# Political Arrogance



## pkozub (Mar 4, 2005)

Hello,
I have posted on this site before as MartialArtist68 and have reincarnated as "pkozub68". I have done a lot of soul-searching over the past few months and my views have changed on some things. 

This time I would like to take a different perspective on the "War On Terror". Now, I consider myself a pseudo-liberal, and that should be quite evident in my (hopefully) upcoming posts. However, I feel that it is necessary to take a different perspective on how we have imposed our form of government on a people that are used to a dictatorship. Yeah, that's right, I actually have a <i>reason</i> for hating the war. I do not deny that Hussein is/was a sick and twisted individual, but he was their ruler, and for the time being it was working. Think about it: why is our government better than their's? Because we have proof? NO! There's just as much corruption as there is anywhere else! My point is this: "democracy is the best" is an OPINION, not a FACT. Let's seperate these two, G.W.

Best Wishes,
P. Kozub


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 4, 2005)

You know, you're right -- asserting that a totalitarian dictatorship is preferable to allowing a group of people to govern themselves is pretty arrogant.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 4, 2005)

Perhaps I should have chosen a better title... I meant "arrogance" in that we assume that we're the best and that we know what's right just because it's what we're doing. (eyes cross in embarassment, cat attacks my face)

pck


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 4, 2005)

You're absolutely right.  It's arrogant to assume everyone can govern themselves;  some people are so stupid or so subhuman that they _deserve_ to live with their necks under the boot of a violent dictator who regularly maims and murders them at whim.  Some people just can't _handle_ self-government.  It would be pretty arrogant of us to force freedom down their throats like they were... well, our _equals_, or something.  Thanks for setting us all straight on that.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 4, 2005)

I did not mean it that way. The Iraqis are legitamate souls and are no better or worse than Americans or Canadians etc., etc. The point is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THE WORLD. That's my beleif, anyway. Bush is like that little knowitall on the playground that thinks he/she is better than everybody else. Like I said, it's just my opinion. I am not implying that they Iraqi people are stupid or not worthy of what we perceive to be a decent government. Just so we're clear...

pck


----------



## pkozub (Mar 4, 2005)

And I'm NOT excusing Hussein's actions. Murder is NEVER acceptable.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 4, 2005)

No, no, you're absolutely right.  Just the other day I read an account of a father molesting his underage daughter, and I thought, "Wow, that strikes me as wrong, but... who am I to judge?  It would be arrogant of me to presume to know what is best for that child.  Some daughters simply cannot handle making their own sexual decisions and it's better if their fathers do it for them."

I can't imagine the arrogance with which I would presume to tell an Iraqi woman that the right to vote is _right_ for her over, say, being locked in a rape room presided over by one of Saddam Hussein's sons.  Who am I to force such freedom on someone?


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 5, 2005)

ya know...I ubderstand both sides of this debate,

but (of course)...both side are right and wrong.
I'm a vet and I do know that we were sent places we had no reason being there to "straighten" things out for people....what a crock."Company" work usually is.
 I know of places we SHOULD have gone to straighten things out and didn't.
I do belive the world would have reacted better if G.W would have said "we're invading iraq cause sadam is an a$$hole" cause he was and is and needed his teeth kicked in!
 But on the other hand....
 The soviet union has given the whole "democratic" thing a try and it has pretty much failed for them.
 Hence the reason Putin is reforming the KGB.
Its kinda like putting a man in a 10x10 room for 20 years and he walks the the perimeter for the whole time, cause thats all he's allowed to do,but he is fed and taken care of...
 Then an outsider says "I'm changing that cause its wrong" and he blows down the walls....the man is STILL gonna walk a 10x10 pattern cause thats all he knows and he's comfortable with it regardless of what the "outsider" believes.
 People get comfortable with those 4 walls no matter how bad it is and don't want to know whats on the outside regardless of an outsiders opinion.
 So who's right and who's wrong?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 5, 2005)

Some people just can't handle freedom.  Think about how arrogant Lincoln was -- forcing freedom down people's throats.  So many slaves and former slaves and sons and daughters of slaves have experienced so much hardship since then, they would have been better off staying slaves... right?  I mean, who are we to tell them what is best for them?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 5, 2005)

What if a democracy; what if the free choice of the people, if for a monarchy, or a theocracy, or a benevolant despot?

