Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[RevDisk]

What about Afghanistan, Germany or Japan?

Afghanistan is now ruled by drug lords and warlords. Many former Taliban members are now ranking officials in the new power structures. Outside the capital city, things are ah, unpleasant. We have circa 10,000 soldiers in the entire country, with the main concentration in the capital city. We replaced one brutal unfriendly regime with another brutal "friendly" regime. The Northern Alliance are scarcely more than mercenaries in our pay. It is unwise to put faith in the loyalty of mercenaries. Unhealthy too.

Germany was split in half, and remained divided for nearly fifty years.

Japan we conquered. The Japanese were an orderly enough society that they were basically willing to treat MacArthur as basically a replacement for the Emperor. I admit, they did manage to create a fairly ordered and fair society under US occupation. Not one I'd like to live in personally. My family members that lived in Japan told me enough stories that I'd never even CONSIDER living there.

Let me give you a few more examples. Colonel Hugo Banzer, Bolivia. Fulgencio Batista, Cuba. Roberto Suazo Cordova, Honduras. Ngo Dihn Diem, Vietnam. Duvalier, Haiti. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua. Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Dominican Republic. The Shah, Iran. All invasions or covert missions to "liberate" countries, and ended up creating dictatorships. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not.

Stating that one has to earn freedom does not sit well with me ethically; there are far too many negative externalities to such a view.

"Earning" freedom can come in a billion different fashions. If nothing else, exercising them is a form of 'earning' them. Earning freedom does not necessarily have to involve killing. I submit to you that "freedom" is more of a life long journey and struggle moreso than a tangible object or even a concrete liberty.

There is no doubt from where I sit that the road to democracy for Iraq will be very difficult, but it can be done. The key is to understand that this will take a very long time. If the Bush administration is to be faulted for anything, it should be for overestimating the ease by which democracy would be implemented in Iraq. At this point, I would say that it is still far too early judge whether or not Iraq will become a thriving democracy, or a failed state.

No one would be happer to be proven wrong than I. I am merely stating my opinion on what is most likely to happen. I fully acknowledge it is possible that centuries of hatred and tribal feuds can be put aside. It's just not very likely.

The Kurds will never submit to domination by the Shiites or Sunni. They'll play nice as long as possible while they build up their stockpiles and infrastructure. Saddam had a unified country and a (relatively) strong Army. He never conquered Kurdistan, and he never would have in a dozen lifetimes. The Kurds want freedom. They are willing to kill for it, and die for it. I have a few Kurdish rugs hanging on my walls. Gifts from some Kurds who took the time to educate me. I am very much in their debt for the knowledge they shared.

If Saddam was willing to use a significant portion of his military, chemical weapons, etc etc to suppress the Kurds, do you really think the US govt has a chance in repressing them? The US has screwed them over too many times for the Kurds to even consider trusting our word. They're not stupid. It's pointless to start a war against the US, when they can bide their time. They're letting their enemies weaken each other, and take time to grow stronger.

When the Kurds do openly declare war against Iraq and/or Turkey, I pray our govt is intelligent enough to pretend the Kurds don't exist (again) and STAY OUT of it.

In the same way that guns do not equal violence, guns do not equal freedom. There is a lot more to establishing freedom than that. I strongly believe that the Iraq constitution should guarantee the right for its citizens to bear arms, but I also realize that governments and constitutions evolve over time, and need time to develop. Remember, our constitution was written at a time where monarchs were on the wane, and the limiting of government, and its reach were on a different level than what we experience. The historical circumstances have changed however. Making a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution would be a mistake. Iraq has a different historical pedigree and a different culture, thus their system of government should reflect those differences, where reasonable. Let's not write off Iraq yet, but instead provide the guidance that is needed for a state in transition. Just my 2 cents.

Very well put, Number 6.

The Iraqis are not Americans. They are different from us. We've done a poor job of understanding this time to time. It's cost lives, on both sides.

