Treason Bill

[slim 1,523]

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

I'm glad you brought up Kim as well.

Under Kim (and Saddam) there is ZERO threat to anyone outside their borders, and that's what we call stability. As you said, it is more desirable than having a "free government" that is, in essence, a quagmire where anti-U.S. and anti-Western sentiment can openly develop and thrive, eventually pulling in numerous other countries from the region and alienating us on the world stage.

North Korea is a perfcect example of this (as was Iraq during Saddam) because under Kim North Koreans are confined within their borders and forced to live in a manner that doesn't disrupt the outside world.

And for the record, stability has never, ever had anything to do with happy things like economic prosperity and rule of law. Who do you think allowed Saddam to take power in power in the first place?

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"

while i'm not sure whether saddam killed more by bullet/execution than a bunch of hoodlums did by beheading, nor am i certain why the death count via this or that is the unit of measure as to whether that was correct or this was wrong, i'm certain of one thing - iraqis do have more political freedoms than they did under saddam.

point in fact - had gwb visited iraq under saddam and this guy threw a shoe at gwb, the shoe thrower wouldn't be among the living right now, along with quite a few of his family members.

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"

while i'm not sure whether saddam killed more by bullet/execution than a bunch of hoodlums did by beheading, nor am i certain why the death count via this or that is the unit of measure as to whether that was correct or this was wrong, i'm certain of one thing - iraqis do have more political freedoms than they did under saddam.

point in fact - had gwb visited iraq under saddam and this guy threw a shoe at gwb, the shoe thrower wouldn't be among the living right now, along with quite a few of his family members.

the same can be said for saudi, and pakistan

[slim 1,523]

I still don't see how any of that benefits us more than the situation in 2002.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

As with any broadly defined law, it all depends on how it is interpreted by the government. What we should all be concerned about is, if this is just the next step into consolidation of power by Putin. Unfortunately, this proposed legislation has many ways of turning any democratic positions upside down. Only time will tell, but as we have seen, Putin is not planning on retiring from public office any time soon. This has all the possibilities of returning to a totalitarian regime.

Has the possiblities of returning to a totaltarion regime?

News Flash for you....Tsar Putin and Co. are a and have been a totaltarion regime. Russians love their dictators, and Tsar Putin is right down that alley. I don't want to explain the typical Russian mindset on here...I would get banned for sure, but we are talking about a people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2163481.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8122800263.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/ar...es_whitewashed/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Russia

[mox 298]

News Flash for you....Tsar Putin and Co. are a and have been a totaltarion regime. Russians love their dictators, and Tsar Putin is right down that alley. I don't want to explain the typical Russian mindset on here...I would get banned for sure, but we are talking about a people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

You keep saying "Tsar Putin," but to borrow a phrase, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Putin and company may be attempting to pull Russia back into totalitarianism, but I think if you read a little up on Russian history you'll find there is absolutely no desire to return it to a tsardom. Quite the contrary.

Regarding listing Stalin as the #3 leader of all time, there's some evidence that many voters were voting to punk the poll.

It's true that the State has been trying to paint Stalin in a better light though, and I agree that Russia is headed down a dangerous path right now. But to paint all Russians with such a broad brush would be inaccurate.

Welcome to the RU forum, by the way. It's really great to see so many new people!

Edited January 12, 2009 by mox

[Blues Fairy 0]

people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

Actually the poll question was to choose "the most influential figure in Russian history". If we consider Stalin's impact (not greatness as you quote above), he could well qualify for a place in the rating.

[slim 1,523]

News Flash for you....Tsar Putin and Co. are a and have been a totaltarion regime.

So having strong leadership, even if considered totalitarian, would be a bad thing compared to having no leadership at all or, much worse (by Russian standards) leadership so weak a foreign power could just come in and occupy your lands?

I think Americans are somewhat whimsical when we talk about "truth, justice, and the democratic way of life." If you check our rap sheet, I think you'll find quite a bit of totalitarian rule, we just sugarcoat it as something a little more beneficial.

Russia is no different except for they like to call something a duck when it quacks.

[mox 298]

I think Americans are somewhat whimsical when we talk about "truth, justice, and the democratic way of life." If you check our rap sheet, I think you'll find quite a bit of totalitarian rule, we just sugarcoat it as something a little more beneficial.

Russia is no different except for they like to call something a duck when it quacks.

Nicely said. Americans definitely delude themselves (ourselves) when it comes to such ideals.

