Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With another job, you can hand in your notice... It's fair enough to say that you sign the contract and I'd agree with you since I also view the signing of that document willingly as a representation of the fact that people either choose to not consider or willingly disregard some of the moral "qualms" that military service can lead to. But at the end of the day it's regrettable that one can't just realise the mistake one's made and have an institutionalised way to say "game over man, game over." I suppose the counter to that is "tough-cookie, the state's made an investment in you, chum..." But even if you can justify the need to surrender your freedom of choice after having signed that document, it doesn't eliminate the fact that people find themselves in this moral dilemma.

It isn't a perfect system, but we don't live in a perfect world. People don't always get what they want and sometimes we find ourselves in positions we absolutely hate as a result of our own actions or the actions of others. To me, it's a matter or personal responsibility. Regardless of mitigating factors the choice was made on their part and they must now live with the decision. I view desertion as an abandonment of responsibility for the choice that was made and an betrayal of trust and responsibility handed to someone upon joining the military, which is why I dislike it and don't see anything praiseworthy of the action regardless of context.

That said I do understand why a soldier may desert. It's not hard. The stress of military life is much greater than many may believe going in. Add in that there's somewhat of a romantic notion of war and being a soldier held by many people of enlistment age, and sometimes there's a good deal of culture shock involved in the transition.

Perhaps this all boils down to the fact that I can't envisage myself ever willingly parting with my right to choose... throw in general leftist hostility toward the military establishment (you see a submarine, I see a lost hospital), and I guess that's why I'm quite firm on this issue.

My position likely boils down to extreme skepticism in regards to the "goodness" of the world and having been an Army brat for 18+ years. We all have our opinions shaped by our perceptions.

but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it" (ironically, I imagine in that kind of situation a lot of people don't want to follow through with those actions but go along with it... because they see their likely-equally upset comrades doing the same)?

Yes. Think about Abu Ghraib. How many of those men/women do you think really wanted to harm the prisoners, and how many do you think just went along with it?

Group think and peer pressure are especially dangerous problems in a military force in regards to matters like this. Militaries encourage close bonds and brotherhood in soldiers. While there are great advantages to this for a military force, it can come back and bite everyone in the rear end. It's a very difficult balancing act in regards to maintaining a soldiers ability to objectively reason and use proper judgement while integrated him/her into an effective fighting force.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Would you not attribute the lack of dissidence in Soviet Chechnya as being due to ideological reasons? Ethnic tensions only really surfaced in the USSR after the fall... I mean, here was a nation that technically guaranteed 100% employment and encouraged the previously repressed cultures of the Russian Empire to be expressed locally, coupled with the suppression of religion and good ol' curfew, that sounds like a harmonious society to me.

This is western propaganda at it's best. There was plenty of ethnic hate in the Soviet Union, always was. They just feared the red army more but there were plenty of uprisings. People in the soviet union were free on a different level than we understand. When I was there for a year I could do basically whatever I wanted as long as I didn't hurt anyone. Here in the good old U.S.A. I can't even have a bonfire at the beach or walk down the street with a beer in my hand. Don't fall for the cold war rhetoric about the average soviets life, it was much better than you think. There are so many beautiful churches, synagogues and mosques in Russia you'd be amazed.

but haven't there been examples of soldiers who've feared refusing to take part in war crimes because the rest of the unit is "doing it"

I'm sure there have, there are many types of war crimes. Raping is a big no no. But any mistreatment of known terrorists I have no issue with. These peoples goal is to kill women and children, I don't believe anything is too harsh for them. Just shut the door and turn off the camera when you are doing it. It's also one thing to go through military channels with your problems...It's another to go to CNN

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about ideology: I meant the (supposed) lack of Russian nationalism like what you would see today, in principle the USSR was a worker's state for the working class, beyond archaic concepts such as nationality, race, etc... I'm not saying that's how it always worked but any Soviet official would have to suggest that was the higher creed he acted in the name of. I wrote my directed study on Stalin's Russia from a defensive point of view last year, so please, don't take me to be an out-of-hand critic

I'd rather judge a terrorist case-by-case ideally, I mean... if an alien culture invades with force and starts imposing its values on your society... the gut-reaction is conservatism and I imagine Al-Qaeda to be the forceful imposition of that feeling. Though, I have no idea if it reflects popular sentiment... I'm just saying I can empathise to the point where I'm not willing to hate out-of-hand, all causes have killed women and children at some stage.

