Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[Crown]

Oh, there's no question that Israel is violating certain rights of the Palestinians. But there's a difference, Mike, and it comes with my philosophy:<snip>

Well that explains a lot about your rationale. Don't agree, but informative none the less.

[Enlightenment]

But what happens if Saddam has is troops stationed in among the civilian homes, right inside of them, from the start?

I hate to break it to you, but that pretty much is the definition of urban warfare. After Gulf War II, the Iraqi military is very unlikely to be stupid enough to leave large formations of troops out in the open waiting to be mowed down by US air power. They're going to be hiding in the cities; in buildings, in the sewers, and anywhere else they can fit. PGMs won't help here: Iraqi forces will need to be rooted out room by room, house by house, building by building, block by block, street by street. It will be a slow and bloody fight--months, not weeks--unless the Iraqi army repeats its last performance and surrenders on contact.

And no, reducing the city to rubble doesn't make the task any easier.

[Stuart Mackey]

Forced seizure of residences without recompense, which is a very serious offense against the rights of an individual (as I've already stated).

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

Indeed, that quote of her's is priceless

[Stuart Mackey]

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

snip

In the international realm, however, that very same duty of the State to its people - to protect them and insure their success, because they are the life of the State - also demands that the people of other States are irrelevant in comparison to them. The lives of everyone else on Earth should not be worth the life of a single American Citizen to the American Government, but the government should recognize its moral duty to save that citizen.

Without delving into Isreal/Palastine, you do realise that your personal philosophy, when taken to its logical conclusion, is what causes war, right? You are truly morally bankrupt, Marina.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Without delving into Isreal/Palastine, you do realise that your personal philosophy, when taken to its logical conclusion, is what causes war, right? You are truly morally bankrupt, Marina.

War is caused by necessities of geo-political interaction - My personal philosophy just represents a way to minimize the suffering to one's own people when these inevitable necessities bring about War.

[Stuart Mackey]

Without delving into Isreal/Palastine, you do realise that your personal philosophy, when taken to its logical conclusion, is what causes war, right? You are truly morally bankrupt, Marina.

War is caused by necessities of geo-political interaction - My personal philosophy just represents a way to minimize the suffering to one's own people when these inevitable necessities bring about War.

But your phlosophy will lead to war, humans being humans. We, as humans, regardless of our nation of origin, must go beyoned that form of thinking.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But your phlosophy will lead to war, humans being humans. We, as humans, regardless of our nation of origin, must go beyoned that form of thinking.

Humans are incapable of going beyond that form of thinking. It's part of human nature. We're aggressive, parochial, mercurial, hypocritical, shifty and treacherous creatures. The best that can be done is establish a modicum of order, as managed by Law and enforced with State Violence, inside of the boundaries of a single Nation-State.

[Darth Wong]

But your phlosophy will lead to war, humans being humans. We, as humans, regardless of our nation of origin, must go beyoned that form of thinking.

Humans are incapable of going beyond that form of thinking. It's part of human nature. We're aggressive, parochial, mercurial, hypocritical, shifty and treacherous creatures. The best that can be done is establish a modicum of order, as managed by Law and enforced with State Violence, inside of the boundaries of a single Nation-State.

The fact that you have to argue with people who think humans CAN go beyond that form of thinking is proof that you're wrong. Some of us actually have ideals and values that go beyond "might makes right." You may find it incredible, shocking, unbelievable, but that is really just a projection of your own philosophical deficiencies onto others. The quality of sympathy is as universal as any of the deficiencies you mention, and you are a good example of the popular thesis that right-wingers construct all of their social theories around the assumption that all people are evil.

[Stuart Mackey]

But your phlosophy will lead to war, humans being humans. We, as humans, regardless of our nation of origin, must go beyoned that form of thinking.

Humans are incapable of going beyond that form of thinking. It's part of human nature. We're aggressive, parochial, mercurial, hypocritical, shifty and treacherous creatures. The best that can be done is establish a modicum of order, as managed by Law and enforced with State Violence, inside of the boundaries of a single Nation-State.