[Brad and Vika 129]

I think Americans are somewhat whimsical when we talk about "truth, justice, and the democratic way of life." If you check our rap sheet, I think you'll find quite a bit of totalitarian rule, we just sugarcoat it as something a little more beneficial.

Russia is no different except for they like to call something a duck when it quacks.

Nicely said. Americans definitely delude themselves (ourselves) when it comes to such ideals.

You have to admit though, that there are some pretty sharp differences in terms of checks and balances, fluidity of law, etc. For example, we are quite reluctant in America (no matter who is in charge at the moment) to alter our constitution or extend term limits. The stronger the leader, the more reluctant.

[mox 298]

You have to admit though, that there are some pretty sharp differences in terms of checks and balances, fluidity of law, etc. For example, we are quite reluctant in America (no matter who is in charge at the moment) to alter our constitution or extend term limits. The stronger the leader, the more reluctant.

Yep, also agreed. I think in many ways we are just as bad as some of the worst governments in the rest of the world. But what sets us apart is that we can easily change. We also are one of the few governments in the world where a peaceful change of regime is pretty much guaranteed to be peaceful and orderly.

To paraphrase Churchill, we're the worst government in the world except for all the rest.

[slim 1,523]

I think Americans are somewhat whimsical when we talk about "truth, justice, and the democratic way of life." If you check our rap sheet, I think you'll find quite a bit of totalitarian rule, we just sugarcoat it as something a little more beneficial.

Russia is no different except for they like to call something a duck when it quacks.

Nicely said. Americans definitely delude themselves (ourselves) when it comes to such ideals.

If I can't see it in my back yard, it doesn't exist. Well, only long enough until I turn the channel. As long as I can drive my SUV to the McDonalds at Wal-Mart, we're good!

You have to admit though, that there are some pretty sharp differences in terms of checks and balances, fluidity of law, etc. For example, we are quite reluctant in America (no matter who is in charge at the moment) to alter our constitution or extend term limits. The stronger the leader, the more reluctant.

As of late, they're just getting better at finding ways around the laws. One thing that really, really irritates me about the current regime is the way they "supercede" the Constitution. How do you supersede the Constitution? Legally.... how do you do it? And how can we not check that right away?

The reason is the masses are being told if they stand up for their rights (rights they don't realize they need right now anyway) they'll become victims of terrorism or some other nonsense. That would disrupt their trips to Wal-Mart, and we can't have that now, can we?

We also are one of the few governments in the world where a peaceful change of regime is pretty much guaranteed to be peaceful and orderly.

For now.

Folks are so quick to give up all their other rights, by the time they need to use the 1st Amendment they'll look upon it to realize it's already (Willfully, no less) been given up. Even worse than that, the 2nd will have been long gone by that time so the prospect of a "peaceable" assembly is not only mandated, it's assured. WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!

If you're reading this right now and you're saying "Slim is crazy." I'd like you to do me a very simple favor. Read the Bill of Rights. That's it. Just read it. Pure, simple, easy. Bill of Rights. Read it straight through and then ask yourself, "am I guaranteed all of these things right now? Today, as I sit here reading this, do I really have all these rights?"

And then ask yourself "why not?"

[Brad and Vika 129]

I think Americans are somewhat whimsical when we talk about "truth, justice, and the democratic way of life." If you check our rap sheet, I think you'll find quite a bit of totalitarian rule, we just sugarcoat it as something a little more beneficial.

Russia is no different except for they like to call something a duck when it quacks.

Nicely said. Americans definitely delude themselves (ourselves) when it comes to such ideals.

If I can't see it in my back yard, it doesn't exist. Well, only long enough until I turn the channel. As long as I can drive my SUV to the McDonalds at Wal-Mart, we're good!

You have to admit though, that there are some pretty sharp differences in terms of checks and balances, fluidity of law, etc. For example, we are quite reluctant in America (no matter who is in charge at the moment) to alter our constitution or extend term limits. The stronger the leader, the more reluctant.

As of late, they're just getting better at finding ways around the laws. One thing that really, really irritates me about the current regime is the way they "supercede" the Constitution. How do you supersede the Constitution? Legally.... how do you do it? And how can we not check that right away?

The reason is the masses are being told if they stand up for their rights (rights they don't realize they need right now anyway) they'll become victims of terrorism or some other nonsense. That would disrupt their trips to Wal-Mart, and we can't have that now, can we?

We also are one of the few governments in the world where a peaceful change of regime is pretty much guaranteed to be peaceful and orderly.

For now.