Wonder if I'd be playing that tune if they killed anyone I knew *shrugs*, better to try remain logical than get emotional because of personal circumstance.

Guitardian wrote:I don't need kids over on the other side of the world fighting people I have no interest in, spreading democracy in places where our influence is not wanted or appreciated, "defending our country", to feel free, or protected. I am more worried about domestic problems, or getting mugged by one of my fellow Americans, than I am worried about getting blown up by a terrorist. If you quit poking the bee hive, they will quit trying to sting you. Signing up for the military adds to the poking. So you're welcome, sebster, for my refusal to agree to do horrible things because I was told to. Actually I wouldn't last a day in boot camp because I just don't follow orders I don't agree with. I would be court marshalled or whatever pretty damn quick. So again, you're welcome. I'll go ahead and not sign that piece of paper out of consideration for you, seb.

That's nothing to do with anything. I am not and never suggested you actually needed to be a soldier, and there is no sensible reading possible of my post that could produce that impression. I did comment that I am grateful that the people who are soldiers are, and that you are not, because the people actually serving generally maintain a level of control and make measured decisions despite incoming fire.... whereas you believe that you would only be capable of opening up with maximum force. My point, that you seemed to have completely missed, is that soldiers serve with a level of competence you were claiming impossible.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah i have to agree with Sebster for a change.

Don't worry, I'll make sure it never happens again

But thanks for explaining clearly what I was trying to say. Just because a round flies over your head doesn't make you into a panicked loon who'll unload. There's hundreds of hours of training and a whole lot of professional pride that keeps troops smart and effective, and this keeps civilians safe. Well, not safe, but a lot more safe than Guitardian assumes.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes I am well aware of what happened in Chechnya, The first Chechen war lasted 2 years94-96 and ended with a peace treaty although there was still minor terrorist activity in the mountains. The second Chechen war started in 99 with major actions finished in 2000 ofter the taking of Grozny. Since then most Chechen resistance has hidden up in the mountains launching minor attacks here and there (not to mention two well documented attacks outside of Chechnya). Nothing like the almost daily bombings that still happen to this day in Iraq.

Teehee. “ended with a peace treaty”

Umm, the first operation in Chechnya was an absolute debacle, the Russians lost complete control of the situation and the peace treaty was them giving up, ceding control and going home.

And again (and most likely again, and again, and again) Chechnya was formerly a Russian territory, with close cultural ties and a history of Russian administration, and with a sizable pro-Russian population. The Russians felt as you do that being brutal enough for long enough would ensure success, and this worked so poorly they had to turn tail once, and only succeed a second time with an immense expenditure of resources.

They turned what could have been a minor operation into a war of tremendous destruction, and you refuse to see that and learn from it. It is a fantasy to think brutality will be enough to solve problems and make you safe.

Never said Occestia was a terrorist attack. I was showing that Russians don't care about public opinion once the bells of war have rung.

I’m guessing you don’t spend a lot of time reading Russian commentary? To state that Russian reaction to the war was universally supportive is ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous to lay blame entirely on Georgia, you quite rightly pointed out that the Western media’s assumption that it was entirely Russian aggression was mistaken, but then you make a similar mistake in assuming blame lay entirely with Georgia. Both sides were playing games, both sides are responsible for the dead. Well, and a little blame for the West as well, who engaged the Georgians with military ties, then backed off when things escalated.

A much better and glaring example more pertinent to your needs would be the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Here is another example of not going all the way in a war. The Soviets sent a fraction of their army, and the worst fraction at that.

Yeah, Afghanistan, where the Russians were once again incredibly brutal in enforcing their occupation. That brutality only led to further resistance, compounding the troop shortages, ineffective deployments and poor overall strategic plan, resulting in a hugely costly debacle.

My point, again, is that you need a plan to move towards being accepted as a legitimate government by the people, and that means bringing local powerbrokers onside, and providing value to the local citizens. If you don’t have those things, being more brutal won’t make up for it, it will only make the problem worse. Afghanistan is a classic example of that.

Israel Arab citizens vote and participate in the government along with Jewish citizens, can own and buy land, and are legally protected against discrimination in government services and the work place.

If you knew the region you would note my mention of 3.5 million people would refer to the Palestinians, not the Arab Israelis.