Lol, Of course we can go beyoned that! look at the society you live in! what was rule of a cheiftain in a Briton or Saxon village is now Parliment and rule of law, that it is only bound by national borders is only the limits of the minds of our neighbouring villages and ourselves. Rule of law can be established world wide, one could argue that it is ineviatable given the history of nations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The fact that you have to argue with people who think humans CAN go beyond that form of thinking is proof that you're wrong. Some of us actually have ideals and values that go beyond "might makes right." You may find it incredible, shocking, unbelievable, but that is really just a projection of your own philosophical deficiencies onto others. The quality of sympathy is as universal as any of the deficiencies you mention, and you are a good example of the popular thesis that right-wingers construct all of their social theories around the assumption that all people are evil.

No - Not evil. But mercy is tempered with these qualities, just as they are tempered with mercy. Giving the last of your water to an enemy you were just fighting, putting a relative out of their misery - These things show that mercy, compassion, is a double-edged sword, and so is violence in its many forms and drives. The examples are endless.

Might ultimately does make right. Nation-state organizations allow for the gradation of power and the institution of laws, the advancement from the use of power purely by the individual, to the Right of national power as opposed to individual power. In the modern representative democracy the two meet each other and where they cancel out freedom is found - And that's why the Second Amendment is so vital.

Morality thus can exist, but only as a child of the State. That's why people like you can exist - You live in the luxury of the State and its Laws, where the greater Right of the State can limit the power of the individual and establish the limits necessary for civilization.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that you have to argue with people who think humans CAN go beyond that form of thinking is proof that you're wrong. Some of us actually have ideals and values that go beyond "might makes right." You may find it incredible, shocking, unbelievable, but that is really just a projection of your own philosophical deficiencies onto others. The quality of sympathy is as universal as any of the deficiencies you mention, and you are a good example of the popular thesis that right-wingers construct all of their social theories around the assumption that all people are evil.

No - Not evil. But mercy is tempered with these qualities, just as they are tempered with mercy. Giving the last of your water to an enemy you were just fighting, putting a relative out of their misery - These things show that mercy, compassion, is a double-edged sword, and so is violence in its many forms and drives. The examples are endless.

How is compassion a double-edged sword? I have not seen an example to support this claim. It obviously does not take precedent over immediate self-preservation, but there is nothing "double-edged" about it.

Might ultimately does make right. Nation-state organizations allow for the gradation of power and the institution of laws, the advancement from the use of power purely by the individual, to the Right of national power as opposed to individual power. In the modern representative democracy the two meet each other and where they cancel out freedom is found - And that's why the Second Amendment is so vital.

Bullshit. Most of the democratic nations on Earth have no such amendment and somehow magically manage to achieve social advancement without it.

Morality thus can exist, but only as a child of the State. That's why people like you can exist - You live in the luxury of the State and its Laws, where the greater Right of the State can limit the power of the individual and establish the limits necessary for civilization.

And those laws are good because they were designed by principled men, not because they carry the threat of violent enforcement behind them. A set of brutal laws enforced by violence would hardly produce a good result. You wrongly attribute social advancement to violence and not to the principles which you casually dismiss. Violence is used by both the principled and the unprincipled to achieve their goals. Only in the former case does it produce a good outcome. This is no small distinction, Marina.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How is compassion a double-edged sword? I have not seen an example to support this claim. It obviously does not take precedent over immediate self-preservation, but there is nothing "double-edged" about it.

Compassion can be an act of violence, or it can be done to those whom you have just committed violence against.

M
Bullshit. Most of the democratic nations on Earth have no such amendment and somehow magically manage to achieve social advancement without it.

Customarily most European nations were heavily armed. The UK, for example, guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms for personal defence to all Protestants - About 90% of the population - after the Glorious Revolution. Only at the turn of the 20th century was this right slowly attacked, until you see the current lack of this freedom. With this lack of the freedom comes the general police corruption, drive towards the EU without public debate, end of Jury trials, abolition of double-jepordy defences, etc - The gradual end of freedom itself in the UK, which is being repeated all over Europe. Conversely, in most budding democracies in the developing world - Thailand, for instance - firearms ownership is legal and a citizen militia exists to support the military.

