no taxation or fee except by law.

Damn, I'm almost jealous. It took us over 200 years to get some of those rights you so quickly disregarded.

'9. The right to a fair, speedy and open trial shall be guaranteed.
10. All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
11. The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
12. After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.'

- Good god I hope they don't look to you Yanks for guidance in this area.
"Whats a trial?"
"Dunno, just lock him up - he looks like a terrorist"
"Roger, bloody terrorists"
"I'm not a terrorist, I'm a 15 year old high school kid! I'm even American!"
"Shut up you Arab!"

1. All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law... No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
rofl, this one isn't even fully applicated in many "western" countries, no need to be jealous. :lol

It looks cute and serious on paper, now it's up to Iraqis to apply those "rights".

I hardly ever post on this site, but I really do enjoy reading most of the posts here. It helps make the time go by, and gives me some things to think about sometimes. It really interests me when I see posts on Iraq and the war. Since 99.9% of everyone that posts on this subject have never been to Iraq, it is interesting to see what kind of knowledge you all really have. Some are pretty close, and others I can tell are going off information that you will see being broadcast by a media that thrives off chaos and the basic principle that the best news is bad news. On top of that, you have countries that oppose what the US and coalition forces have done, and they add their own little spins to it.

Will it have a negative impact if Spain pulls out of Iraq? It sure will. One more country that has troops over here, is that much more of a break for the United States and England. On top of that, when a country has people in Iraq that can see first hand what it is like, then they will be more prone to understand why it was important that Saddam was removed.

I often exchange e-mail or talk to people that have never been to Iraq, and get their information off CNN or whatever flavor of media, and all they ever see is the stories about how many troops, or Iraqi police were killed that day. I never hear about all the good things going on. I have seen the happiness on the faces of the Iraqi people when much needed school supplies are delivered by the so called invaders. I have seen the Iraqi children cheering as the so called invaders give them clothing and food. About every month so far since I have been here, we have delivered extra food and clothing, and supplies that family members have sent us to the local Iraqi communities. Many people in these communities do not see $400 dollars a year..not month..a year. How many adults reading this board make less then $400 dollars a year? Hell, $4000 a year? not many. It is common over here.

Yes, for those who do not know. I have been in Iraq for 10 months now. I have seen so many positive changes that the media would never show. It is better ratings if they talk about how 4 soldiers from so and so were killed by a IED or how 40 civilians were killed from a car bomb. They do not want to talk about the millions of dollars that we are putting into renovating that schools in this country. They do not want to talk about how we have trained the Iraqi police forces to treat people with respect and not to resort of the tactics of the former regime. We are retraining the Iraqi people to take the initiative and try to build business. I have talked to people who worked for the former regime. They told me that they never did ANYTHING unless they were told to. They did not have to show initiative and creative thinking. That is the traits of a culture in decline. Yes, the people will be free...over time.

You know...we never did find WOMD here, but after living with the Iraqi people over that past 10 months, I will never regret the decision to remove Saddam from power. The stories that I heard from the people, and not the media have convinced me that I am right to be here, and that I am helping them. Have I enjoyed being here?, Hell no, it sucks having to worry about IED's or car bombs every day when I am convoying. It sucks having to breath dust, or use a porta john every day. It sucks when people I know die to the cowardly acts of terrorism. But it is my duty, and I do not regret being here.

Shanno
Monk IVM
1LT US ARMY

/salute Shanno

Thank you for the perspective and your heroic service. We do appreciate it.

Oh for christ sake, don't salute him you cheesy prat.
Like the end of a friggin Mel Gibson movie.

Shanno, you'll find that things such as schools and police forces are reported, but - and rightfully so - deaths will ultimately take priority. And why shouldn't they? I think the familes of the dead would agree that it is extremely important that we hear about it.

I'd rather hear how much sex they are getting or not getting ..keep that bloody violence/death stuff out of the media.


Thanks for the incite Shanno. Pretty much the same thing I hear from my family members that are as well in Iraq.

Halo, I agree that deaths are a priority, but it is how they are reported that bother me. If you read most articles from CNN, I cannot speak for foreign sources), alot of times they use the articles as a way to incite discontent. A good example is how they always mention the number of dead AFTER May 1st (that is when Bush announced the end of MAJOR combat operations). They do this to show that Bush was wrong to say that, but he really was not. Since May, there has been really only 1 major operation, and that was what the papers called Operation Iron fist. It was a few days of heavy raiding and artillery attacks. That was it, so in essence, Bush was right. There were other operations, but nothing big.

To me, and most other people that have been in this conflict, it takes away from the people who gave their lives BEFORE May 1 when you only post the total of casualties since that date. I also agree that it is tragic when civilians, whether they be Iraqi, or whatever nationality die over here. But what it shows, is that the terrorist are growing desperate. They are starting to learn that no matter how many soldiers they kill from random acts of terrorism, we would never leave or be intimidated. So, now they are going after people who cannot defend themselves.

Also, please do not salute me.. Salute those soldiers who when home with an American flag draped over their coffins. Or soldiers that are killed from the other nations over here. They are the true heroes.

shanno
monk ivm

Thanks for the incite Shanno.

I believe the word you are looking for here is 'insight' :) . Unless you were implying that your were greatful for him provoking someone... ;)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Bush was simply not right.

He decided to attack Iraq in order to get strong oil supplies in case Saudies go out of control, cloacking with some 'these are efforts against terror' bullshit. But we all know this is bullshit. Saudi, yeah, there you can find terrorists (as you could in afghanistan and most of the world had no problem with that), in Korea you can find Womds (much more serious ones than politicians and secret services ever dared to lie into Iraq).