That's two countries (one by your count, which does not help your argument) that are run by western style government in the middle east. Both of which are contentious. So I think we can safely say they are the exception that proves the rule. So i'll go back to my idea that the area is just not ready for any form of western style government, ideas or kindnesses.

You said there were none, when there is one or two, depending on people’s view of Israel. Your claim was plainly wrong.

Now, once we accept that democracy is uncommon in the region, instead of non-existent, then we have a wholly different situation. When we further consider countries with elements of democracy, such as Jordan, we begin to build a much more complex view of the governments of the region.

Then we begin to consider what “being ready for democracy” actually means, and how countries around the world have become “ready for democracy” (in short: they get it then they develop the capacity to use it).

Then it becomes clear that your statement was quite ridiculous.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yes you are correct it is meant to be actually see "An exception that proves the rule" is a commonly used colloquialism. It means to express that one anomaly in a much larger situation proves that it is only an anomaly. But I'm sure you know that.

No, it doesn’t. “An exception that proves the rule” means that if we can identify the presence of a something as a commonly noted exception, then by logical inference there must be general rule for it to be an exception from. For example, if we were to note that it was commonly accepted that Jane was extremely fat for a New Yorker, then we could infer that there is a general rule that New Yorkers are skinny.

I'm in no way supporting the rape, pillage and plunder of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. But maybe Kuwait shouldn't shouldn't have been poking the bear either. It was really none of our business.

International commodities are not the business of the rest of the world? It’s a global economy, you are dependant on resource flows elsewhere in the world, particularly oil, and that means that it is your business. It isn’t nice to think in those terms, but it is unavoidable. Don’t pretend otherwise, it will only lead to you believing stupid things.

Andrew1975 wrote:3. The reason why we fight with our hands behind our back is to placate some peoples delicate seances of how a war should be prosecuted, which only increases our presence and therefore destroys the place we are trying to help, and also increases our proclivity to make war by somehow making it acceptable.

The problem is that this is completely and utterly wrong. Look, the military are not idiots. There is no more extreme environment for learning from mistakes, because doing things the wrong way gets the men you command dead. They don’t feth around.

Realise that, and note the trend in peacekeeping operations towards clear rules of engagement, towards engagement with the local population, towards reducing the overt threat. Militaries are doing that more and more because it is the way you operate successful peacekeeping operations.

Accept this and move on.

Andrew1975 wrote:Thanks. Should have learned the lesson from the Rusky's, Commit to war or don't

Having sufficient troops to maintain the necessary level of control is a core issue, yes. But no-one here is arguing that you don't need sufficient troops, what we're arguing is that you need lots of other things as well, and your argument for completely ruthless response to violence makes most of those things completely impossible.

dogma wrote:Excellent copypasta. Perhaps you should start deleting citations before repeating that gesture.

At least we've got him reading. If we keep it up he might start getting some reasonable ideas.

Every body has a lot to sat about this. But that's it. No facts, just theories. Not one person has given me a situation where these soft tactics have worked. Oh except the reunification of Germany which was not an armed conflict.

And again (and most likely again, and again, and again) Chechnya was formerly a Russian territory, with close cultural ties and a history of Russian administration, and with a sizable pro-Russian population. The Russians felt as you do that being brutal enough for long enough would ensure success, and this worked so poorly they had to turn tail once, and only succeed a second time with an immense expenditure of resources.

They turned what could have been a minor operation into a war of tremendous destruction, and you refuse to see that and learn from it. It is a fantasy to think brutality will be enough to solve problems and make you safe.

Yeah I'm sure the two Chechen wars were far more destructive and costly than the two gulf war. If that is your point support it.

I’m guessing you don’t spend a lot of time reading Russian commentary? To state that Russian reaction to the war was universally supportive is ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous to lay blame entirely on Georgia, you quite rightly pointed out that the Western media’s assumption that it was entirely Russian aggression was mistaken, but then you make a similar mistake in assuming blame lay entirely with Georgia. Both sides were playing games, both sides are responsible for the dead. Well, and a little blame for the West as well, who engaged the Georgians with military ties, then backed off when things escalated.

I said Russians at war don't care about public opinion. This means the men that run the military not the general public. Really, has there ever been a military action that was universally supported? At the point of belligerence it was all Georgia, as for games the Russians played you are going to have to provide some support for that. I can again point out that the goal of the invasion by the Georgians was genetic cleansing.