Freedom does not truly exist in Western Europe - It is a pretense allowed by the bureaucrats, a farce given to appease the masses, like the Roman Emperors letting the Senate continue to meet, addressing it respectfully, and sending all legislation through it.

And those laws are good because they were designed by principled men, not because they carry the threat of violent enforcement behind them. A set of brutal laws enforced by violence would hardly produce a good result. You wrongly attribute social advancement to violence and not to the principles which you casually dismiss. Violence is used by both the principled and the unprincipled to achieve their goals. Only in the former case does it produce a good outcome. This is no small distinction, Marina.

I consider violence - the use of power - to be inherent in any organization, or in the freedom of an individual. This is hardly my own conceptualization.

Let me explain:

Primitive man existed in a state of Anarchy. There was no government, no ability to organize labour, no laws - Nothing. The advantage to this, however, was that each individual had total individual freedom. You could do anything you wanted, within the bonds of the physical universe. The only limitation was the customary one of the family grouping, at most fourty people, united for common survival and by the instinct of blood ties.

In the strive to secure survival by the procurement of resources, agriculture was developed, herding and farming. This was the first great revolution of world orders. It allowed the concentration of sufficient numbers of people in areas so that projects could be worked. The people of the villages of the Neolithic Age came to realize that under the guidance of a single individual they could accomplish the necessary works of labour required to build canals or dikes and so increase productivity. Naturally such positions went to wise men, priests, the like.

A condition of effective anarchy - or the loose oligarchy of familial heads in greater concentrations - gave way to a new organization. A true organization. Civilization grew and with it the need for a State that could organize labour and delineate offices and duties. It had to have power to do so and all of that power was concentrated into a single individual. This is the Oriental Despot. This is the first great organization of civilized humanity.

In a Despotism, only the Despot is Free. Everyone else is subordinated to that single individual. There are gradations of power, yes, but ultimately everyone is a slave, entirely at the whim of the Despot. This is the classic Arab saltana, or power-state. This is the sort of State that Saddam Hussein - with a mockery of a Parliament added as a pretense for the Western world to be deceived by - still runs, in truth not very different at all from the Empires of Babylon or Persia more than two millenia ago.

For the Despot, his freedom is limited by the needs of the State. He has become, in effect, the gestalt of the State, because he is the only free man in the State and his ability to act is limited by his duty to the State, which is veritably an extension of his person. Conversely, the State, being an extension of his person, is geared to serving his whim even as it is capable of awesome feats of labour. Not only the Grand Canal and the Royal Road, but the Damascene Mosque and the Pyramids are evidence of this dual-emphasis in the saltana.

The next stage is, of course, Democracy. A Democracy in this sense is a State where the people hold some power, without anarchy being created. Democracy is - considering the conflict between the power of the government necessary to form a state, which would normally lead inevitably to a saltana, and the power in the people necessary for Freedom, which might inevitably lead to Anarchy - a balancing act between these two opposing forces of Power.

Now, we can see some high forms of Anarchy - the tribalism of herding cultures where Freedom is found for the individual, and the power of a great leader such as Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan is based upon his prowess in battle and raiding - and it is from this higher gradations of Anarchy that we might match against the lower forms of the power-state, where the nobles have considerable influence, to create the first democratic societies.

It is unsurprising that Democracy arose in Greece, and in the peculiar form that it did. When it did, Greece had been overrun by barbarians - those of a higher gradation of an Anarchic organization of society - and had overthrown the power-states of the Mycenean Culture. It was in this fashion that the combination was the effected to form Democracy in its earliest form. Geography aided, for the democracy of the Greeks was not suited to large States, but rather only to the city-state, or the polis.

It was essentially the Democracy of the army, where the necessity of defence required that the whole of the male populace serve, and giving them arms and power, also gave them influence - and the right to elect their leadership, their generals, in time. From this came the right to elect the city magistrates by the simple extension of power. The Greek city-states were democracies in the sense that they were democratic armies. They elected their own generals, and they elected the administrators of the cities because they had power over them.

