Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183963)	3/23/2006 9:54:53 AM
From: steve dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Guess this girl's husband and father-in-law had their own 'God Giver Rights': hotzone.yahoo.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183963)	3/23/2006 2:30:31 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Obviously, the role of government amongst a diverse population is to create an political and social atmosphere where one person's "GGR" is not permitted to infringe on anothers, as they perceive it. You use the word "obviously." That's silly and reveals yet another of your false assumptions with respect to democracy in the middle east. Let's break down your circular reasoning: 1. The role of a democratic government is to govern so that one person's God-given rights are not infringed by others. 2. God-given rights are similar to those articulated and protected in our declaration of independence (inalienable) and written into our bill or rights. 3. Therefore, if we "create" democracies in the middle east God-given rights will be protected. But what about your earlier thesis that each of us has the right to live in "free and democratic" society where the views of the majority are reflected in their choice of leaders and where those leaders ENFORCE THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY? When we add in that basic tenet of democracy then where's the evidence that a majority of people in Iraq or Afghanistan share your enlightened view of "God-given rights;" the inalienable rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence or the rights protected in our Bill of Rights? THE FACTS ON THE GROUND PROVE YOU WRONG, REALLY WRONG. The majority of Iraqis, Afghans and most other middle easterners have shown a narrow and intolerant view of the "rights" of others. Women are chattels subject to unilateral and arbitrary decisions that result in beatings and death from their own husbands, fathers and even strangers. Believers of other religions are infidels, subject to death for many transgressions. Human life is cheap and respect for noble ideas of the learned are even cheaper. But your mind is clearly missing a tooth on the reality gear and you keep slipping a notch. You write: If we accept your view that tolerant and moderate people don't have the "right" to interfere and confront intolerance or socio-pathic behavior, then we'd all be relegated to defending ourselves upon our doorsteps. It is the "moderate" majority in Iraq who are, by western standards, intolerant and sociopathic. Remember the troublesome issue of the Muslim convert to Christianity who is subject to DEATH under the laws of Afghanistan, laws implemented under democratic rule and a democratically written constitution that gave Islamic religious laws precedence over civil laws? That's a pretty good look at the will of the majority and I don't see any "inalienable-bill of rights-God-given rights" in that, do you? Where are the majority of "tolerant and moderate" Iraqis that is necessary to support a tolerant and moderate democracy? Did you see them from your bird's eye ultra-protected view inside the wire in Iraq? I'm sure you didn't put your theory to the test and walk off the compound, did you? Get a clue. The assumptions in your middle eastern model are TOTALLY WRONG and you're making an utter fool of yourself with Pollyanna-like, fairy tale projections while our soldiers die in the not-Pollyanna, not-fairy tale, intolerant, violent, ignorant and other-cultered world that is Iraq. The fact that Bush is just as big a fool is no excuse. And as for your question about what I'd do here if various groups got out of control, I'd opt for laws and the use of government force to control them. You see, in this country the views and beliefs of the majority are tolerable to me and I expect that they'd elect leaders who'd control such groups. If they weren't I'd kill the bastards or move to Canada. If people like you continue to control government, however, and if we can't stop you from spending a fortune and killing our kids along with a lot foreigners who haven't messed with me, I might do that. Ed