Yeah, Afghanistan, where the Russians were once again incredibly brutal in enforcing their occupation. That brutality only led to further resistance, compounding the troop shortages, ineffective deployments and poor overall strategic plan, resulting in a hugely costly debacle.

My point, again, is that you need a plan to move towards being accepted as a legitimate government by the people, and that means bringing local powerbrokers onside, and providing value to the local citizens. If you don’t have those things, being more brutal won’t make up for it, it will only make the problem worse. Afghanistan is a classic example of that.

The problem again here is troop shortage which i gave the numbers for. Being propped up and supported by the U.S. really helped. Wouldn't a legitimate government remove weapons from the hands of the populace? Seams a responsible and reasonable thing to do and adds a lot of legitimacy and value. Hey look I'm not getting shot today.

If you knew the region you would note my mention of 3.5 million people would refer to the Palestinians, not the Arab Israelis.

Maybe if they stop voting with rockets they will get to vote with ballets. They have however removed themselves from the political process by again launching rockets and have shown that they are not capable of serious political dialog by voting in Hamas. Besides the fact that no Palestinian that I know would claim to be an Israeli citizen. So you tell me why should they vote?

You said there were none, when there is one or two, depending on people’s view of Israel. Your claim was plainly wrong.

Now, once we accept that democracy is uncommon in the region, instead of non-existent, then we have a wholly different situation. When we further consider countries with elements of democracy, such as Jordan, we begin to build a much more complex view of the governments of the region.

Actually what I said was " The region is not ready for western style government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently."

Really? 2 Democracies, one of which you consider illegitimate Israel, the second one is a breeding ground for terrorists and a haven for Hezbollah, Lebanon, these "few exceptions" qualifies a whole region to be ready for the acceptance of western Ideas? Well in that case the 5 Muslims on my block must prove that the rest of the neighborhood it on the verge of visiting a Mosque. I'd take Jordan's constitutional monarchy over I took Lebanon democracy any day.

As of 2010, American organization Freedom House recognizes Israel as the only fully-fledged, free electoral democracy of the Middle East.

The below table summarizes the findings of the 2010 report on the countries of the Middle East. rated 1-7 1 being most free
- Country Political Freedom Civil Liberties Status
Israel 1 2 Free
Turkey 3 3 Partly Free
Kuwait 4 4 Partly Free
Jordan 5 4 Partly Free
Lebanon 5 4 Partly Free
Bahrain 5 5 Partly Free
Yemen 5 5 Partly Free
Palestinian Authority-Administered Territories 6 6 Not Free
Egypt 6 5 Not Free
Oman 6 5 Not Free
Qatar 6 5 Not Free
UAE 6 5 Not Free
Iraq 6 6 Not Free
Iran 6 6 Not Free
Saudi Arabia 7 6 Not Free
Syria 7 6 Not Free

Democracy is many ways incompatible with fundamental Islamic culture and values. The other issue being that in most cases there is no clear cut difference between religion and the state, this stifles democracy in the region. Religion is in many ways their government.

You must be the type that thinks Israel uses disproportionate force, which is a farcical term. If the Lebanese don't want Israel to attack maybe they should democratically vote and not let Hezbollah launch rockets from their country. You can bet if some Texas wacko group was launching rockets into Mexico because "De took are jerbs" the U.S. military would be all over that. Unfortunately the Lebanese government is not legitimate enough to remove weapons from their own terrorists. That is a picture of western values right there. You are probably one of those people that think the Israelis shouldn't have stopped the aid boat either. Again keep poking the bear. Keep tap-dancing on landmines. People actually engage in these attacks.

Do you think it is cute to shoot rockets at people? "Well it's just a rocket I don't know what they are getting all bent out of shape about". Really people? Don't start none won't be none.

But hey what a great Idea to put Israel there. More meddling,"now with U.N. freshness". Yeah I don't understand why people in the middle east will never trust the west and our values. Do you realize the only people we have messed with this much are the American Indians. We have been a destabilizing force ever since we touched foot in the middle east. JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE. They'll forget about us and kill each other, fine with me as long as someone keeps the pumps safe.