In this situation the common interests holding together the soldiers are both fear and land, that is to say of opposing forces and their ability to take the land of the soldiers. Most Greek city-states fought at least one and sometimes two wars in a year, short, decisive, single-battle affairs, but they would often be vicious. Anarchy is witheld by the threat of so many enemies in such a small area, by their potential to take your land should you covet your neighbour's. The city-state functions as a parochial and tiny democracy.

It cannot grow larger because it's limitation is that the government and the army are interlinked, they are functionally the same thing. The foreign workers, the slaves, the women - They are the ones oppressed by this limited democratic body, which can by its nature allow only the landed soldiery into its ranks. The Great Experiment of Athens in letting the unlanded poor in showed both the incredible heights of culture that could be reached - And the awesome instability, which ultimately ran into Imperial overstretch and collapse.

The second form of this government, then, is the Republic, first manifested in Rome. Here there is a real government, represented by the Senate and certain sections of the elected magistrates. The landed populace is armed, and can defend themselves against the excesses of the Senators and those with Imperium by force if they need to. The unlanded poor, after the institution of the Tribunate, can elect officials directly at odds with the rest of the elected magistrates who protect their rights in turn. The system is unwieldy but functional, and collapsed primarily because of the lack of representatives - As Rome expanded, the urban poor dominated the assemblies.

After the fall of the Roman Empire - a weak gradation of saltana - we see the rise of barbarian tribes merging with the Roman institutions. This creates a sort of Democracy in a vague sense, in which the power of the King - enforced by his court officers - is pitted against the feudal rights of his Nobles, and the special rights granted to chartered cities at later dates. Freedom exists for the nobility and for the townsmen - and, of course, for the Church - but not for the peasantry, who become a resource for the higher gradations of society.

Finally, the feudal State was overcome by the pressures of development in the 18th century - both technological and social - and was undone into the modern representative democracy, either in a representative or a revolutionary fashion. This entailed freedom for the whole of the population, who gained the effective rights and duties traditionally limited to the nobility. In exchange, they elected representatives to councils - Parliaments and Senates and such - not unlike the Councils of the feudal nobility, in many cases a direct descent of them.

What this means is that in representative democracy the power of the Government is pitted - its police, its bureaucracy, its army - against the power of the Armed Citizenry. To have just one - Government - would be to have a saltana, a Power State. To have the other, just the Armed Citizenry, would be to have Anarchy. Where the two are together and where the two meet you have a fully Free society, and that is the ideal of modern representative democracy.

However, in many States the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists. These States are in truth forms of saltanas, or at best a type of very limited democracy where the only people with power are those in the government infrastructure. The function of voting for the government is nothing more in these states where the right to keep and bear arms does not exist, than a farce such as in a country like 19th century Portugal where the two government factions alternated by pre-arranged agreement. I am not saying there is any actual conspiracy, but rather without the power to contest government wrongs with a violence with matches the government's power for violence, the actual result of the elections becomes irrelevant.

Communist States are a form of limited democracy of this type, where the majority of the population is oppressed - including members of the Party, even. It is only those in positions of power, the professional members of the Army, the members of the intelligence agencies, etc, who make the decisions. Oligarchy would be more correct in this case. Everyone else is in fact equal - Equal in slavery to those who make the decisions through a process of trading and deal making which is masked through false elections. The difference between modern Western European and Soviet Bloc States is not very great - Primarily that the Soviet Bloc States just had one party, and so their domination was more obvious and thus required actual repressive acts. The domination in Western Europe is of a more subtle nature, the domination of the bureaucracy, or as might be said in Roman times, "of the Palace Eunuchs".

Inherently, the most superiour of these States is representative democracy, offering the ability for the stability of large States with a genuine Freedom found between the conflicting Power of the People and the Government. This is the penultimate evolution of human socio-political systems.

[MKSheppard]

Hey wow, she launches another patented multi-KB-o-rama
patented Marina O'Leary attack designed to make people
give up arguing with her by making them fall asleep!

[Dahak]

Marina, as much I like you, your ideas fall into the "idiocy" category.

For once, do you think anything Saddam did now would change the world's opinion of him in any way? He could be bombing the living shit out of his populace right now, and no one would be surprised?
Just because he does the logical thing, doesn't make him stupid.

