I know, and acknowledged that point if you ready me again

I didn't come out and say it, because I thought it could be assumed, but the basic fact is you either have to break those political "blocks" (somehow) or just go ahead and break them up into separate states (probably not a good idea). As things stand, democracy in the US form just wouldn't work there, even if you did convince them to stop using naked force as the tool of choice (see next line).



No. Its simply something thats absolutely 100% necessary. You can rephrase it, if you want, to say change their mindset or their way of life or their political process or anything else you want. But you have to get them to stop viewing naked force as the instrument of choice -- as the first tool, rather than last -- for political disagreements. The rest of their culture is their own, again as I acknowledged (though perhaps not is as many words), to change or not as they would.

I think you need to learn to read me more closely. One of your comments was a clear mis-reading (or missed reading) of a part of a post, the other other missed a key implied argument (which may have been my fault, I will admit...). To quote myself:



Each of the things I mentioned is vitally important in any democratic government. If you don't have the separation of church and state, the freedom of speech, and a genuine rule of law, any democracy formed won't be stable.

Please note that separation of church and state can be absolute, as in America, or partial (most other places) wherein while there may be an acknowledged state church, but it doesn't really matter if you're a member or not.

The thing is, their culture is vastly different. And we are years from understanding it. The only successful democracy in the region was Lebanon, and what did we do to them? We gave Israel weapons to bomb the crap out of bordering cities for their petty revenge.

Actually I understood your thing about not giving them mom and apple pie (which was actually first made in England). What I was talking about was that their culture doesn't really include the idea of democracy...and that might be what they really want. The Iraqis may say they want democracy...but like how we don't understand their culture, they don't fully understand ours and their idea of democracy might be something more akin to tranny of the majority with no protections for the minority. We can try to change that perspective, but I don't expect them to like it or perhaps even want it. Finally, I'm pretty damn sure the shiites don't want a seperation of church and state like we have...one of the big reasons why shiites split from the sunnis (besides who got to be caliphite) is that the shiites have always wanted a more Islamic government with harsher shariah law than the sunnis. So you'd probably end up battling the shiite religion itself for that particular (and neccessary) provision.

Which leads on to something I forgot to point out, that if we enforce democracy on them against their own free will, it kinda defeats the purpose.

 

Mom's are made in England?     



The only two real minorities are Christians and Jews, and they are fleeing the country in throngs now that a lot of the Iraqis have taken up a vigilente mentallity. Not to mention that our 'accident' killings of Iraqis is causing a great strain on our already tarnished immage in the Middle East. I would rather we divide the country in thirds and leave them a lone for a decade to fight it out. The problem with that is Iran and Syria are starting to get involved in Iraq. If we leave now, it will definetly escalate into a regional war.

not really... the alternative is that something else is forced on them. For without democracy you will be forced. Either by warlords, crimelords, religious factions, or an army from Iran.



The alternative to choice is slavery... the alternative to choosing is losing the right to choose. Once you choose to become a slave you lose the right to choose and you can have any choice forced upon you.


It's a loop... you must choose to choose or you lose the right to choose and someone else chooses for you. That choice can be whatever they want as you've given up that choice.

Little known fact TGe, Moms were invented in England along with air and fire.  

Overall I agree with you TGE, about pulling out and the possiblity of a regional war. As for the possiblity of a regional war, as cold-blooded as it sounds, the US could pontentially make that work for us. Distract Iran by forcing a stalemate in the war by giving Syria or Saudi Arabia/Kuwait (whoever ends up fighting Iran) weapons to offset Iran's numbers. However, on the down side a) every time we give people from Middle Eastern nations guns we end up regreting it (like when we gave Osama Bin Laden weapons to fight the Soivets in Afghanistan...or when we gave Iran weapons to help stabilize the Shah's regime...or when we gave Iraq weapons to fight Iran), it might accelerate Iran's nuclear program like how WW2 accelerated Germany and the US's nuclear programs (that is if Iran does have a nuclear program...I know Bush and Europe says they do, but Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction of Iraq and got Britain's help in trying convincing the public of their existence...then again, Iran is run by crazy assholes...then again, Sadaam was a crazy asshole too). The best possible solution would be to create hydrogen cars and switch away from oil thus making the enitire Middle East irrevelant and getting rid of the wealth that ultimately funds the terrorists and Iran's nuclear program (if they have one). But that would be a long term solution, not one for the short term.

I dont know of many people who choose to be slaves, do you?



No wonder the English are still rich...

Yes, it could work for us, but the UN would crucify anyone supportive of such a thing. Do you know what would happen to oild prices if a regional war started there?

Personally? not many... though it's been the standard choice of billions for thousands of years.


Bow to the king.

the Declaration of Independance was the basis for the rejection of the idea.

precisely.

I wouldnt say billions, but slavery has been here for a while, because of force.

depends on how you interpret, if you interpret slavery as a inhereted position of subservience and little freedom, yes its been the choice for billions, all the way back until pretty much the brink of history.

give the king service he'll give you protection. after that you dont get a say in things.