No, it doesn’t. “An exception that proves the rule” means that if we can identify the presence of a something as a commonly noted exception, then by logical inference there must be general rule for it to be an exception from. For example, if we were to note that it was commonly accepted that Jane was extremely fat for a New Yorker, then we could infer that there is a general rule that New Yorkers are skinny

Yeah so to say that Israel and Lebanon are the only Democracies in the middle east we can make the inference that the rest are not.....Can't We?

International commodities are not the business of the rest of the world? It’s a global economy, you are dependent on resource flows elsewhere in the world, particularly oil, and that means that it is your business. It isn’t nice to think in those terms, but it is unavoidable. Don’t pretend otherwise, it will only lead to you believing stupid things.

Sure they are important, they becomes our business when oil stops flowing or becomes terribly expensive. This only happened AFTER our excursions into the gulf. Because we created a chaotic environment in the middle east. Saddam didn't destroy Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil production facilities before we got there.

The problem is that this is completely and utterly wrong. Look, the military are not idiots. There is no more extreme environment for learning from mistakes, because doing things the wrong way gets the men you command dead. They don’t feth around.

Realise that, and note the trend in peacekeeping operations towards clear rules of engagement, towards engagement with the local population, towards reducing the overt threat. Militaries are doing that more and more because it is the way you operate successful peacekeeping operations.

Accept this and move on.

Yeah you are right the U.S. military does not make mistakes. You have swayed me with your wisdom sir. However by buddy from the army next to me cannot stop laughing for some reason. He's mumbling something about SNAFU. If your trends work all you have to do is show me an example of them working. But you can't because they don't.

At least we've got him reading. If we keep it up he might start getting some reasonable ideas.

I read a lot actually, This is why when I need some facts I can look them up and I'm not afraid to show that these are facts. If you read so much then you should have no problem showing me your data.

I wrote my directed study on Stalin's Russia from a defensive point of view last year, so please, don't take me to be an out-of-hand critic

I'd rather judge a terrorist case-by-case ideally

Sorry it was the curfew thing that threw me. You should know that culturalism was huge even in the Soviet union, there were always squabbles between the different ethnic groups . The Idea of the workers paradise never really lived up to the reality.

While I can get behind that not all Muslims are terrorists. I think we can assume that all terrorists are terrorists. If they ONLY attack an oppressive military force I would call them rebels of freedom fighters. That may just be my terminology. But once you actively target innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the war, you are just a scumbag terrorist.

Andrew1975 wrote:Every body has a lot to sat about this. But that's it. No facts, just theories. Not one person has given me a situation where these soft tactics have worked. Oh except the reunification of Germany which was not an armed conflict.

French Algeria, Iran, India, Australia, Turkey, Egypt, etc. Read the thread.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I said Russians at war don't care about public opinion. This means the men that run the military not the general public.

No military is run by the general public.

The majority of Russian state news agencies are focused on the military. Therefore they appear to take an interest in public opinion.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem again here is troop shortage which i gave the numbers for. Being propped up and supported by the U.S. really helped.

I have two candy bars. There, I gave numbers, is my opinion valid?

Andrew1975 wrote:
And as no Palestinian that I know would claim to be an Israeli citizen why should they vote?

The category you brought up removes 'Israeli' from the conversation. Seriously, pay attention.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually what I said was " The region is not ready for western style government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently."

Really? 2 Democracies (few exceptions) qualifies a whole region to be ready for the acceptance of western Ideas? Well in that case the 5 Muslims on my block must prove that the rest of the neighborhood it on the verge of visiting a Mosque.

Terrible analogy. Religious categories are not interchangeable with ideological ones; especially when you don't use the ideologies as unifying concepts.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah so to say that Israel and Lebanon are the only Democracies in the middle east we can make the inference that the rest are not.....Can't We?

No, because you're wrong. Turkey, Iraq, Iran.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure they are important, they becomes our business when oil stops flowing or becomes terribly expensive. This only happened AFTER our excursions into the gulf. Because we created a chaotic environment in the middle east. Saddam didn't destroy Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil production facilities before we got there.

Do you even know why we protected Kuwait?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah you are right the U.S. military does not make mistakes.

That's not what was said. You are making it appear as though you cannot read.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I read a lot actually, This is why when I need some facts I can look them up and I'm not afraid to show that these are facts. If you read so much then you should have no problem showing me your data.

Words like 'shortage' are not related to facts. You have not presented facts that were not copied from another source.

Dogma I'm not even engaging you anymore.