As you stated, it is best to give them time and let them figure out a country of their own choosing. I don't think our govt will let them stray too far to our wishes. The US govt has stated so numerous times. There are good and bad points to such behavior. I favor moreso letting them find their own path, as we found our own. This will sometimes involve biting our tongue even when we believe we know better than they do. We might be right, we might be wrong, but it is not our choice to make.

And to think that Iraqi's were one of the few people left that still had a right to bear arms. But no longer, thanks to us.

Hifi, US soldiers were ordered to forcibly disarm Iraqis, in the middle of an extremely bad crime wave. After much ah, trouble, the US Army agreed to one AK47 per household. Keep that in mind.

 

[Number 6]

RevDisk, in terms of Afghanistan I will defer to your assessment since you have first hand experience that I do not have. My point mentioning Japan and Germany was to show that over time it is possible to have countries that were not democratic become democratic. These are not perfect however, of course neither is the United States. Your counter examples are very well known to me as well, and do show very vividly the troublesome nature that forcibly imposing democracy upon a country can be. The point is not to use either positive or negative examples as predictive of what will happen, but to learn from those examples to learn why some democracies failed and others succeeded. This is actually where my research is now oriented.

"Earning" freedom can come in a billion different fashions. If nothing else, exercising them is a form of 'earning' them. Earning freedom does not necessarily have to involve killing. I submit to you that "freedom" is more of a life long journey and struggle moreso than a tangible object or even a concrete liberty.

I guess this is where I was getting confused, but I am still not sure if I fully understand exactly what you mean. In a way I think I absolutely agree with you RevDisk. If a state can "earn" its freedom, then it can be said to be that of its own, which in turn can make a galvanizing force within the society. I guess the problem I have with the term "earn" is that it suggests that being free is not an inherent right. If one must earn it somehow then it could suggest that those who do not exercise that right do not have a claim that they should be free. This becomes a problem when we start talking about groups of people that are institutionally oppressed and really have no recourse within a society. Take the Tutsi and the Twa in Rwanda prior to 1994, certainly some did take up arms against the Hutu governments, but those the government there set up a system that systematically oppressed the Tutsi and the Twa. In Brazil the indigenous tribes are systematically being exterminated by the government and by others, but how are they supposed to try to become free if the international community will not listen and they cannot muster any form of strength to combat the forces that oppress them? I agree with you, a group that fights for their freedom is the most apt to embrace the qualities that are necessary to retain their freedom, but I get worried when the term earn could mean that freedom is not an inherent right.

The Kurds will never submit to domination by the Shiites or Sunni.

You are right that this is a very real possibility, but again I think this needs to be tempered a little bit. After the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the Tutsi led government was faced with a tremendously difficult time of fostering cooperation between two people groups that were just exterminating each other. Having been to Rwanda, and returning this summer I have witnessed first hand the strides they have made. There are several other examples of vastly divergent people groups that have learned to integrate and live together. The key is figure out why they were able to succeed. This is not to say that these cases have not imploded or resurged at times, but we must glean an understanding on what made these states stable for a period of time. I just do not want everyone to write off Iraq and Afghanistan as losses, when it could be that these are the growing pains of a democracy. Like I said before, I have tremendous respect for your opinion RevDisk, you have repeatedly proved to be have very well reasoned and balanced opinions, which I nothing but the utmost regard for.

 

[Taurus 66]

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, so here it goes: When it comes to the indepth and uninteresting debates, could those involved please take it to e-mail or PM? I did this with RevDisk before, and it freed up quite a bit of space on a thread. To be honest, it's just "Blah Blah ..." to a good number of us who don't care to read a novel's worth from sun up till sun set.

Thank you for your understanding

 

[GEM]

I found it interesting and very informative. It's like the TV - don't read it, as you can switch the channel. It's nice to read more than the usual "Blow up the Arabs" blither.

Geez.

 

[RevDisk]

RevDisk, in terms of Afghanistan I will defer to your assessment since you have first hand experience that I do not have. My point mentioning Japan and Germany was to show that over time it is possible to have countries that were not democratic become democratic. These are not perfect however, of course neither is the United States. Your counter examples are very well known to me as well, and do show very vividly the troublesome nature that forcibly imposing democracy upon a country can be. The point is not to use either positive or negative examples as predictive of what will happen, but to learn from those examples to learn why some democracies failed and others succeeded. This is actually where my research is now oriented.

