Business as usual

Quote:

---

In the mean time Echelon type systems trace our calls, cameras invade our privacy and new style laws bent just alittle(as they say) our rights. Im not gonna do them this favour and turn myself to a maniac looking always over my shoulder, or go to some s..country and get killed fighting for the US right to stick their nose were they shouldnt under the missused poor word ''democracy''

---

Do you live in the US? I'm curious: if you do, we can argue about whether security measures are necessary. If you aren't from these parts, I wonder what you are talking about - I thought only Americans are losing rights...

Quote:

---

By the way democracy(yes the original sense) means power of people. Do you feel any power lately?

---

I bet your average Iraqi felt really "empowered" under Saddam. I mean, he was direct democracy personified...

:rolleyes:

I like the analogy used to refer to terrorists as "weeds".

If you try to kill weeds with weed killer, you may affect some other plants
(If you try to kill terrorists with brute military force, you may hurt civilians)
If you try to remove them one by one, it will take a long time to get them all
(If you use "SpecOps" to take out each cell, it will take a long time to get them all)
Once you have removed the weeds, you need to ensure the roots are gone too
(Once Terrorism is gone, you need to remove the roots of descent)

The "War or Terrorism" can not be won overnight.

Alexander the Pretty Good]Do you live in the US? I'm curious: if you do, we can argue about whether security measures are necessary. If you aren't from these parts, I wonder what you are talking about - I thought only Americans are losing rights...

I live in Greece. Those kind of stuff like phone tracing systems and cameras are here also. With the olympics occasion those measures stayed here for good. And as you understand i dont like them at all. I think there are unecessary and hurt real democracy. And not americans only losing rights. WE ALL LOSE RIGHTS.

I bet your average Iraqi felt really "empowered" under Saddam. I mean, he was direct democracy personified...

Frankly i dont care. Democracy is something you earn not owed to. If those people wanted a change they should try do it and ask world community to help. In ancient Athens the ORIGINAL democracy, citizents that didnt care about politics and common were considered useless. Lets face it those people are way far from real democracy. So if there was not Saddam there would be another same type ruler. Since ancient years most oriental people believed in a supreme god-inspired ruller. It takes a change in their whole mentality to adopt real democratic ideals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

If those people wanted a change they should try do it and ask world community to help.

---

Do you know why people in Iraq didn't ask the world commuity to help?

Becuase they'd have been shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

Since ancient years most oriental people believed in a supreme god-inspired ruller. It takes a change in their whole mentality to adopt real democratic ideals

---

I think that the reason why Saddam stayed in power was not becuase Iraqis thought that he was a god-inspired ruler, but because of torture and the aforementioned shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Do you know why people in Iraq didn't ask the world commuity to help?

Becuase they'd have been shot.




I think that the reason why Saddam stayed in power was not becuase Iraqis thought that he was a god-inspired ruler, but because of torture and the aforementioned shooting.

---

Ok then why not taking some examples of other oppressed people that revolted just to proove my point. The French revolution in a time that civil rights were a joke, the american revolution no UN there, The Greek revolution after 400 years of turkish occupation with mass slaughters and all that nice stuff, the Russian revolution (nevermind for outcome), The Romanian revolution against a so similar ruler with Saddam Tsauseskou(sp?).
I m sure i left out many many more revolutions af people against an oppressive state. You can fill in the missing places and realise that everyone gets what deserves.
Even us now speaking we get what we deserve when we allow politicians playing games and give promises they dont keep, when they think more of their big pockets and deals with sponsors instead the common good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

Ok then why not taking some examples of other oppressed people that revolted just to proove my point. The French revolution in a time that civil rights were a joke, the american revolution no UN there, The Greek revolution after 400 years of turkish occupation with mass slaughters and all that nice stuff, the Russian revolution (nevermind for outcome), The Romanian revolution against a so similar ruler with Saddam Tsauseskou(sp?).
I m sure i left out many many more revolutions af people against an oppressive state. You can fill in the missing places and realise that everyone gets what deserves.
Even us now speaking we get what we deserve when we allow politicians playing games and give promises they dont keep, when they think more of their big pockets and deals with sponsors instead the common good.

---

Saddam had something that wasn't in these other revolutions. Chemical weapons. And he wasn't afraid to use them. When you can kill thousands of people with one press of the button, revolts become so much easier to put down...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Saddam had something that wasn't in these other revolutions. Chemical weapons. And he wasn't afraid to use them. When you can kill thousands of people with one press of the button, revolts become so much easier to put down...

---

this is the best arguement to come up? I mean what difference in dying with buttons, shots or swords? you die anyway. All my examples were of totalitarian regimes with absolute power of life and death upon their subjects and no way of foreign intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

this is the best arguement to come up? I mean what difference in dying with buttons, shots or swords? you die anyway.

---

The difference between buttons, shots and swords is that it is a lot easier to kill with a button than with a sword or a gun. In order to put down a revolt with guns, you have to have thousands of soldiers, who can be defeated by the revolters if they are well armed enough. But with missile-launched weapons of mass destruction, thousands of revolters can be killed and a revolt put down by one person thousands of miles away from the place of revolt, with the revolters having no way to fight against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The difference between buttons, shots and swords is that it is a lot easier to kill with a button than with a sword or a gun. In order to put down a revolt with guns, you have to have thousands of soldiers, who can be defeated by the revolters if they are well armed enough. But with missile-launched weapons of mass destruction, thousands of revolters can be killed and a revolt put down by one person thousands of miles away from the place of revolt, with the revolters having no way to fight against it.

---

Look. Lets face the truth. You know its not a matter of chemichal weapons or any type of weapons. Oppressors during history had all the time and troops of the world to wipe out peasents revolts. That didnt stop revolutions from happening. How many revolts Iraq had? or any other middle east country? CAREFULL! i mean people's revolts not cup d' etat of other wanna be rulers. Tsausesku wasnt throwing back candys you know.

Anyway. If you believe that we should bring the world upside down just to force some people to be democratic, or use that as excuse for promoting imperialistic plans under the coat of shinny knight,im sorry but i have to disagree. ~:cool: