quote:July 20,2006 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's top Shiite cleric urged his followers Thursday to refrain from reprisal violence against Sunnis, his strongest call yet for an end to increasing sectarian bloodshed. The statement by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani came as U.S. military officials reported a 40 percent increase in the daily average of attacks in the Baghdad area.
U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said there has been an average of 34 attacks a day against U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital over the past five days. The daily average for the period June 14 until July 13 was 24 a day, he said.
"We have not witnessed the reduction in violence one would have hoped for in a perfect world," U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said at a news briefing Thursday. "The only way we're going to be successful in Baghdad is to get the weapons off the streets."
Caldwell said militias and death squads have responded to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's call for a crackdown by intensifying attacks to derail Iraq's new unity government.
posted
Caldwell obviously does not understand that in a democracy, lethal weaponry in the hands of the civilian population is the first line of defence against tyranny. To deprive Iraqis of their AKs would be to thrust despotism down upon their heads.
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, of course I see your point Pat. Civilians pissed off at the U.S. troops that have guns will result in far less attacks than civilians pissed off at the U.S. troops that don't have guns.
Of course, maybe we should just skip the middleman and be really clever and give M-16s, anti-tank missles, land mines and RPGs to the Insurgents directly. That way they'll stop attacking all together.
Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ophiuchus: Oh, of course I see your point Pat. Civilians pissed off at the U.S. troops that have guns will result in far less attacks than civilians pissed off at the U.S. troops that don't have guns.
Of course, maybe we should just skip the middleman and be really clever and give M-16s, anti-tank missles, land mines and RPGs to the Insurgents directly. That way they'll stop attacking all together.
So you don't accept the rationale for our own cherished Second Ammendment?
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrugs* I don't know... Should it be considered cherished? Lets keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson whole heartedly believed in slavery and raped his slaves as well as was the one who disobeyed the supreme court and ordered the Trail of Tears in order to free up land for more southern white farmers. If you think these things are good, that says something about your moral compass. However, I, and most of the United States, feel that while he had some good ideas, not all ideas he had were good.
But, to be fair I can't say I really know how it realistically works out. I guess if you apply the logic the best way to solve gun violence in LA and New York would be to see that every Blood, Crypt and other gang member has a gun. In order to prevent another Columbine, every student would be required to bring guns to work-- therefore no school shootings would ever take place. And in order to make sure there is never any violence in prisons, every prisoner would be required to be armed with firearms at all times.
Now, perhaps these things would work. I really don't know. It doesn't seem logical that if someone wants to hurt you that making them go to further lengths to get ahold of weapons to do so would make them more likely to use them than if they are on hand. But it also doesn't seem logical that stricter sentencing, such as the death sentence, would promote crime and yet it illogically seems to do so.
So... who knows how it would turn out. I guess we can just divide up the land and apply your theory in some areas and the opposite theory in others as an experiment and see how it turns out.
Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness me, Pat. Last week a snopester friend of mine called me a leftist, and this week you are outed as a conservative who favours slavery. Would it be easier if we just swap desks? Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ophiuchus everything suggests his slave lovers were voluntary and he even supported the children somewhat.
As for beleiving in slavery check out the facts. He in fact opposed slavery but used it to keep out of debt.
Now on topic a lot of past reports about attacks in Iraq were often covered up by the offical US newspaper over there. When the planting stories issue came up it wasn't really reported as to the factual accuracy of those stories. Well it turns out the US was telling a lot of BS. They often didn't report attacks or overestimated enemy casulties or didn't report civilian casulties.
Posts: 320 | From: Birmingham, Alabama | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ophiuchus: *shrugs* I don't know... Should it be considered cherished? Lets keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson whole heartedly believed in slavery and raped his slaves as well as was the one who disobeyed the supreme court and ordered the Trail of Tears in order to free up land for more southern white farmers. If you think these things are good, that says something about your moral compass. However, I, and most of the United States, feel that while he had some good ideas, not all ideas he had were good.
I just got a major case of conversational whiplash.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ophiuchus: Lets keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson whole heartedly believed in slavery and raped his slaves as well as was the one who disobeyed the supreme court and ordered the Trail of Tears in order to free up land for more southern white farmers.
Among other things, you have confused Thomas Jefferson with Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears happened in 1838 -- almost 30 years after Thomas Jefferson died in 1809.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang, is Ophiuchus is a product of the California public school system? He may have just made the best possible case for vouchers.
LOL, ignunce.
In any case, attacks are up as Coalition forces continue to turn more responsibility for security over to the Iraqis. No surprise there. For me, anyway. For those folks who said US being less visible and less active would help, yeah, it probably surprises them. But then, so do sunrises.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ophiuchus: *shrugs* I don't know... Should it be considered cherished? Lets keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson whole heartedly believed in slavery and raped his slaves as well as was the one who disobeyed the supreme court and ordered the Trail of Tears in order to free up land for more southern white farmers.
