DoD, Iraq war, and the militia talk

[DKSuddeth]

I listened to part of rumsfelds press conference today and there were numerous mentions of the iraqi militias and how they were mucking up Iraqs plans for security by fighting the new government. The Iraqi militia talk is also in a lot of news articles as well and not in a favorable light. Maybe I'm just paranoid about the gov and judicial system, but it seems like there is a concerted effort to, once again, demonize any form of militia and I'm concerned how that's going to affect our fight for the 2nd amendment.

Am I just paranoid?

 

[Jeff White]

Yes you're paranoid. No country could exist with armed political parties willing to promote their agenda from the barrel of a gun.

Tha militia in the US is part of the government. It is raised by the government, called up by the government and subservient to the government. The militias in Iraq bear no resemblance to the militia that is called for in our laws.

The militias in Iraq more closely resemble those unsanctioned militias in many parts of the country. The ones who claim that they are some kind of check on the government. If they were operating the way the Iraqi militias are, the government would be disarming them and they would be the threat to our constitutional rights.

Political power does not come out the barrel of a gun in this country. Our entire system is based on elections and peaceful transition of power. Armed political parties using violence to further their agendas are not the way the founders intended things to be.

Jeff

 

[DKSuddeth]

Ok, I didn't state my whole point and that's my fault.

When I'm talking about demonizing militia, i'm also referring to any militia that is not aligned with the government(in all issues), as the SecDef continually referred to the Iraqi militias aligning with the government. The clinton admin was very adept at maligning the militia movement with the aftermath of waco so I'm not too inclined to believe that the Bush admin wouldn't do the same with the Iraq issue, to further it's own ends on limiting citizens power and rights.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...it seems like there is a concerted effort to, once again, demonize any form of militia and I'm concerned how that's going to affect our fight for the 2nd amendment.

Surprise! The word "militia," since it occurs in the Second Amendment, has been anathema to leftist extremists for decades. They rarely, if ever, pass up an opportunity to heap further abuse upon it in the hope that some of the abuse will stick to law-abiding American citizens who choose to keep and bear arms.

Leftists may not be very creative, but no one can fault their determination.

 

[ceetee]

There were "militias" before there was a United States. A "militia" is just a group of armed people able to band together under a common leader to combat a common foe. The problem comes in when militias are formed to try to overthrow the government.

Common usage of the word "militia" here in the United States makes it akin to "Revolutionary Army". That's how people with the agenda of disarming citizens use it. Not sure what Rummy means when he says it, but I can guess.

 

[RealGun]

I think you correctly suggest that the use of the term "militia" in reference to the current situation in Iraq is a misuse of the term or certainly a different context than how we think of militias in the US. An armed group with no democratic sanction, informally led, fighting for a common cause should be called what? Was the IRA in Northern Ireland called a "militia"? Not that I recall. The "A" in IRA stands for "army". It seems to me that sectarian fighters in Iraq are "guerrillas", based on sniper or hit and run tactics by only one or a few at a time.

 

[longeyes]

The United States is already run by militias.

In this country we call them special interest groups and they are manned by lawyers who wield the "rule of law" as a deadly weapon.

 

[xd9fan]

DKSuddeth I have noticed this as well.

Govt wants it clear that only Govt standing armies are legit.....and no I dont think they give a rats a$$ about what the Constitution or american/world history tell us.

Sadly state citizen militias (and any concept of federalism for that manor) are a dead practise in current america.

The swiss are the last example on earth of federalism and citizen militias. The USA has no desire to change its central/statist military planning anytime soon. Its just too big, self-aware and powerful.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Militias are supposed to be the last line of defense. When the Army is beaten or the government collapses, it is the militia that should defend the homesteads and maintian order in the towns. Militias, by their very nature, aren't ment to work in large scales over an intire nation unless there is some unifing force controling them. Having independent militias active when you still have govenmental forces trying to maintain order is a recipe of disaster (look at Iraq).

**Note: I am not advocating complete government control, or that people should rely on the Gov to protect them. However, if you intrests is maintaining order (not overthrowing the Gov), the independent militia usually ends up hindering efforts to establish peace. Rarely do the militias share a unified goal so they often end up fighting each other (as evident in Iraq).

Militias are a great thing in an emergency, but uncontroled, independent militia can sow chaos and anarchy.

 

[xd9fan]

the swiss model prove your statements inacurate.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

The Swiss militias are organized, inter connected, and have a unified purpose. Even the American conlonist militias were organized and unified. The Iraqi militias might be organized, but they have no unified goal other than advancing their indiviual goals and paving the way for civil war.

How would America look if conservatives and liberal started forming armed groups to wander the streets enforcing their agendas?

Now if Iraq had no government, and the US pulled out, then these militias would be essential to protecting neighborhoods and villages. However, as it stands they are just complicating matters.

 

[Fosbery]

The Swiss militia, whilst brilliant, is more like an army than the classical view of a militia. Their weapons and equipment are provided by the government, attendence of training excercises is compulsory by law and it is highly organised with a command structure and so on. It is a single, nation wide body, not a collection of small groups.

For me, it's all about intent and behaviour. The Iraqi militias are clearly not acting properly. They are acting like criminal gangs more fighting against democracy and freedom rather than militias fighting for it.

Out of interest: what is the state of militias in the US? How popular are they? Are they illegal or restricted in any way in any states? Are any THR members in militias? Obviously the left wing is hostile to them, but what about people like you and me, are you all (or mostly) against militias? By militias I of course mean bands of civillians who train and prepare for situations where they might be needed etc and who have at least some sort of basic organisation.

 

[TallPine]

Political power does not come out the barrel of a gun in this country.

I would disagree with that, Jeff.

Politicians have the power, and that power is maintained by law enforcement with guns.

Try not paying your taxes, and eventually guys(& gals) with guns will come to arrest you or throw you out of your home.

You can vote for politician A or politician B but the results are mostly the same. I'm becoming convinced that the only reason that the Republicans don't clamor for gun control is that they are convinced that the govt has such greater firepower that our measly weapons are irrelevant.

 

[Jeff White]

Tallpine,
Are you advocating arming the political parties. Will we have red shirts and blue shirts shooting it out on the street corners?

Elections aren't decided by force of arms. Not in this country. Elections decide who controls the guns of the state.

The state will always be capable of using force. The founders ensured that when they established the Army. The state must have some ability to use force or you wouldn't have a state.

If you armed the republicans and Democrats and greens and libertarians and they all tried to further their agenda by killing their opponents you would have a situation here like the one in Iraq.

Or suppose that the Michigan militia, Ohio militia, Missouri militia, KKK, Aryan Nations, Black Panther Party and every other armed splinter group in this country decided to go to war against the government and each other. Then you would have a situation in the US like the one in Iraq.

Nope political power doesn't come out of the barrel of a gun here. It comes from the ballot box. The party that wins at the polls gets to use the guns that belong to the people.

Jeff

 

[TallPine]

The party that wins at the polls gets to use the guns that belong to the people.

Okay, I see your point ... but if those guns belong to the people, can I just walk into the cop shop and borrow one sometime...?

 

[91Bravo]

I would suggest that what is termed a "militia" in Iraq is more in line with the private "armies" employed by regional Chinese warlords in the early 20th century. Privately paid, armed, and directed in accordance with one individuals aims.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Iraq is an artificially created country that dates back to colonial regimes. The various groups of disparate people in that region still operate under the model of tribalism, and have to be educated on the concept of a republic, and see how it functions, before they will understand it and have an opportunity to embrace it.


Its a far stetch to call an armed tribal group a militia.