And we seem to have a quite different idea of freedom. I live happily in Germany, and we *have* freedom here. Just because European states perceive the duties of itself in a different way than the US does not make us less free.

You always completely forget that there's a rather radical difference in mentality between USA and Europe. We are NOT Americans-with-other-names in fanciful countries somewhere in Tourist Land...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, as much I like you, your ideas fall into the "idiocy" category.

For once, do you think anything Saddam did now would change the world's opinion of him in any way? He could be bombing the living shit out of his populace right now, and no one would be surprised?

Well, I hoped that evidence of his crimes happening in the here-and-now might sway people in a way that their happening in the past has not. Evidently the issue is too polarized for that to take place.

Just because he does the logical thing, doesn't make him stupid.

I could think of better ways to defeat the coalition than fortifying Kirkuk.

And we seem to have a quite different idea of freedom. I live happily in Germany, and we *have* freedom here. Just because European states perceive the duties of itself in a different way than the US does not make us less free.

Yes, we have different perceptions of freedom, but I think the way your countries work does make you less free, and your perception is born of delusion.

You always completely forget that there's a rather radical difference in mentality between USA and Europe. We are NOT Americans-with-other-names in fanciful countries somewhere in Tourist Land...

You don't have to be American to own a firearm, nor do you have to own a firearm in the American fashion - The Swiss do quite finely with their version of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Dahak]

Marina, as much I like you, your ideas fall into the "idiocy" category.

For once, do you think anything Saddam did now would change the world's opinion of him in any way? He could be bombing the living shit out of his populace right now, and no one would be surprised?

Well, I hoped that evidence of his crimes happening in the here-and-now might sway people in a way that their happening in the past has not. Evidently the issue is too polarized for that to take place.

It is not a crime to fortify a potential war zone. And it is not a crime for the populace of said war zone to have enough brains to think it's safer to leave that said war zone to safety.

Just because he does the logical thing, doesn't make him stupid.

I could think of better ways to defeat the coalition than fortifying Kirkuk.

But it sure beats doing nothing. Especially if you know that your city is a highly potential target (oil and such...)

And we seem to have a quite different idea of freedom. I live happily in Germany, and we *have* freedom here. Just because European states perceive the duties of itself in a different way than the US does not make us less free.

Yes, we have different perceptions of freedom, but I think the way your countries work does make you less free, and your perception is born of delusion.

I could say exactly the same thing about you. I have all the freedom in the world. I can work where I want, travel where I want, buy what I want. But in a European definition of a state, said state has the duty to protect it's citizens from harm, like prohibiting fire arms, et al.
And I have never ever felt the slightest urge or need to own a fire arm...

That you do, makes me pity you a bit...

You always completely forget that there's a rather radical difference in mentality between USA and Europe. We are NOT Americans-with-other-names in fanciful countries somewhere in Tourist Land...

You don't have to be American to own a firearm, nor do you have to own a firearm in the American fashion - The Swiss do quite finely with their version of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

YOu do happen to know Swiss? I do.
They are so not like Americans...
As was discussed maybe zillions of times before, as a Swiss you do have to own a fire arm (as the Swiss are highly territiorial, slightly xenophobe people always fearful someone wants to invade their little country), but only after you've gone through the mandatory military service.
That is a completely different premise...

[MKSheppard]

Well, I hoped that evidence of his crimes happening in the here-and-now might sway people in a way that their happening in the past has not. Evidently the issue is too polarized for that to take place.

Jesus fucking christ, what he's doing is merely having his secret police lean
harder on a KNOWN rebellious group. Any government half-smart (that is,
not from Star Trek) would do the same.

The man has enough war crimes on his head, without people like you trying
to hang bullshit charges on his head

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But it sure beats doing nothing. Especially if you know that your city is a highly potential target (oil and such...)

He can't defend Kirkuk realistically with his current forces. He shouldn't be trying to defend anything further north than Tikrit, where the tribal ties will give him a viable northern line to his defences. Then he can concentrate most of his Guard forces - his army is so useless it should be divided up regionally and posted to static defence, as there's some remote chance units might fight to defend their own regions of the country - in the south.

