US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

welcome to the results of a volunteer military led by a president who demonizes the enemy. why are we surprised?

eh. armies are armies. war is war. war is what allows for this and it needs to end.

iraqis will have to stand up for themselves. they really didn't need us to take out their leader and they don't need us to install a puppet democracy that they don't want and aren't paradigmatically prepared to deal with. they only needed us to take away saddam's helicopter gunships which was the only thing that allowed him to maintain power. but we needed him in power because we didn't know who would be if he wasn't. and now we're in charge of a big nasty mess that won't solve itself and isn't serving our ends or anyone else's.you want to end war crimes? end war. war crimes are a result of crazy volunteers and people who have been traumatized and overwhelmed by war. it is possible to end war, it has to be. we have to change policy so that violence isn't an option. we just have to ask the right questions and i'm working on it as fast as i can.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-20-2005 03:58 PM

we are not assisting the government in iraq. we are just getting ourselves killed. if we really wanted to stop the insurgents, we'd demonstrate our force in the area by moving our troops to the borders and putting pressure on the neighboring countries (where the insurgency is getting it's support).war is not the result of person issues. war is the result of national differences that could easily be solved in other ways if they understood that violence wasn't an option. murder and massacre are not war.

but war is not violence. well. it is violent but it's inherently different. it's a different method of placing great economic pressures on another society in order to force a policy shift in your favor. genocide, rape, and other crimes are different.and yes. if we pulled our troops out of the cities and placed them at the borders, it would be better. our troops are doing NOTHING but being killed in the cities. if the iraqis want democracy, they have to do it themselves... that's why it's called RULE BY THE PEOPLE. if the people don't demand it, it will never work.

it doesn't have to be about economics. i didn't say anything about being 'about economics'. war is expensive. when a country can no longer afford the expense, they will fold to the dominant policy.i don't care if it's heartless. the only reason we have a democracy is because we wanted it and we fought for it. we had no guarantees; we had no protection. you can't install democracy. oh and democracy has nothing to do with economic equality. it has to do with suffrage, enfranchisement. a vote is all democracy guarantees. capitalism guarantees a free market with opportunity for anyone to make it big if they work hard enough... or at least that is the idea. if you don't like it, then change your vote to socialism.you have to understand. it's not that i don't want to help them, it is simply that democracy can only work if the people demand it and are willing to give their lives for it. notice the people of iraq aren't in the streets fighting for their new constitution. you remember how this country started? you remember how france got rid of their monarchy? you see that democracy isn't working in russia? why? because you can't install it. it has to be won.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 03:27 PMThis message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 04:13 PM

exactly. that's why i said 'to induce a change of policy'.we didn't have electricity when we gained our independence.it guarantees a free market, not a fair market.
and the idea behind capitalism is that one mustn't be of noble birth to succeed. why do you think they invented it? because suddenly people weren't satisfied with what had always been... aristocracy and serfs. so people worked harder and made more than they needed. boom. capitalism. thus. if you work hard enough, you can succeed. if you work 3 jobs and take classes in your "spare" time and don't sleep and you are smart and advance to managerial positions in your work and you graduate and you apply to the right places and you work really hard... you too can take over the world. yes it takes some amount of luck but much less than being born into the right family. i didn't say it was easy, i said it took work. at least that's how it's supposed to go. but then i don't really like capitalism either.i said willing to fight... even if merely by words. but then i don't like democracy. i like oligarchy, i like monarchy. i don't think people are smart enough to rule themselves. i know the us and france didn't achieve freedom on their own. but they didn't have it installed for them. the iraqis had nothing to do with the decision to make iraq a democracy. this country has been a puppet show since it's inception. these are tribal people. sure they've had cities long before we ever did, but they are not like us. they are not at the place where democracy will be useful to them. it's a whole different world. they wouldn't have a crisis if we'd minded our own business. oh sure big mean evil dictator. if desire for change had been great enough, they'd have done something no matter how big and scary he was.besides. now that the majority in iraq will have rule (if the whole debacle actually works) it'll be the same majority as our enemies. oh great. put in a democracy to empower a people who will ally with our enemies. brilliant.under the current world mindset, yes, war is a reality. but, it is not human nature; it is a learned response. if we learn better responses, war will end.and i don't know how this has anything to do with anything. i tried to answer the questions you asked me. if they led off topic, that's not my fault.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 07:14 PM