But don't be naive, Bush - america , europa, noone - will not spend dollar billions to paint schools and train police in a 3rd world country, if anyone want to do that, he can do it in some parts of africa, without serious military actions needed. There are MUCH much poorer countries there. (I admit, US did it in the past, like in Somalia)

So I supperted the war in the beginning, because Saddam will be out - and believe me, many did in Europe - but we really really hate when governments shamelessly lie around. Nothing wrong - or not much - if one wants to kick a dictator's ass, but please, do not think that your citizens and the rest of the world is completely stupid.

Btw, for how much time a soldier is deployed to abroad? (like Iraq). What if you (or anyone else) wants to go home?

/spank Nydia
Nitpick! :rollin

Anyway, I do agree that it's nice to hear of firsthand experiences. Do tell us more, Shanno. :)
And you too, soledorin. Are your relatives soldiers or citizens?

Over to akpit...

>>"Two points, please refer to their government now by "transitional government", not dictatorship. If not, you're just abusing the word. I'm quite positive the people of North Korea would agree with me on that."

There are 45 true dictatorships in the world right now. North Korea is perhaps the very worst of them. But Iraq is definitly on the list: The current government, tansitional as it might be, is not elected by the people, Will Iraq manage to develop and maintain a democracy? I sure hope so. Until it does, it is still a dictatorship.

>>"Secondly, you might be able to claim that the Baghdad area is in chaos because of the road side bombs and other terrorism. The rest of Iraq, by a vaste majority, is not."

Really?
And your knowledge about this is grounded on what? Or do you merely hope that it is so?
Shanno, do you have a overview of the general situation?

>>"Lastly, you claimed they still had no rights under this new Constitution. Wrong."

No I didn't.
Of course they have rights under the constitution.
In theory.
It's the reality I'm sceptic about.

In the same theoretic way, all humans "have rights". The United Nations declaration of human rights have been signed by all countries. But how many countries uphod them?

I'd say that all 45 dictatorships abuse these human rights on a daily basis.

By the way, if I remember correctly, the current king of Spain is the same king who once ruled the country.

Spain of today is a constitutional monarchy, much like Sweden. The King is a cultural character, not a ruler. But while Sweden have been a free country for generations, Spain was a dictatorship under the kings rule quite recently.

The king wasn't overthrown, he stepped down himself and made the country a democracy.

Is he a former dictator?
Yes, of course he is.
A good and honorable former dictator, but a former dictator nontheless.

You can transform a dictatorship into a democracy. But you can't do it retroactively, mkey?
Stating a intention to make it a democracy doesn't make it a democracy. Only to actually sucessfully DO transform it into a democracy does.

Btw, for how much time a soldier is deployed to abroad? (like Iraq). What if you (or anyone else) wants to go home?

1 year and no you can't just go home.

soledorin. Are your relatives soldiers or citizens?

My nephew is a soldier in the Army reserves. Hes a 32 year old engineer who enjoys being in the reserves. Last year hes called for active duty to reconstruct roads/bridges in and around Bagdad. That lasted about month ..hes been training iraqi's to become police officers. He was home around christmas with many pictures and many stories and believe me he has a lot to say. He would rather be home with his new born baby that was born while he was away or help paint his house that has well been under construction since he left. 2 days ago he left iraq and is on his way to Kwait..then onto home. His year is up.

My niece is 22 years old and is in the Guard. She started off in kwait at the start of the war then moved closer to the ocean near Basra. Her main job is water purification and thats pretty much what shes been doing for duration of her stay which is coming to an end in April. Heat exhaustion and sand flies are her biggest complaint.


Ibudin

Yeah you hate nitpickers :p Sorry.

Me: Before they had zero freedom and no rights.
Edeina: And they still have zero freedom and no rights.
Me: ...you claimed they still had no rights under this new Constitution. Wrong.
Edeina: No I didn't.

/scratches head

In theory. It's the reality I'm sceptic about.

But I see what you mean anyway, and I agree. As I stated before, democracy is no cure-all for the their problems. It's going to take alot of support, hard work, and determination by their people to succeed, not skepticism.

Well,

There is a definite difference in reference to the geographic locations in Iraq when it comes to violence. The main activity is in what they call the Sunni triangle. That is where I spent the first 9 months over here before I moved up near Mosul. Down in the triangle, which if you look at a map goes from Tikrit to Baghdad, over to fallushia (spelling is probably wrong..do not have a map here in front of me). That is the really nasty part of Iraq. Every time we convoyed in that area it was pretty intense.

Up here in Mosul, it is alot different since about half the population in Kurdish. You will see Kurds driving around in the back of a truck with AK-47s, and there is nothing you can do about it. But since you cannot tell the difference between a Kurd and an Iraqi, the bad guys always will get the first shot. That is not the case in the Triangle. Down there if you are not ICDC (Iraqi Civil Defense Corp i think) which we train, it is not wise to be caring a weapon. There are definitely alot more attacks in the triangle, but it is not limited exclusively to there. We had a soldier get minor injuries the other day from a IED up near Mosul.

So, no matter where you are in Iraq..you are at risk..but it is ALOT worse in the triangle

Shanno

How exactly are you classifying the interim government in iraq as a dictatorship Edeina? Can you at least point to the dictator to clue us all in as to who it is?

I don't mean to harp on your semantics, but you keep coming back to this even after being corrected.

Incidently, the Baath party in Iraq was one of the most oppressive regimes in modern times, and the coalition countries came in, took it out, and are handing the country over to the people of Iraq. That is the definition of liberation.

>>"But I see what you mean anyway, and I agree. As I stated before, democracy is no cure-all for the their problems."

I think our difference here is more a difference of semantics then a difference of opinion. In my vocabulary, democracy exist only if there is real elections by the actual population - a population that can make a informed choice (that is, the country have freedom of information and a free press) and have real choices (that is, a system of political parties must be established and functional).

Thus I regard democracy as more of a cure-all then you do (but not a complete cure-all, of course), but I also consider it harder to achieve.