In regards to Afghanistan, such information can be obtained by reading books and articles. Or go drinking with folks that just returned. I also spoke to non-soldiers (ie, reporters, NGO's and "other folks") that spent more time in the area focusing on the "big picture" moreso than just a slice of it. Most soldiers have their pre-defined mission and try to stick to it. We call this "staying in your lane", and has its good and bad points. Much like anything else.

The most worrisome aspect is the number of countries the US has "liberated", with zero interest of turning such countries into a democracy. We have a very long history of invading countries and turning them into dictatorships or otherwise unpleasant countries. More often than not, this has biten us on the rear end. Iran being the chief concern these days. Note that the Iranian govt is still in power since it booted the Shah. While we dislike Iran, the people don't seem to be minding it too much otherwise the mullahs would have had their heads on a pike. The country is changing, mainly because of students and other young folk. Encouraging the liberalization of Iran is a good thing. An invasion or attempted coup would be profoundly unwise.

But somehow, I suspect you know this already.

I guess this is where I was getting confused, but I am still not sure if I fully understand exactly what you mean. In a way I think I absolutely agree with you RevDisk. If a state can "earn" its freedom, then it can be said to be that of its own, which in turn can make a galvanizing force within the society. I guess the problem I have with the term "earn" is that it suggests that being free is not an inherent right. If one must earn it somehow then it could suggest that those who do not exercise that right do not have a claim that they should be free.

Different folks can use the same words to mean different things, yes. I rattled off a few ways of "earning" freedom, but I do not claim to know every possible way to earn freedom. But I do know if it is 'freely' given, it has absolutely no value. Hence my original quote. It's deceptively simple, but based on much experience on my part and other's.

I suspect if you do not currently grasp the implications in their fullness, give it time. You will soon enough. It took me nearly 6 years to "get it", and I don't claim to fully understand it myself either.

This becomes a problem when we start talking about groups of people that are institutionally oppressed and really have no recourse within a society. Take the Tutsi and the Twa in Rwanda prior to 1994, certainly some did take up arms against the Hutu governments, but those the government there set up a system that systematically oppressed the Tutsi and the Twa. In Brazil the indigenous tribes are systematically being exterminated by the government and by others, but how are they supposed to try to become free if the international community will not listen and they cannot muster any form of strength to combat the forces that oppress them? I agree with you, a group that fights for their freedom is the most apt to embrace the qualities that are necessary to retain their freedom, but I get worried when the term earn could mean that freedom is not an inherent right.

Freedom is an innate right. But just because every person is born "entitled" to freedom doesn't mean that anyone else recognizes it. Freedom is conceptionally an inherent right, and I acknowledge that. But reality is... messier. One "earns" freedom when others acknowledge it, because humans are social animals.

I am very familiar with certain indigenous tribes having problems with their neighbors. It's not quite as bad as Australian indigenous as in Brazil, but it's still not peachy keen. America still occassionally reverts back to its original treatment of the Native Americans.

More recently, police raided a tobacco store on Native American turf, which is legally seperate from US law. The NA's in question were not taxing the tobacco products, as they didn't have to. By all rights, the Native Americans would have been well within their legal rights to deal with the invaders by ah, all means necessary. They did not, and the police looted the place. While this action doesn't compare to past genocide obviously, it still happens. Even when has a moral and legal right to freedom, doesn't mean it's always respected by others.

It's fine and correct to argue every human is entitled to certain rights. Putting it into practice is another matter entirely.

Bit of a side note, but you might want to consider study of the Basque people of Spain/France. Very interesting group.