Alternatively, considering that Turkey isn't onboard, he can launch an offensive against Kuwait and try to drive us into the sea. If I was Saddam I'd do it, supported by my full WMD arsenal and a flanking manoeuvre through the KSA. I'd rely on public opinion to prevent a WMD counterattack and Arab solidarity in the repressed subjects of Saudi Arabia to prevent the Saudis from entering the war when I violate their territory - Likewise, on French and German vascillation at the Security Council to limit the airstrikes to the current ROE and prevent attacks on my ground forces as they build up in the south. (It's purely a defensive measure against the buildup of the Crusader forces, after all.)

There would be many things that can go wrong with that strategy, of course, but it's not exactly any less realistic than thinking a fight in the cities will somehow drive us off. The main problem is that not even the Republican Guards may be motivated enough to attack into Kuwait. Another and more realistic possibility (against coalition air power) would be a simple spoiling attack with artillery only using chemical and biological weaponry, and some Saddam Fedayeen light troops. Anything to disrupt the landing operations.

I could say exactly the same thing about you. I have all the freedom in the world. I can work where I want, travel where I want, buy what I want. But in a European definition of a state, said state has the duty to protect it's citizens from harm, like prohibiting fire arms, et al.
And I have never ever felt the slightest urge or need to own a fire arm...

That you do, makes me pity you a bit...

And I pity you for being at the mercy of your State, which could do whatever it wanted to you because the citizenry of your State does not have the power to match your government's power! So indeed there is quite a difference in how we look at things. But you must at least acknowledge that my philosophy is hardly deviant within my own country - It might not be elaborated upon as I do, but the persistance of the Second Amendment, popularity of firearms, and distrust of the government indicates that the basic precepts are grasped and agreed with by the average American.

YOu do happen to know Swiss? I do.
They are so not like Americans...
As was discussed maybe zillions of times before, as a Swiss you do have to own a fire arm (as the Swiss are highly territiorial, slightly xenophobe people always fearful someone wants to invade their little country), but only after you've gone through the mandatory military service.
That is a completely different premise...

But it results in the same thing - Freedom. Isn't that what I just said? You don't have to copy American, you just to have sufficient power in the hands of the citizenry that it negates the ability of the government establish despotism with its own power. The Swiss system does that, as does the American system. They're quite different but they both work.

Incidently, all males in the USA between the ages 17-45 are members of the militia, along with all female members of the military/national guard - That's a legal definition outlined in our laws explicitly, not just some ideal NRA fanatics spout.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I hoped that evidence of his crimes happening in the here-and-now might sway people in a way that their happening in the past has not. Evidently the issue is too polarized for that to take place.

Jesus fucking christ, what he's doing is merely having his secret police lean
harder on a KNOWN rebellious group. Any government half-smart (that is,
not from Star Trek) would do the same.

The man has enough war crimes on his head, without people like you trying
to hang bullshit charges on his head

I think we really need to save this post.

[Colonel Olrik]

The gradual end of freedom itself in the UK, which is being repeated all over Europe. Conversely, in most budding democracies in the developing world - Thailand, for instance - firearms ownership is legal and a citizen militia exists to support the military.

Freedom does not truly exist in Western Europe - It is a pretense allowed by the bureaucrats, a farce given to appease the masses, like the Roman Emperors letting the Senate continue to meet, addressing it respectfully, and sending all legislation through it.

OK, this bullshit is hilarious.

You know what, in many respects we are freer than the U.S. At least, our government don't have the will or the power to pry into his citizens minds and business, arresting dangerous illegal emmigrants for uncertain periods of time.

Last time I checked, I vote for my government, thus having the power of putting there a party which first act would be to put us out of the Union (we have them (the extreme right wing nuts, currently out of the parliement)).

You know what, I'm not going to argue this point. Anyone seriously claiming the E.U countries are not democratic can come and live here for a while, or keep their obvious ignorance.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OK, this bullshit is hilarious.

You know what, in many respects we are freer than the U.S. At least, our government don't have the will or the power to pry into his citizens minds and business, arresting dangerous illegal emmigrants for uncertain periods of time.