>>"It's going to take alot of support, hard work, and determination by their people to succeed,"

Yep.

>>"not skepticism."

Quite the contrary. Critical thinking is one of the things they need the most.

They don't need a overdose of pessimism, that's true. But they don't need rose-colored glasses either. If they put such on, then they'll get horribly disillusionated at one point or another.

>>"How exactly are you classifying the interim government in iraq as a dictatorship Edeina?"

Because it runs the country without being elected by the people, that's why.

Governments based on public support proven by elections: Democracies.

Governments based on force, whatever their excuse might be: Dictatorships.

Simple as that.

>>"Can you at least point to the dictator to clue us all in as to who it is?"

I don't know the name(s) of him or them, and I don't consider it relevant. The current regime is temporary. What remains to be seen is if the future permanent government will be a democracy or not.

Like I said, you can turn a dictatorship into a democracy, but you can't do it retroactively. If the future Iraq is democratic or despotic decides if the current regime is the start of something good or something bad, but it doesn't decide if it's democratic or not. It is not elected by the people, and thus it's not democratic. Period.

>>"I don't mean to harp on your semantics, but you keep coming back to this even after being corrected."

I have not been "corrected", I have been given extremely unconvincing arguments for why a regime that isn't democratic should be called democratic.

Like I said: Intending to become democratic is not the same thing as actually being democratic.

>>"Incidently, the Baath party in Iraq was one of the most oppressive regimes in modern times,"

Yep. I'm glad it's gone. And I bet that at least 80% of the people of Iraq is glad to be rid of them as well. However, that doesn't mean that they are a free contry allready.

>>"and the coalition countries came in, took it out, and are handing the country over to the people of Iraq. That is the definition of liberation."

Actually handing over the country to it's people, that is the definition of liberation.

However, attempting to hand over a country to it's people, that's merely the definition of attempting liberation. If it becomes actual liberation remains to be seen.

The people of Iraq have a chance to become free now. That's great. But I'll save the celebration for when they are actuallt free.

A real, functioning democracy in Iraq would be a blessing to it's people. And not only to them, but to the entire world.

For starters, Iran is on the edge of turning democratic. A free democratic Iraq with a lot of free shi'ite muslims, now that would be a really big bunch of nails in that regimes coffin.

Lets hope for the best.
Without resorting to false comforts.
And lets do whatever we can to make it happen.

Edeina is the only person I know that will reply to her own long posts before anyone else gets a chance. Scroll back on this thread for proof.

www.trojangames.co.uk/tga...ovie3.html (http://www.trojangames.co.uk/tgames/movies/movie3.html)

For starters, Iran is on the edge of turning democratic.

That is SERIOUSLY misinformed.

Meanwhile, France -- a staunch opponent of the war -- has opened an investigation after a Paris newspaper received a letter from a Muslim group threatening spectacular attacks that would make "blood run to (its) borders."

Scary heh.

How do you send a letter to France?
Does the postal address look something like..

1 Paris Road
France
Europe
Earth?

Yea your right it probably never happened. It's all made up, make believe stuff. Just like those athem loving patriotic Americans. Go back bed Halo.


www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/17/france.threats/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/17/france.threats/index.html)




Ibudin

Actually that was what we call a joke Ibudin.
You know.. har har and all that jumbo.
Which was spectacularly funny until I realised it just said "French newspaper".

Ha ok I got it. We need some new material.


By the way:
"Help Us Celebrate!
In celebration of our 5th Year Anniversary, we've reactivated closed accounts, in good standing, until April 15th. Haven't been with us for awhile? Log in and have fun! "


eqlive.station.sony.com/news_section/newsview.jsp?story=61445 (http://eqlive.station.sony.com/news_section/newsview.jsp?story=61445)

Come give me a VOQ.







Ibudin

I'm afraid my EverQuest CD's are melting beneath ash and fire, where I held a ceremony in which I danced naked around them as they were set alight.
I also attatched little bells to my bollocks which made a great tune as I jumped up and down.

Oh man, that was even too much information for me.

Here's a mental VoQ for ya mate: *makes a VoQ motion*
You are now struck with a clarity of mind. You see that the US is evil and you wish to defect to Europe where you will live out the rest of your life being angry towards Yanks, rocking to-and-fro in a padded cell muttering "there were no WoMD, there were no WoMD"..

How's that? :P

You see that the US is evil and you wish to defect to Europe where you will live out the rest of your life being angry towards Yanks, rocking to-and-fro in a padded cell muttering "there were no WoMD, there were no WoMD"..

Saddam is muttering those exact words right now in a cell in Baghdad... too bad he had ample opportunity to own up before we kicked his ass.

Edeina, there are more forms of government than dictatorship and democracy.

So you can understand better exactly why I am trying to correct you, this is what a dictatorship is:

a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

That is NOT what is in Iraq.

/ponder L2
That was fun, but wtf did it have to do with anything?


/shrug mirdorr
We can never know the future for sure, but we can make educated guesses. The pro-democracy movement is strong in Iran, and it's gaining support both from the economic elite and from the clergy itself.

Yes, the "guardian council" and it's minions have all the political power again now after the horrid travesty of a election a few weeks ago, but they lost a LOT of prestige in the process. They are cornered from all sides - not least from iraqi shi'ite religious leaders who don't accnowledge any superiority of their iranian coulegues.

The regime could go on for decades, but it could also crumble overnight today, much like the soviet union did a while back.


/shrug Christ0
I agree that under your definition of dictatorship, Iraq is currently not a dictatorship. Then again, neither is Iran or China. I prefer my definition, thank you very much.

Regardless of if we use the "not democracy" = "dictatorship" definition or not, surely we can agree that Iraq is not a free country yet? That's what matters.