Thats Feudalism, its a little different.

When the king can take anything you own... even take your wife, have sex with her on your wedding night, draft your children into service... tax you everything you own with no say... forbid you to own weapons... forbid you to do really anything that might elevate you above a slave including restricting learning... and freedom of speech... you're a slave.


The chains and whips are simply in the mind as much as physical. Is it from being kept in a house under lock and key... where you're beaten if you don't do what you're told when you're told?


The only difference is the house is larger and the rules more general. It is one of the big reasons I get upset when I talk to americans that don't understand simple concepts like the right to bare arms. It is at the very least a symbol of our freedom.

Go re-read the amendment. Its clearly worded to refer to well regulated militia, not common Joe Gun-happy. If you disagree, find me one -- just one! -- time when the supreme court has struck down a gun control law on the basis of that amendment. Please.

Actually, it isn't. One of the great things about the founders is their ability to express very complex concepts in short poetic prose. Their failing however was not stating things in highly redundant legal verse to prevent misinterpretation. If you read the federalist papers and other works put to paper by the founders it's made very clear what it was supposed to do.


A militia was an example of it's use. However, the founders did not trust government. they did not even trust the government they had just made. They saw it as a new an fundamental right of citizens in their society that they be allowed to bare arms.


In England it was common for the state to cease weapons in cases of social unrest... typically the kind where the state was doing some injustice to the people. The founders believed that your weapon was among other thins your final vote in society. The final protection of your rights and the means by which the people could should the need arise... start another revolution and start over again. The founders actually expected revolutions to be common in the American republic... perhaps once every hundred years or so.


My right to bare arms is one of the things that makes the basic philosophy of my society different from that of any society in europe... including Switzerland upon which much of the US republic is based. All of those states, even in their parliamentary form place the state above the people. It is only in our society where the people are recognized as OWNING the country. It is mine. It is a tool of my will. A tool I share with perhaps 75 million other voting members of my society.



Ask yourself this before you tell me that my interpretation is wrong.


Would George Washington agree that weapons should be only held by the government? I don't care what you think of George Washington. That isn't relevant. It was his generation that wrote wrote the bones of the US constitution. Thus it's "intention" is their intention. We can change the constitution if we so choose. But that will take about 75 percent of the electorate. Which you won't get. Ergo the law stands as it is... and if you want to change it without getting 75 percent... in effect... cheat. Then out of my cold dead hands.



why don't you try and take it... Come get some.

The federalist paper's aren't legal documents though The constitution is what it is. And, furthermore, my challenge still stands: find one case where the Supreme Court has struck down a gun control law on the basis of it.

Ron, the Surpreme court has sited the Federalist papers in interpreting the constituion. You might not be fully aware of this due to the fact that they were refered to very early on in the establisment of our country.

the dicisions made at that time are the ones that are used as precident today.
(I only know this from reading the bio of Marshall, our first cheif Justice)

Sure, they may have cited them. But they still aren't legal documents

Ron, the Supreme Court has sited the Federalist papers in interpreting the constitution. You might not be fully aware of this due to the fact that they were referred to very early on in the establishment of our country.

the decisions made at that time are the ones that are used as precedents today.
(I only know this from reading the bio of Marshall, our first chief Justice)

And no case has ever been brought before the court addressing gun control sighting the constitution as the basis, so the court has never addressed the issue as such. Thus there are no cases to site.

Also the constitution is a living document being revisited all the time. What constitutes a well regulated militia back then is not the same thing it is today. Back then EVERYONE was considered to be in the militia. Also it has been considered that the reference in the constitution concerning the right to bear arms was referring to rifles, not hand guns. The law has already been interpreted to exclude automatic rifles... I hated having to give up my ak47 but alas I sent it to my brother in law in Kansas when New Jersey outlawed my possession of it..

If they can restrain my "right to bear arms" by taking away my ak47 then could they not also within the constitution find a way to take away my colt?

they sited them as the reason for their desision.. that made the law!

They convey proper interpretation.


Again the failing of the constitution is that the language is not specified in modern legal terms which have been designed specifically to prevent people like yourself from distorting their intentions.


The next time you look at a 500 page legal brief and wonder why it's so painfully long... look in the mirror.


No offense, but instead of accepting the constitution for what it was supposed to be, you are intentionally interpreting it as what you "want" it to be.


It's one of the few things killing the country... i'm not really blaming you for this... nothing personal. Just something you should watch.


Irrelevant... find me one instance in which having sex with horses was made mandatory.


Is that then not unconstitutional?



No state or federal law has banned anything short of assault rifles.

The Al Gore largely lost in 2000 because the democrats didn't understand that going all anti gun was political DEATH. Remember John Kerry? He went hunting in his election and the man doesn't hunt. He did that specifically to let everyone know he's not anti gun. Because Gore's anti gun rhetoric probably cost him the election.


If you want to try though... come and take it... just try it.


No seriously... TAKE IT.

the ONLY difference is that the first chose.

Oh booo hoooo, finder's keepers

the federalist papers were basically mail spam, I dont see the confusion...