Last time I checked, I vote for my government, thus having the power of putting there a party which first act would be to put us out of the Union (we have them (the extreme right wing nuts, currently out of the parliement)).

You know what, I'm not going to argue this point. Anyone seriously claiming the E.U countries are not democratic can come and live here for a while, or keep their obvious ignorance.

I'm not arguing that you don't think you have freedom, or that you don't appear to have freedom - I'm arguing that it isn't genuine freedom if your government has the power to take it away at any time it desires. Even with the restrictions the U.S. government has temporarily placed due to the extremity of the war on certain activities, our capability to resist an actual effort to force despotism is unimpaired - So an American Citizen is still genuinely Free. The average western European, however, does not have genuine Freedom, being unable to resist the Power of the State.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm not arguing that you don't think you have freedom, or that you don't appear to have freedom - I'm arguing that it isn't genuine freedom if your government has the power to take it away at any time it desires. Even with the restrictions the U.S. government has temporarily placed due to the extremity of the war on certain activities, our capability to resist an actual effort to force despotism is unimpaired - So an American Citizen is still genuinely Free. The average western European, however, does not have genuine Freedom, being unable to resist the Power of the State.

Duchess, that's the old "we have weapons, therefore we are freer" idiotic line of reasoning.

While a hundred years ago a strong militia would fare good against an army, as the technological gap between the two was small and the combat strategies were manbased, now it's ludicrous. I'd like to see your militia go against tanks, aircrafts and the US military in general. It's hardly a fight. Most people don't guard stingers and Abrahams in a hidden stocking place, not to mention surveillance sats.

Also, it the case of the U.S starting to go fascist, most weapon owners would be the first to support the government. Where was the armed rebellion during Mcarthy communist hunts, and where is it now with Bush's enlightened homeguard plans?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess, that's the old "we have weapons, therefore we are freer" idiotic line of reasoning.

While a hundred years ago a strong militia would fare good against an army, as the technological gap between the two was small and the combat strategies were manbased, now it's ludicrous. I'd like to see your militia go against tanks, aircrafts and the US military in general. It's hardly a fight. Most people don't guard stingers and Abrahams in a hidden stocking place.

If the average Hungarian had had a rifle when the Soviets came in to suppress their revolt, would the Soviet Union have succeeded? I don't think so. It was hard enough without them - But the SU triumphed in the end. Add in an armed populace, instead of the disarmed one under a totalitarian dictatorship? Hungary would have eaten the Soviet Army, corps after corps.

The reason for the equality is that an Army and the various police forces have - at best - a few million men, while half the population of the USA is armed, most with multiple firearms. And it would be worse than the Soviet invasion of Hungary, because the USA, of course, is the USA's own resource base. Your supply wouldn't be coming from a secure outside area but from the combat zone, open to sabotage.

Even if the majority of the populace would never fight, the threat of it happening restrains a potential dictator from acting.

Also, it the case of the U.S starting to go fascist, most weapon owners would be the first to support the government. Where was the armed rebellion during Mcarthy communist hunts, and where is it now with Bush's enlightened homeguard plans?

McCarthy's hunts didn't come to anything, and even if some of the security ideas of this current phase are extreme, others are necessary, and many of the extreme ones have been withdrawn. All in all, the USA is more free today than in the 50s, even with the Patriot Act. Hardly indicative of a society heading towards fascism.

[MKSheppard]

I think we really need to save this post.

What for? You're the one equating the Iraqi Army fortifying a city
and the Iraqi Secret police interrogating KNOWN ethnic dissidents
before a war starts with "ethnic cleansing"

[Sir Sirius]

And I pity you for being at the mercy of your State, which could do whatever it wanted to you because the citizenry of your State does not have the power to match your government's power!

I'd rather trust the democraticaly elected goverment and parliament of my country then a bunch of gun toting red-necks, thank you!

Besides there are problems with this "Armed populace = freedom" stupidity.
How many of the armed citizens would oppose the goverment if it tried to "force despotism" on the nation? How many of them would actualy support the goverment in their effort? How many would be simply too ignorant of what is going on or too afraid to do anything? Actualy what are the odds that there would ever even be an organized armed insurrection at all?