/sigh everyone
I can understand why you want to talk about Iraq as if it's allready free. It's not just wishful thinking, it's also to counter the anti-democracy activists here in the west. I ran into some propaganda from those assholes today. There will be a so called peace movement demonstration in my home city on saturday. With Iraq not being free as their excuse, they will manifest support for both those terrorists who want to turn the power back to Saddam Hussein and those terrorist who want a teocracy like in Iran.

The demonstration's main speaker is "Jan Myrdal", a infamous old communist who spent the cold war praising countries like China and North Korea, urging for the torture and murder of democratically elected politicians. It makes me want to puke that there are still people who listen to him.

That was fun, but wtf did it have to do with anything?

Rah Rah.. America #1.. 4x trojan game winners WHOOO HOOO

For starters, Iran is on the edge of turning democratic.
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That is SERIOUSLY misinformed. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I was curious about this. From all that I've read they are. The Mullahs have to police their 70 million citizens with terrorists from other islamic countries. With Iran wedged between the now democractic Afghanistan and soon-to-be Iraq (Edeina!), I don't see how they can stop the tide.

I just read this: Iranians fight for their future (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/zandbonazzi200403171018.asp) today.

Or do you think if they do revolt and take out the Mullahs, they won't be a democracy? That's quite possible too.

Wow.
Thanks for the link.
I hadn't heard about that.
Which makes me very pissed.
Earlier today I read the Internet edition of ALL the major swedish newspapers, and yet I didn't know about this. Why the hell didn't they write about it. I have allready mailed one of them, about to call the next now.

Links to other articles on this issue would be appreciated.
And could someone tell me a bit more about National Review itself?

www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iran.festival.reut/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iran.festival.reut/index.html)

And scroll down the page and look at the ads Edeina, NR is a very conservative mag. But as the author notes, the West is pretty much ignoring this.I had to do a search to find this one on CNN.

I agree that under your definition of dictatorship


That's not my definition, that's the dictionary's definition - and guess what, Iran isn't a dictatorship, it is a theocracy. China isn't either, it is a communist state.

I prefer the word "autocracy" for the narrow range of undemocratic states that you and your dictionary use the word "dictatorship" for. The exact definition of the word depends on what dictionary you use.

It might also be a slight difference of language. In swedish, "Diktatur" is definitly a correct term for all non-democratic systems.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, does it? Democratic or not democratic, that is the one single dividing line that matters. Communist, Teocracy, military dictatorship, monarchy dictatorship, whatever. What common name do you prefer for systems that are not democratic?

Anyway, anyone got more links, and more sources?
If I get one more link to a good source for news on the Iran situation, I have a excuse to mail all the newspapers again. :D

THe only time I saw that stuff in Iran mentioned earlier this week was a link from fark.com to something like activistchat.com. Someone in Iran had actually posted pictures.

We can never know the future for sure, but we can make educated guesses. The pro-democracy movement is strong in Iran, and it's gaining support both from the economic elite and from the clergy itself.

The pro democracy movement is strong among young people. Granted, they are a large portion of the population (over 50% or 60%) but they have zero power. I've seen no evidence that shows clergy is pro democracy. They are pro "whatever their own little sect if Islam is."

It's not like the people in power are going to die off next year. ANd, honestly, the relaxation of a few religious type laws would fix all this. The mullahs will allow kids to wear jeans and women to show their heads and everyone to listen to rock and roll if it means keeping their jobs. Meanwhile, they haven't been pushed to that point yet.

By your standards, I'd guess China is on the edge of democracy, too. Heh.

Yeah, parts of the "police force" in Iran are terrorist groups, but that doesn't seem to mean that they can't control their own police force. That appears to be just how they choose to do it. It shows how close Iran is to major terrorist groups - and quite frankly, looks to be a good reason to wipe them off the map. Not that I'm for that type of thing.... I mean, do you want to train these guys and then have them sitting around bored looking for something to do? Might as well put them to work smacking civilians.

>>"The pro democracy movement is strong among young people. Granted, they are a large portion of the population (over 50% or 60%) but they have zero power."

Much like the serbian student movement that ousted M;ilosovitch. :)

>>"By your standards, I'd guess China is on the edge of democracy, too. Heh."

No, not at the moment. :(
It was on the edge a decade or so ago, but tyrrany managed to prevail... for now.
We'll see how long it will hold. They won't be able to keep the population in bondage forever, but they won't just crumble any day now either. The democracy movement in China don't have the momentum they once did. But the Iranian democrats just might have a chance these days.

In others news...

Police fire on Kurds in fifth day of Syria riots (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/18/wkurd18.xml&sSheet=/news)

The trouble began at a football match at which Kurdish fans waved posters of President George W Bush while being taunted by Syrian supporters with pictures of Saddam Hussein.

Ah, hope...

Neat.

Btw, I'm reading "Breaking the real axis of evil" right now.
Best book I've read in a very long time.
Written by Mark Palmer, who was the US ambassador in Hungary during the fall of the Soviet Empire.
I really reccomend it.

As for the distinction between different types of government, he talks only of two types of government: Democracy and Dictatorship. Sure, Democracies could be divided into democracies and republics, but that's really beside the point.

And he do divide the dictatorships into personalistic dictatorships, monarchial dictatorships, dominant party dictatorships, communist dictatorhips, and teocracy dictatorship. But me makes it clear that this is a matter of detail, not principle, and he use the distinction only in the few contexts when they are neccesary. Apart from that, it's all democracy vs dictatorship.

Of course, the world is not entierly black and white. So he use a scale from 1 to 7, one being the most free, 7 being the worst, and group the numbers into free countries (democracies), partly free (countries at least trying to be democratic) and not free (dictatorships). Russia, Indonesia and Kuwait are on the "partly free" list, while India and Thailand are on the "free" list. Iraq and Afghanistan are, of course, on the "Not free" list, in spite of the book beeing written last year. They are not free countries yet, but hopefully will be soon. :)

His definition of "free" consists mostly of free elections, free speech (including free/independent press), and rule of law. All three is needed for a population to be free.

and rule of law. All three is needed for a population to be free.
Ah the irony

In what way?
Are you reffering to utopian anarchism?
It's really not relevant here.