Did Thomas Jefferson give us the second amendment? And the Cherokees were moved by Van Buren.
quote: If you think these things are good, that says something about your moral compass.
What if I think they're so-so?
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve: And the Cherokees were moved by Van Buren.
Van Buren was president when many of the Cherokees were removed, but Jackson laid the legal groundwork for the removal. Van Buren was Jackson's protege.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE Should it be considered cherished? Lets keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson whole heartedly believed in slavery and raped his slaves as well as was the one who disobeyed the supreme court and ordered the Trail of Tears in order to free up land for more southern white farmers . If you think these things are good, that says something about your moral compass. However, I, and most of the United States, feel that while he had some good ideas, not all ideas he had were good. [/QUOTE] First, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson penned the The Declaration of Independence; James Madison is the "Father of the Constitution" guy. Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitutional Convention was convened. Also, while I think he was kind of a douche-bag for owning slaves, while simultaneously speaking out about the evils of slavery, it can hardly be said that he "whole-heartedly" believed in the institution:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."-Thomas Jefferson
"Do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people... On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."- Thomas Jefferson
"The abolition of the evil is not impossible; it ought never therefore to be despaired of. Every plan should be adopted, every experiment tried, which may do something towards the ultimate object." -Thomas Jefferson
Note: The Trail of Tears took place in the 1830s; Thomas Jefferson died in 1826.
So, I guess one could say "strong on the moral compass thing, a little weak on the booksmarts." But maybe you're more of a street-smart kind of guy?
quote:LA and New York would be to see that every Blood, Crypt and other gang member has a gun.
Nope.
-------------------- "Excuse me, homes, but could you tell me how to get back to the interstate?" Posts: 1245 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve: And the Cherokees were moved by Van Buren.
Van Buren was president when many of the Cherokees were removed, but Jackson laid the legal groundwork for the removal. Van Buren was Jackson's protege.
True enough. Really both are to blame. And as Roy012 points out, Jefferson died in 1826, not 1809.
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney. Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zachary Fizz: Goodness me, Pat. Last week a snopester friend of mine called me a leftist, and this week you are outed as a conservative who favours slavery. Would it be easier if we just swap desks?
Yes, indeed.
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: In any case, attacks are up as Coalition forces continue to turn more responsibility for security over to the Iraqis. No surprise there. For me, anyway. For those folks who said US being less visible and less active would help, yeah, it probably surprises them. But then, so do sunrises.
It's a pity you didn't share your prescience with the White House, First, as the implications of what you say are that:
1. the process will have succeeded when Iraq is in a state of complete breakdown; or
2. the USA and its allies are going to have to occupy Iraq for a very long time indeed.
I don't remember this being mentioned back in 2003.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't remember FOT opposing US intervention because he viewed the invasion as a black hole for american lives and treasure in which a democratic Iraq would most likely give rise to Iranian hegemony and set back the cause of democratic elections in the region?
It's funny how each black turn in this was accurately predicted by FOT after it occurred.
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ophiuchus: But, to be fair I can't say I really know how it realistically works out. I guess if you apply the logic the best way to solve gun violence in LA and New York would be to see that every Blood, Crypt and other gang member has a gun. In order to prevent another Columbine, every student would be required to bring guns to work-- therefore no school shootings would ever take place. And in order to make sure there is never any violence in prisons, every prisoner would be required to be armed with firearms at all times.
Given that criminals and prisoners are most likely to use their guns on other criminals of prisoners then I say go for it. Not for children though. As law abiding teenagers with no criminal records we can't be certain that they won't gun down a class full of 6-year-olds.
Bazarre logic courtesy of: "Dead Air" by Iain Banks.
Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PatYoung: You don't remember FOT opposing US intervention because he viewed the invasion as a black hole for american lives and treasure in which a democratic Iraq would most likely give rise to Iranian hegemony and set back the cause of democratic elections in the region?
It's funny how each black turn in this was accurately predicted by FOT after it occurred.
Having poured scorn on First's predicitve powers, I feel morally obliged to mention that a few years ago I posted several times on these boards in favour of invading Iraq, on the basis that Mr Blair had stated his certainty that the Iraqis were breaking UN resolutions and possessed WMDs and it was inconceivable that a British prime minister, no matter how dreadful, would recklessly send troops to war by deceit.
I have had cause to re-evaluate that stance since 2003. I can only hope that I was not too rude to those who hooted in disbelief at the time.
I also believed that a thoughtfully planned and resourced occupation of Iraq would leave the occupier with hugely enhanced influence over the region. I still do believe this; it seems a shame that the first nation to try this will probably be Iran.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