You are right that this is a very real possibility, but again I think this needs to be tempered a little bit. After the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the Tutsi led government was faced with a tremendously difficult time of fostering cooperation between two people groups that were just exterminating each other. Having been to Rwanda, and returning this summer I have witnessed first hand the strides they have made. There are several other examples of vastly divergent people groups that have learned to integrate and live together. The key is figure out why they were able to succeed. This is not to say that these cases have not imploded or resurged at times, but we must glean an understanding on what made these states stable for a period of time. I just do not want everyone to write off Iraq and Afghanistan as losses, when it could be that these are the growing pains of a democracy. Like I said before, I have tremendous respect for your opinion RevDisk, you have repeatedly proved to be have very well reasoned and balanced opinions, which I nothing but the utmost regard for.

I think it's a very likely possibility because the Kurds believe in it very strongly. I have two Kurdish rugs in my place as a constant reminder. The style in which they made goes back to the times of Saladin, a Kurdish warrior who laid down much smack on the invading Crusaders and almost always acted with compassion, mercy and intelligence whenever possible.

Indeed, studying successful integration of divergent cultures is a very worthy cause. In these days of international commerce and travel, a very necessary one at that. I do not write off the Iraqis and Afghans as "losses". I simply state that certain US policies towards them are "losses". Some are major policies, some minor. Writing off an entire group of folks is often unwise.

I've read some of your posts as well. Especially on such things as NATO, the Marshall report, et cetera. I'm far from flawless and I have been wrong many times. You put forth a very well stated objection to something I said. I very much respect your position and the manner in which you stated it. Balanced, well researched and insightful. We just happen to disagree (partially) on a few minor conclusions. Nothing wrong with that. I see it as a good thing. Shows a very healthy amount of critical thinking.

 

[RevDisk]

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, so here it goes: When it comes to the indepth and uninteresting debates, could those involved please take it to e-mail or PM? I did this with RevDisk before, and it freed up quite a bit of space on a thread. To be honest, it's just "Blah Blah ..." to a good number of us who don't care to read a novel's worth from sun up till sun set.

Thank you for your understanding

What's wrong with very relavent discussion, even if it is boring to you? As for being long winded, some things cannot be properly explained or discussed in short sound bites and very much warrant indepth debates.

If it is just "blah blah..." to you, don't read the post. Skip it if you wish.

Off-topic or private matters should indeed be moved to email or PM. The entire point of the board is to openly debate. If someone debates in a fashion you don't care for, move along to someone that does debate in a fashion you like.

 

[Taurus 66]

As for being long winded, some things cannot be properly explained or discussed in short sound bites and very much warrant indepth debates.

and ...

If it is just "blah blah..." to you, don't read the post. Skip it if you wish.

I honestly mean no offense, but you have way too much time on your hands. But if nobody else minds the long winded rhetoric, Eh, go ahead and have your fun

 

[chas_martel]

I'll try and keep my comment short and sweet.

Several of you keep using the term "democracy" as tho'
it is an admirable goal.

What's up with that?

Did someone go and redefine the word and not tell me?

 

[Number 6]

Democracy is far from the most ideal system of government. There are many problems with a democratic form of government, but it is the best system that has been devised so far. The alternatives to democracy are considered by many to be more problematic than democracy. Democracy is far from perfect or ideal, but it is the best option out there currently.

 

[RevDisk]

Several of you keep using the term "democracy" as tho'
it is an admirable goal.

What's up with that?

Did someone go and redefine the word and not tell me?

We currently do not live in a democracy, per se. We live in a Constitutional republic, with some representative democracy tendencies.

"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that honestly can be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has tried. Democracy's worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents -- a depressingly low level, but what else can you expect?" - Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land,

 

[voilsb]

This thread reminds me very much of a similar thread about a year ago. It's not quite the same, and not a bad idea to bring it up again, either, but here's the thread I was thinking of: The Iraqi Constitution and Arms

 

[RevDisk]

This thread reminds me very much of a similar thread about a year ago. It's not quite the same, and not a bad idea to bring it up again, either, but here's the thread I was thinking of: The Iraqi Constitution and Arms

Notice the Iraqi civilians still have their AK's with "da switch".

And the insurgents still have everything under the sun.