There can be no true freedom in an imperfect society. -Shewdogg.

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." ~ Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment

In what way?
Are you reffering to utopian anarchism?

I was refering to the humor inherit in saying "We need rules to keep us free"

Rules give us definition and substance. Without them humans are in a void and cannot define themselves or their reality.

Just gave me a chuckle thats all.

>>"Rules give us definition and substance. Without them humans are in a void and cannot define themselves or their reality."

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I don't agree without that. I can define myself just fine without laws being enforced from the outside. Or so I think, at least. :b

However. We do need laws,and enforcement of the laws, for protection from each other. If we were all invunerable, or if we were all tolerant pacifists, then and only then might anarchy be a good thing.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I don't agree without that. I can define myself just fine without laws being enforced from the outside. Or so I think, at least.
Or until someone comes up while you are peacefully defining yourself and starts helping him or herself to the stuff you own. The 1 trillion variations of that theme are why we need laws to be free.

Gah, L2!
READ my posts before replying to them, mkey! :rolleyes

In the same post as you quoted, I also wrote: However. We do need laws,and enforcement of the laws, for protection from each other.

Nope.. sorry, need to summerize your entire point in the first sentence. You are discriminating against people with A.D.D. You need to make every effort to accomodate us.

sowwy... :o

:rollin

Freedom is an illusion we choose to believe in.

Are you really free when the insurance companies get together and get the government to FORCE you to wear a seat belt?

Are you really free when you can't attempt suicide without breaking the "law"?

Are you really free if you can't grow and smoke marijuana in your own home (never leaving home under the influence)?

These are just a few example of "rules" which in a "free" society should never exist. What added danger to society does it cause if you don't wear your seatbelt, attempt suicide, or do drugs in the privacy of your own home?

ZERO.

Democracy isn't really all it's cracked up to be. In the end it's simply the majority opinion holders on each issue oppressing the minority opinion holders because they can. Generally and historically it's been the "moral" majority oppressing the "immoral" minority. Granted, it is a bit more civil than open anarchy or civil war erupting every time an issue isn't agreed upon, but FREE? Nah.

For some reason I dont see the three things you mention being of very much importance.

Perhaps I find it silly to be upset at anyone for passing a law that saves thousands of lives. Work in a major city's hospital and see how many car wrecks have injuries both with and without seatbelts. I mean, come on, cops seldom bother with seat belt laws unless you did something REALLY bad (DUI), or letting you out of a speeding ticket.

If you want to kill yourself I dont think the fact that its against the law is going to come into play... so whats to complain about.

Drug abuse is a harder one to argue against, seeing as how many peoples lives get turned around for the better once addicted to some agent.

Come up with something that really really really hinders my every day life and I'll agree that we're opressed.

Ranei Bard

I wish we could be free from the ANGST!

"Oh we arent Free!!!!!! I have to chew my Califlower.. YOU CALL THAT FREEDOM!!!!11111onefour"

i hate the fact that there are places where i can't step on the grass, STUPID OPRESSION!!

i blame l2

Kulman, please dear god tell me you're kidding. I haven't seen anyone this stupid since the last time Xan got high and started posting.

Democracy isn't really all it's cracked up to be

There's usually an anarchist party that gets on the ballot in a few states. Feel free to vote for him/her and whine some more.

Democracy isn't really all it's cracked up to be.

I just noticed that little gem.

BRA-fucking-VO.

Actually my point is that people seem to be equating democracy to freedom. While democracy is the BEST CHANCE for a free society, the "moral" majority usually winds up screwing it all up by pressing their ideas of morality on the "immoral" minority.

If you walk down the street naked with your cock in a sheep, holding a water bong filled with pipe tobacco with body paint on your back saying "Will work for sex!", then how long do you think it will take you to get put in jail? How many laws did you break without presenting a danger to society or an individual? Who did you harm such that you should be jailed?

If a democracy is established in Iraq, then yes there will be more freedoms than allowed in the previous government. However, freedom will be restricted to what the majority thinks you should be able to do. Where will the foundation of their freedoms come from? If the majority decide women should still be covered from head to toe while in public or suffer public beatings, then that's what they'll get, whether the minority wants to wear jeans and a t-shirt or not. That's not freedom, imho.

As far as my examples go, i'm giving rather inane and silly examples because they're not really hot debate topics like abortion and gun control but are obvious restrictions on personal freedom that are senseless. Take suicide example again. No it doesn't matter if I want to commit suicide, as i'm dead and no penalty to bear. BUT, someone assisting a friend or loved one to do the deed because they're physically unable DOES suffer the consequences. Seatbelt law? Ghey! Similar to suicide law. Who are YOU to say I MUST protect myself from becoming an auto accident fatality?

So yeah, democracy isn't a vessel of absolute freedom as most people seem to believe. You only have the freedom which the majority says you have and that's why I say democracy isn't what it's cracked up to be. Again, I agree that democracy is the best method of producing freedom in general, but the US is a prime example how perverted democracy can become in removing personal freedom. Agree or disagree. You have that freedom :p

lady's, this is what happens when you do more then 3 shrooms at once

Y'know what, so long as you off yourself in your own grave already pre-dug and pre-paid for in line with community health regulations, go for it.

Furthermore, if you sign a waver saying that you'll forego any medical treatment for any injuries you may procur in an auto-accident, then go for it.

But if you're gonna fuck up offing yourself or get into an accident and end up taking a hospital bed that should go to someone who isn't such a fucking idiot...

See? You even have the freedom to insult me rather than actually debate me.

Maybe the fact that sodomy is still illegal in most states should interest you Vhex. Hope they don't decide to start enforcing it and arrest you.