Folks are so quick to give up all their other rights, by the time they need to use the 1st Amendment they'll look upon it to realize it's already (Willfully, no less) been given up. Even worse than that, the 2nd will have been long gone by that time so the prospect of a "peaceable" assembly is not only mandated, it's assured. WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!

If you're reading this right now and you're saying "Slim is crazy." I'd like you to do me a very simple favor. Read the Bill of Rights. That's it. Just read it. Pure, simple, easy. Bill of Rights. Read it straight through and then ask yourself, "am I guaranteed all of these things right now? Today, as I sit here reading this, do I really have all these rights?"

And then ask yourself "why not?"

First off, some housekeeping - Yes you are crazy (I had to Slim, you just walked into it) No less a patriot for that, and at times a little craziness like yours can be a great reality check, when we can be distracted from Wall Mart long enough to see it.

Secondly, I think you made my point about the constitution, in that we do voluntarily give up some of the protection it affords. VERY different from having a strong leader bulldoze us and force the change. Shame on us for allowing it (i.e. national security phone taps on everybody), and mores the pity. IMO there is a big difference between a populace going to sleep and not noticing the erosion of their constitution, and having the change forced on them because there appears to be no other choice.

[slim 1,523]

First off, some housekeeping - Yes you are crazy (I had to Slim, you just walked into it) No less a patriot for that, and at times a little craziness like yours can be a great reality check, when we can be distracted from Wall Mart long enough to see it.

Secondly, I think you made my point about the constitution, in that we do voluntarily give up some of the protection it affords. VERY different from having a strong leader bulldoze us and force the change. Shame on us for allowing it (i.e. national security phone taps on everybody), and mores the pity. IMO there is a big difference between a populace going to sleep and not noticing the erosion of their constitution, and having the change forced on them because there appears to be no other choice.

100% Agreed! (Even with the crazy part.) But what I'm really trying to get folks to understand is that when you voluntarily allow one of your Rights to be taken away then you've allowed ALL of your Rights to be taken away down the road.

Case in point - there's a huge push to get "common sense gun control" going in the next couple of weeks. Blair Holt (the new, more appealing Brady) is gaining initiative and it seems in the very near future we're going to have a "national gun license and registration" program. Sure, it's only a registration and permit, paperwork, etc. But I don't recall seeing anywhere in the 2nd Amendment where it says guns have to be licensed and registered. But, since there's so much gun violence and so many innocent kids being killed by guns it makes "common sense" to go ahead and require all law-abiding citizens to register their arms and license them to exercise their Rights.

Doesn't seem like such a big deal, does it? After all, we're only talking about a license to own a gun and registration for possessing arms. Maybe we should require the government to issue us a license so we can exercise our Rights.

I just wonder how long it's going to be before we have to have a license to print a newsletter or produce artwork that's "government compliant." When are we going to have to show our "religious practices" ID card? Are they going to take it so far as to require us to notify them, in writing, every time we choose to worship in a different manner or at a different place of worship? What about those of us who like to share our opinions on forums and blogs? Are we going to have to be "licensed" to do that?

"Well slim, that's no different than getting a license to drive a car. A car is a big responsibility so one should be licensed to operate a car. There should be some kind of evaluation and registration, etc. That's no different than owning a handgun. A handgun is a dangerous object and should only be owned by responsible people. Why shouldn't they be required to have a license too?"

Why don't we have a license for going to church? Why don't we have a license to share our opinions with others? Why don't we have a license to paint or draw or own a handgun? WHY?

Because those are RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution. I don't remember seeing "operating a motor vehicle" as a Right guaranteed by the Constitution so that's why it's licensed.

How can you license a Right?

And if you want to take it a step further (which is where it always ends up.....) why do we need an AK-47 in order to uphold the 2nd Amendment and not just our grand-dad's shotgun? Why does anyone other than a policeman need a pistol? Why does the citizenship of a country need to be armed?

The answer is - to be truly free.

If you're not armed, who guarantees your Right to vote? If you're not armed, are you going to tell a criminal to wait seven minutes for the police to arrive before victimizing you? And if your family, friends and neighbors are not armed, and a foreign power decides to attack your hometown, how are you going to be able to stop that attack? How are you going to be able to prevent aggressors from carrying out their will against you?

Once again, you may be saying, "Slim, you're crazy." And once again, indeed, you're correct. But you can print this diatribe out and save it for posterity because if we ever willfully disregard our Right to keep and bear arms, every single one of our remaining Rights will fall in due time.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

slim