Margaret Mead, John Vasquez, John Alcock, Patrick Bateson, Stuart Bremer, the entire study of war... war is learned. sorry. it's the accepted field standard.

quote:

---

??? You are pretty ignorant. I can only assume you know absolutely no Iraqis. Tribal? Not like us? Not at a point where democracy is useful to them? I just can't believe what I am reading.

​

I do agree that this has been thrust upon them unfairly. But that is a case of timing and mechanism, not whether it could succeed nor whether they might want it. It also says nothing about why we shouldn't be there now that the invasion occured.

---

the wymar government failed in germany for two reasons. it was installed by a minority and foreign powers and had no support from the people, and the economy was a disaster. the people wanted a strong leader. when one arose, they embraced him because he stood for something.democracy doesn't work unless the people initiate it. we've seen it in latin america; we've seen it in europe; we've seen it in africa. and yet you still ignore it. if a people want to rule, they have to demonstrate that they can by sheer force of will. they don't have that, and i'll bet they want a strong leader. will we get a new dictator? probably.i'm not suggesting that we flat leave iraq. but we need to leave the cities. we are murdering our own children to assist a people who aren't working for the goal you claim they want. the best way to control the insurgents is to block resources from coming to them from neighboring countries. the way to do that is to park at the borders, not sit like ducks in the cities. we don't even have to cover the whole of the borders, just put pressure on each. we just have to let the neighbor states know that we understand that this is a regionally strategic activity, not a singular nation rebirth.when i say they're not like us and i say they are tribal, i mean that each family, each city has a single paternal leader. they are culturally distinct from us. if you deny that you are a fool. by not at a point for democracy i do not mean that they are lower or less evolved or whatever bullshit. i just mean they are on a different path from us and a great deal would have to change for them to be on our path... what's more, i don't think they should be on our path. bunch of fucking automotons people want this world to be. disgusting.if i'm so ignorant, why can't you read? and why am i quoting people from the field while you're tripping the life ideological?

quote:

---

Heheheh. I notice you switched from they to we. You are probably right. WE will get a new dictator. Americans have been clamoring to hand more power to the gov't for a long time.

---

i meant will the world have to deal with him, but yes i agree.

quote:

---

Calling it tribal is ridiculous.

---

i don't mean like living in huts and painting themselves tribal. i mean like " A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.".there's a book you should read. John Vasquez - The War Puzzle.then talk to me.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-22-2005 01:46 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/...of all the animals in the world, ants are the only other example of war you can bring up? if that's so, then i think we're doing pretty good with war being learned. either way. you're going to excuse war as determined for perpetuity because ants do it too? chimps practice genocide. is that excusable then? ducks rape, even rape their dead fellows. so are we going to just accept that it's going to happen and there is nothing we can do about it? i'm not. i refuse to believe that we can't overcome the practice of war whether it is learned or intrinsic. however. animal precursors of human activities are not sufficient proof that humans are prone to them, or that they are not learned. some animals sleep in caves... precursor of seeking shelter. cause no one wants to get rained on. so does that mean we instinctually build houses? no. chimps and some birds and other critters fish worms and grubs and ants out of hard to reach places with sticks. is fishing with a line thus instinctual, or did we learn it? sure testosterone and other hormones lead to agression in humans. does this mean that war is the natural result? does the warring of ants over territory and resources mean that we as 'higher,' sentient, calculating creatures can't find other ways to settle our difference? i refuse. i think it is learned and i'm going to do everything in my power to see that we unlearn it. changed display lenth of URL to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-22-2005 02:31 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-22-2005 01:37 PM

being prepared is highly different than preemption.