No, I'm saying that your actions, no matter how much you think they may not affect others, often do affect others. So you kill yourself in your apartment right? What about the emotional damage that'll cause to the person who finds your rotting and/or bloody corpse?

If you want to debate, try coming up with an argument that at least makes a vague grasp at competancy. You might as well say that pot smoking should be made legal because it's not as bad as smoking cigarettes.

>than actually debate me.

you can't debate idiots, halo proved this

No, I'm saying that your actions, no matter how much you think they may not affect others, often do affect others. So you kill yourself in your apartment right? What about the emotional damage that'll cause to the person who finds your rotting and/or bloody corpse?

Bud, let me tell you something that you don't want to hear. You are controlled. You are controlled from the day you were born. You were programmed to behave in a way that is "acceptable" to the environment in which you live. You were sent to "Sunday school" for your weekly dose of Christian programming, you were clothed daily by those that were programmed before you. You were programmed by your parents and everyone else that was an authority figure in your childhood to do what you were told to do. These things you were forced to do as a youth, the environment and people you interacted with as a youth, made you into what you are today with all your ideals in tact. Ideals that you believe are your own... wrong Einstein. you are a puppet just like all other "God Fearing" Americans. Now if you will please, wake up and smell what you are shoveling. You are not free, you "think" you are free because you were programmed into believing that the meaning of freedom is what you wake up and do every day, you work and you consume. You are a functional part of the society. True Free people are those who more closely relate to a Socratean way of life. The Bums.

Consume. Reproduce.

They live.

'you can't debate idiots, halo proved this '

- Aye, I like to think I have. The amount of twats around here that can't put up a debate as simple as yourself.. It's extraordinary.
Now stop mentioning me in every post, bitch.

i usually don't respond to idiots, such as yourself, but ... how many posts have i mentioned you in?

A few. But perhaps I'm also thinking of the other cunt that has his name beginning with T.
Titface, or something.
I dunno.
You all seem alike. You know, with the not having an original thought and stuff.

Okay then. If you think a seatbelt law is perfectly sane and warranted because it saves lives, then let's extrapolate that ideology.

Statistically more children die annually in private swimming pools than in public swimming pools where lifeguards are posted for safety. There should then be a law forcing private pool owners to hire a lifeguard to stand watch when their children are at home. Lake swimming? ILLEGAL! It would take too many damn lifeguards and the state can't afford it.

Statistically more people die from heat stroke in Arizona and Nevada than any other state. There should then be a law forcing each and every person to stop by their local "Water Consumption Regulation Station" and be forced to drink four 8 oz glasses of water before noon and four more 8 oz glasses before 8pm to prevent unneccessary deaths.

Sky diving is just asking to die. ILLEGAL!

Like to rock climb? ILLEGAL!

These 4 examples sound insane, eh? Well, they are. Any law FORCING people to protect themselves should sound insane. Seat belt laws are no different. If you want to save lives in auto accidents, then do something to decrease the number and severity of accidents! The automobile has already been deemed a lethal weapon in the hands of a DUI driver. It is still a lethal weapon in the hands of sober drivers that are inattentive, careless, reckless and irresponsible. The punishments for causing an accident should be the same for sober and DUI drivers because the result is the same. Call it what you will, criminal negligence, vehicular assault, involuntary manslaughter... whatever. If punishments for irresponsible drivers were equal to the punishments for DUI drivers, then the number of traffic fatalities would drop so dramatically it isn't even funny. But what do we have? We have a lot of chickenshit congressman, senators, judges and policemen that also like to break traffic laws when it suits them, so we wind up with them telling us that we must protect ourselves instead of them protecting us with stiffer penalties. Outrageous!

On the suicide issue, if you seriously think we have anti suicide laws because of trauma caused to those that find the body, then you're truly in denial about where your "freedoms" come from. We have suicide laws for one and only one reason. It is the one and only unforgivable sin in the christian religion and the religious right has pressed that part of their belief structure on the rest of the people through the government.

Kulman.
Shhhhh. Stop talking.

There are VERY good reasons that suicide is illegal. And they are LEGAL reasons, not religious.
1) The act itself has be an illegal one. The reason for this is to make the assisting of suicide a illegal action. Just like assisting a Murder is illegal. "No your Honor, I didnt Murder him, he wanted to kill himself and I just helped him. Witnesses? Nope, sorry, im the only witness, just me and him in the room."
2) In order to commit somebody who has just attempted suicide to a place for observation or treatment, suicide needs to be an illegal action by statute. So when a police officer comes to someones house and that person is threatening or in the middle of commiting suicide, the police can arrest that person and prevent that persons death.

Now shut the fuck up.

May I point out to the Jury that I never said anything about Safety?

Kulman, you're a moron, put the pot away and give it up. As much fun as it is to argue with people who are stoned, it's less fun when I can't send you to get me a coke and find you locked inside the refridgerator 10 minutes later.

There are VERY good reasons that suicide is illegal. And they are LEGAL reasons, not religious.
1) The act itself has be an illegal one. The reason for this is to make the assisting of suicide a illegal action. Just like assisting a Murder is illegal. "No your Honor, I didnt Murder him, he wanted to kill himself and I just helped him. Witnesses? Nope, sorry, im the only witness, just me and him in the room."
2) In order to commit somebody who has just attempted suicide to a place for observation or treatment, suicide needs to be an illegal action by statute. So when a police officer comes to someones house and that person is threatening or in the middle of commiting suicide, the police can arrest that person and prevent that persons death.

L2. Your state of denial is truly amazing and your reasoning quite circuitous. "Hey. Let's make suicide illegal so that assisting suicide is illegal!" And why do you think people who attempt suicide should be interrupted, arrested and committed? Originally it was along the lines of "They must be crazy if they want to commit the unforgivable sin!"