Anyone who can consider a hug a threat or use that statement in a argument is just not worth having a conversion with.

According to you this guy is public enemy number one.



Besides at least I can quote sources. They add legitimacy to my claims. Is that a problem? (it's rhetorical you don't have to answer. In fact I don't want you to)

You seam to struggle to produce anything at all except popular and easy opinion.

I'm done with you.

Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?

I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!

mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?

I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!

Agreed. It's more of a benevolent theocracy, without the benevolence.

Andrew1975 wrote:Dogma I'm not even engaging you anymore.

Anyone who can consider a hug a threat or use that statement in a argument is just not worth having a conversion with.

According to you this guy is public enemy number one.



Besides at least I can quote sources. They add legitimacy to my claims. Is that a problem? (it's rhetorical you don't have to answer. In fact I don't want you to)

You seam to struggle to produce anything at all except popular and easy opinion.

I'm done with you.

Admittedly this could be a joke, and if it is, good one. I chuckled at the idea of dogma's opinions as popular and easy.

mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?

I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!

Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?

I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!

Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.

As exmplified by all the arrests, torture, murders of protesters, and their political opponents who won the election...

..but that's enough about America !

I kid, I kid !

I think Iran is one of those "technical" democracies. As in technically you can vote for who you want, depending upon how keen you are upon suffering beatings, shootings etc etc. I seem to recall Saddam being overwhelmingly reelected in Iraq on occasion as well, oh those wacky Middle Easterners !

It seems to me the way to get power in that area is to have a big moustache, once again proving the long noted OT board rule about power, corruption and facial hair.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Is Iran classed ad a democracy still?

I don't think that one should count after the last election mate!

Meh, after gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the courts here in the states the bar for what counts as a democracy lowered a little bit. The vote was found in Achmadinejeads favor, and since we don't have an impartial body looking at the numbers we really can't say for certain if Mousavi won or not. Whats clear is that there is a strong democratic streak within the populace of the country and that the government has to be quite wary of how it acts the next time around.

As exmplified by all the arrests, torture, murders of protesters, and their political opponents who won the election...

*shrugs*

Hey, if Israel gets to do it to the people who won the election in Gaza! It's not like we haven't tacitly approved of harsh authoritarian "democracies" before. I'd say Iran is more of one then russia. It's a state in a transformative democratic state, like I said, I'll change my opinion if it happens again. Right now I don't think Dinnerjacket is a "president for life", and I'm not convinced the "green revolution" ever won the election in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:..but that's enough about America !

I kid, I kid !

I think Iran is one of those "technical" democracies. As in technically you can vote for who you want, depending upon how keen you are upon suffering beatings, shootings etc etc. I seem to recall Saddam being overwhelmingly reelected in Iraq on occasion as well, oh those wacky Middle Easterners !

It seems to me the way to get power in that area is to have a big moustache, once again proving the long noted OT board rule about power, corruption and facial hair.

Voting for the opposition wasn't illegal in Iran. The protest measures we're what was cracked down on. They seem to dislike "revolutionary activity", but the voters themselves weren't having their fingers cut off or anything.

The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.

The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.

Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.

. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.

Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.

Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.

. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.

Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.

Nor was it the intent of the electoral system to have a Apresidential election decided by hanging chads and then suits by the Democratic party to pick and choose which districts to have a recount in. Sucker please.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The popular vote has never been the requirement to win a US Presidential election, and wasn't the first time in US history it had happened, so I don't see why that argument keeps popping up 10 years later.

Because conceptually representative democracy is based on popular opinion. When it goes against that it gives the perception of functioning below it's intended form.

. Just because one doesn't like the out come doesn't mean it didn't follow the system set in place. The legal problems that arose because the election were afterward dealt with under the system were then corrected by the mechanisms set forth under the law to make changes. If anything the election is an example of how it works, not how it doesn't.

Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included. The mechanisms of the law were not designed to give ultimate legitimacy to the supreme court to decide our leaders, that was purely a coincidental outcome of the specific polling issues of individual states. It was neither the intention of our law system, nor the objective of our democratic system.

Nor was it the intent of the electoral system to have a Apresidential election decided by hanging chads and then suits by the Democratic party to pick and choose which districts to have a recount in. Sucker please.