Vhex. You can just fuck off if all you wanna do is bash me and call me a moron because you suck at debate. Your obviously ingrained in your beliefs and too afraid to take an in depth look at reality. "Oh God no! Let's not possibly actually listen to someone that doesn't agree with my principles and beliefs. I might have to change what i believe because i learn something."

I think that if you stop someone from killing themselves you should be responsible for any and all actions they take from that day forward. You do not know what suffering they are experiencing, but your own selfish short-sightedness prevents you from accepting their choice. Well, I think that short-sightedness should not come without a penalty. That penalty being that you are now responsible for what they do.

The thing that made me think about this long and hard (hu huh huh huh - "long and hard" huh huh) was that lady in Texas that drown her kids. She had attempted suicide NUMEROUS times and was prevented from finishing the job - to coin a phrase. So, if she was suffering and in anguish for whatever reason, keeping her alive was, in my little world, akin to torture. She snaps under the pressure and kerrr-plunk, you have multiple dead children. Excellent trade, folks!

Suicide is, once again - in my little world, a safety-catch of nature to protect society / region / environment / species from those that are "not right".

PS - For those of you wanting to bitch at me right now, let me answer your question ahead of time. Yes, I have had relatives and friends kill themselves and all I can say to them is: "Sorry it happened, but in the long run, it quite likely was for the greater good, so thanks for the pre-emptive strike on yourself."

Let the cry-babying, hand-wringing, and bed-wetting begin...

Kulman. What the fuck are you talking about.
I hereby sentance you to spend 1 weekend in an emergency ward.
The VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of people who try to commit suicide are not terminally ill nor are they psycho moms about to kill her kids. Its a cry for help, a person has emotionally hit rock bottom.
And another thing. The majority of em are Kids. Kids who are overwhelmed with the hormones and emotions and trying to grow up. And a good percentage of these kids have been damaged. Lots of times suicide is cry for help from a kid that has been sexually abused.
But fuck them, let em die right?
Its a good thing there is nothing outside your little world. Reality revolves around you and nothng exists that you cant relate to. Im sure Daniel Scruggs (http://www.bullyonline.org/schoolbully/scruggs.htm) thanks you for standing up for his "rights"
And another thing.. It is EXTREMELY rare that someone who commits suicide is prosecuted. Even people who ATTEMPT and fail are almost NEVER prosecuted. (as a matter of fact I cant find one case where it is)
You see, people arent really concerned about punishment for "sin". People, judges, cops, prosecutors, just wanna get that person help. Thats all.
Goddamn that religion and its belief in the sanctity of life. HOW DARE THEY. Its so awful and terrible.

The VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of people who try to commit suicide are not terminally ill nor are they psycho moms about to kill her kids.

I agree! In that you agree too, and you're so confident they are safe and sane, you wouldn't be too opposed to a law making them their savior's responsibility, would you? Let's face it, they wouldn't be here if they a- did it right the first time and b- weren't "saved" by some do-gooder who can't mind their own business.

Fact of the matter is normal, rational people don't attempt suicide. Dumbasses attempt (with the intention of failing - ThxAttentionWhore)...people with real problems try hard to get it right the first time. To those that missed, better luck next time.

The majority of em are Kids.

Well fuck it then, Mother Theresa, let 'em stay in your house. YOU deal with it, or pay for them to be dealt with. Why should I foot the bill for someone that would rather not be here, and seem to not have parents that give a shit.

Lots of times suicide is cry for help from a kid that has been sexually abused.

Ahhh, stop it! You're breaking my heart.

But fuck them, let em die right?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Goddamn that religion and its belief in the sanctity of life.

I said nothing of religion. I merely said that if someone wants to "save the humans", they should be responsible for the humans that they saved. If they're so "needy" for "help", then you should be thanked by society when your "saved life" makes a pollution-free, unlimited-supply energy source. Way to go Billy! You should also be held liable when your saved life decides, "I wanted to die, and these fuckers kept me here, miserable and tired - so now I'm going to drive this dump-truck through that elementary-school to show them how pissed I am." YOU should be responsible, but it seems to me that you want your cake and to eat it too. Doesn't suprise me coming from someone that subconsciously hates other people's freedoms - even when they don't effect you.

www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/may03/137871.asp (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/may03/137871.asp)

News article about a friend of mine who I grew up with. We wrestled, played football, hunted, fished, did all kinds of things through out our young lives. Lost track over him the last few years till seen this on my television one day. I think if someone could have saved Tim from his troubles we would of been better off in society.

Fact of the matter is normal, rational people don't attempt suicide. Dumbasses attempt (with the intention of failing - ThxAttentionWhore)...people with real problems try hard to get it right the first time. To those that missed, better luck next time

Unfortunately he did too good of a job as faust would say. Guess he had real problems.

because you suck at debate.

Yuo aer teh winnar!1!

What the fuck is the problem here? Suicide Illegal? Does it Matter? If you commit suicide you are dead, it doesn't matter. You cannot assist in a suicide, despite Capitol Hill telling you that you can and that it is illegal. A suicide by definition is "self inflicted." If you receive assistance in suicide, then it is no longer a suicide, it is manslaughter or murder (take your pick). Yes, I'm saying you murdered yourself or attempted to murder yourself with assistance because you are incapable or too afraid to commit suicide (be it religious in reasoning or no). Do not SAY that you can assist in suicide (like I said before, i know this is defined but it is simply moronic and contradicts the principal of this act). Do not confuse Homicide with Suicide.

Now, lets get back to what we were trashing each other about before. Freedom. You are free when you are not constrained by a governing body, any governing body. Exorcising freedom may make you criminal in the eyes of the citizen and JUDGMENT may be place upon you. The citizen doesn't give a damn about what is fair and you will be punished to the limit of the LAW regardless of the crime. Depending on location, possession of materials of various types may bring you a judgment that is as bad or worse than homicide. For instance, in Colorado you get caught with 1 Oz of Cannabis (thats weed for the uneducated) and it will probably be confiscated and you get sent on your merry way. In North Dakota, your ass is going to the nearest prison if you get caught with the same amount. But how can this be? We are in the US and we have this freedom in which you speak. Well i guess we aren't all equally FREE are we. If we are not all equally free, then none of us are free.

The point. The constitution of the US is simply a mouthpiece, its only as good as the interpretation of it, much like the Holy Bible or the Koran. From state to state, the constitution is interpreted differently and the state makes its own law in spite of the principals that "should" be followed. What are you gonna do? you are gonna conform, or you are going to live as an outlaw and free, or a convicted criminal. your only other option to escape the law is to join the armed forces. a place where you can commit all the homicide you little heart desires, granted you are in a state of war and you have the ORDERS to fire at will.

But do you have more freedom in the military? Far from it, you are contracted into indentured servitude. You do what you're told without question because you signed a contract. You are a killing slave. Not a far cry from ancient Egyptian civilization would you say.

We are no better than the dictatorships or theocracies, this nation simply burrows itself in paperwork and hides behind forked tongued layers. If you simply don't like the way someone treated you, you can sue their asses. "Those Slanderous bastards!!! I'M GONNA SUE THEIR ASSES!!!" Bling Bling, getting payed. Getting payed is the bottom line, Feed the greed in the good ole FREE USA". I'm an American, I am a Veteran, I'm growing more ashamed of our Governing Body on a Daily basis. And NOT because of the Iraq shenanigans, those dirty Persians have been murdering each other for a much longer period in world history than the existence of the United States.
We just helped them do it with more efficiency, and then took their toys away from them. Thanks Reagan and Bush/Bush Administrations. What would the world be without your excellent judgment. Well we aren't all going to be FREE any time soon.

www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/ (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/)

Bleh..
Penalty, 15 yards and loss of down on Faust for blatent trolling.

I am sad to see Spain leave Iraq, hopefully they won't abandon the entire war on terror.
What you fail to see is that "fighting against terreorists, making terrorist attacks no longer being a threat" has nothing to do with the war on iraq.
Its sad how narrowminded you people are when it comes to this stuff.
You believe that every time your government uses arms and military forces, then it just HAS to be the great war on terror.
You don't understand that there is only one goal in the war on terror: Undo the threat of terrorist attacks.
Did you ever think that there may be other ways to do so?

Let me give you an example. To undo the danger of black slaves attacking and killing white men, they were being released and slavery was prohibited. Now that worked out pretty well. It took a long time and racism is still a topic, however, it definately was the right way and at one point people understood that enslaving black people even MORE will not really solve the threat.
Start thinking outside the box. Bombing people will not stop their hate. It'll only increase it.

Its sad how narrowminded you people are when it comes to this stuff.

You are calling others narrowminded? It's sad how you refuse to think outside the box of traditional European (and up to a few years ago, American) ideas that have failed to eliminate the threat of terrorism.

You, among others, are great at standing on your soapbox and telling others they are wrong. Yet you never come up with any real ideas.

Giving money away didn't solve the problem. Police action hasn't solved the problem. Threat detection hasn't solved the problem. Tolerance hasn't solved the problem.

Yeah, Bush has screwed up a lot of stuff. But maybe nationbuilding IS the eventual answer. It's an idealistic idea, but do you think terrorism would be a threat if these people lived in a free country with a representative government and opportunities for good jobs and lives free of poverty?

To undo the danger of black slaves attacking and killing white men, they were being released and slavery was prohibited.

Bar none, that is the stupidest statement I have ever seen.



LL: OK, I'll take a 10 yard penalty, but demand first down - I am not "blatantly" trolling, but maybe stating the case a bit more extreme than I actually believe.

Maybe we could send him that PBS Civil War documentary or something.

You don't understand that there is only one goal in the war on terror: Undo the threat of terrorist attacks.
Did you ever think that there may be other ways to do so?

Did you ever think that stopping the threat of terrorist attacks has been the goal of the US in using military force in Afghanistan and Iraq? There may be other ways to do so but this, in many people's opinion, is the best possible option. The US has uprooted the oppressive regimes of the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein. It has captured, contained, or killed many of Al Qaeda's leaders and other terrorists. Now countries like Iran and Syria are beginning to realize that maybe they can't afford to support terror. Iraqis have a opportunity for self-governance.

There's absolutely no alternative strategy for the war on terror that you can name, which you can show to be any better than what the US has accomplished. Appeasement of terrorists and dictators is a recipe for failure.


Let me give you an example. To undo the danger of black slaves attacking and killing white men, they were being released and slavery was prohibited. Now that worked out pretty well. It took a long time and racism is still a topic, however, it definately was the right way and at one point people understood that enslaving black people even MORE will not really solve the threat.

... Wow. I can 't even describe how stupid this is. Are black people supposed to be analogous to the terrorists in your little example? Though I didn't know that slavery was prohibited as a safety measure for white men. Thanks for this interesting new take on history.

Start thinking outside the box. Bombing people will not stop their hate. It'll only increase it.

Before we did anything at all, there were many people out there who hated us enough to kill us. They hated us enough to carry out unimaginable acts of terror. The fact that these same people may now hate us more does not bother me. You can't reason with irrational hate and violence; you can only defend yourself from it.

Let me give you an example. To undo the danger of black slaves attacking and killing white men, they were being released and slavery was prohibited. Now that worked out pretty well. It took a long time and racism is still a topic, however, it definately was the right way and at one point people understood that enslaving black people even MORE will not really solve the threat.


Sure as hell didnt learn that in the movie "Roots" did ya Taino?
Lol its like you took a stupid pill these days..some of the stuff you are putting on this board these days is down right hilarious. Step away from the DVD player and pick up a history book.