I never said we had a good electoral system (its not). I was just pointing out an instance where it failed miserably and a presidency was stolen by outmoded and unnecessary concept of electoral votes clearly demonstrating the inequality of votes had by different people in different places. I stated directly in my post that the courts decided upon "specific polling issues in individual states". But those issues weren't what caused the controversy, those would just cause a recount (repeatedly). What caused the controversy is the fact that the vote essentially went to a politically appointed body made up of staunch party members with a clear majority that ran opposed to the popular will of the people. The votes didn't matter because they actually didn't matter. The votes became irrelevant when it became the supreme courts job to decide who was the president.

It wasn't stolen. It was almost stolen.

But thats all I'll talk about an election that was two elections ago.

To compare it to what the Iranians did to their people employs misplaced logic.

It wasn't stolen. It was almost stolen.

How do you mean? Because you wanted your guy to win? You value the courts decision over the people of this nation?

To compare it to what the Iranians did to their people employs misplaced logic.

Not really. I said it set the bar lower, I didn't say that the iranians weren't still under it.

Whatever.

Frazzled wrote:Whatever.

Whatever (I forgot how many swears were in this video. It's still great.).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whatever.

Whatever (I forgot how many swears were in this video. It's still great.).

Weiner Dog Song Superior Whatever Song Inferior!

Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.

ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.

blocked at work


Shuma and Frazzled, the early years:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.

blocked at work


Shuma and Frazzled, the early years:

How are my videos blocked, but yours are not?

Oh please lets not turn this into the Democracy, vs Republic, vs Democratic republic debate.

The true government of most of these middle eastern counties is a warped twisted Islam, used to control the people. In many ways it's like debating the government of the Vatican, if the Vatican could stone you for stepping out of line. Many of these countries were on their way to thinking about accepting western ideals. Counter productive meddling by the west has reversed these trends. Westernization by the gun is not modern westernization (sorry, American Indians).

We can not go to countries and tell them we are giving them the right to chose with a gun in our hands and then not give them to choice to not choose.NOR SHOULD WE. The west does not We at the most should help when we are asked to.

Does the whole world have to be democratic? Is democracy even the only for of acceptable western government?

The whole issue that I was really alluding to was that the region in general is used to savage treatment and order imposed by a strength of will, not values like our western sentimentality, or our social ideas of working things out with each other. So going into these areas, with too small a force (this is not 40K where 1000 marines can take a planet), being meek, and shying away from enforcing our will on issues like weapon ownership, we are viewed as weak and will not be respected. The second we leave, that place is going to erupt like a powder keg, just like Vietnam.

We failed to scare the terrorists, we failed to enforce our will on the WARLORDS (who might even be the same people). By doing this we have not created an environment of peace, security or order that will win the hearts and mind of the people. If you think my ideas are harsh, I guarantee whoever takes our place when we leave will put themselves in power through sheer brutality that will make what I am talking about seam like child's play. Then you will see the true cost if this mess.

I can see Shurma's video just fine. Juggolos? where is Tila Tequila when I need her?

Frazzled this is for you. Not sure if you have ever heard it. It's pretty obscure, It's full of wiener dog goodness.

[youtube][/youtube]

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Mine wasn't a song. I can now see that you don't look at other peoples videos. I will leave you to your dog youtubes in peace and never look back.

blocked at work


Shuma and Frazzled, the early years:

How are my videos blocked, but yours are not?

Magic, powerful Mojo the likes of which have not been seen in decades. I have the touch. I have the power.

(translation not everything is blocked)

ShumaGorath wrote:Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included.

That isn't really an argument for you being right, just for you being sore about the outcome.

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included.

That isn't really an argument for you being right, just for you being sore about the outcome.

I'm sore about the fact that it happened, the outcome itself is somewhat irrelevant. I would state the same if bush had had the election swept from under him by a democratic majority supreme court. Your argument seems to come from the fact that you believe the electoral system was working as intended when it was overuled by the supreme court when they ruled an end to recounts in a contentious state along party lines resulting in a vote that ran counter to popular results. You are simply wrong in this regard. The founding fathers, nor any other body of government before 2000 would tell you it's the courts job to decide who gets to be the president.

I'm not really going to mince words here (for as much as I ever do). You are wrong.

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Many people would consider it to be "not working" when it "works in that way". Myself included.

That isn't really an argument for you being right, just for you being sore about the outcome.

I think he's just mad because the weiner dog song was just that epic.