One reason we (in America) have both a republic and the bill of rights is to protect against 'tyranny of the majority'; to prevent the will of the majority from overcoming the basic rights of the minority, but that's particular to our current system, our similar systems.  That's not really inherent in democracy.

If a democracy freely choose a theocracy or a monarch, could we say that it was wrong?  We might disagree with the results, but I don't think we could disagree that it was the will of the majority of the people.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 5, 2005)

That makes sense. But should we make that decision for other people?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 5, 2005)

Anytime we see evil, we should ignore it.  After all, who are we to decide?


----------



## pkozub (Mar 5, 2005)

What's your problem? Are you so arrogant that you have to be sarcastic and idiotic just to make a point?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 5, 2005)

He makes a point though....


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 5, 2005)

---------------------------------------------------------
*Moderator Note. 
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
---------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 5, 2005)

> What's your problem? Are you so arrogant that you have to be sarcastic and idiotic just to make a point?



I was agreeing with you.  I am, in fact, agreeing with you in order to show you the arrogance of your opinion by taking that opinion to its logical conclusion and applying it consistently as a philosophy.


----------



## Bester (Mar 5, 2005)

Phil,
  Please, show us where, legally, in any of the following foundation documents it says that America should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations?

Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
US Constitution

You can't.  

This nation was founded in part, because we wanted to run things ourselves.  We had minimal help getting there.  The bulk of the fight was done by us.  The French did not invade us to free us.  We freed ourselves.  Why should we force our ideas onto someone else?

If, Iraq truely deserved freedom, if Iraq really wanted it, they would have started the ball rolling themselves.  Then, if they asked us to assist, we could have.  But that's not what happened.

You argue that there was evil there and we were right to intervene.  Fine.  How many other nations are just as evil, or worse?  Where will it end?  Will we only "free" nations that have something to offer us in return like oil or mineral wealth?  Why have we not freed North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, etc?  What about Somalia?  Remember Somalia?  That nation makes war-torn Iraq look like LA.  Why aren't we freeing them, and showing them the wonders of McDonalds?

Americans are one of the most "in your face" people around, thinking they are right, and the rest are wrong.  We look at the world as backwards, and the world looks at us as bullies.  Maybe we should clean up the problems here first, before trying to tell the rest of the world how to do things.

You know, like those bums you hate so much.  Can't we put them in some death camp?  You can even run the ovens Phil.  Bet that warms the ol heart eh?

When America eliminates poverty, unemployment and crime, When every citizen has health care, shelter and food, and when our governments are lean and mean and running the way they were intended, then, and only then will America have something to be proud of.  Until then, it has no right telling others how to live, when it can't even live right itself.

Then again, maybe Mr. Elmore would like to enlist?  He can be at the forefront of our Furher's attempt to build an Amirikan Empire?  What say you Phil?  Going to enlist soon and free the world?  Or just keep talking out your *** as usual?


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 5, 2005)

Sharp Phil,

 You're a master at baiting. There are excellent points made in this thread and it does bring to the forefront our societal perspectives and bias. Yet, do we have a right to stand aside? Do we have a right to get involved? Or is our political stance even a right? :idunno:  Where did we get the idea that we have a social responsibility for the world?

   - Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

Uh-oh, an agreement with both of the last two posters. And a wish that Americans would come up to the moral and intellectual level expressed in"Star Trek," discussions of the Prime Directive. Together, of course, with a recognition that what he has fallen in love with all unknowing, and is espousing with a fervor seldom seen outside discussions of gay marriage, is the elevation of capitalism to the level of just and necessary doctrine for any and all societies.

As always, three snaps up with a copy of Twain's, "To the People Sitting in Darkness," and as well, a hope for a future I learned from Heinlein novels, in which each man sitteth under his own vine and fig tree, with none to make him afraid.

See? The devil CAN quote Scripture.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 5, 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a similar paradox come up in Plato's "The Republic"? The people in the cave that only see the shadows reflected off the cave wall? Or am I completely nuts?

pck


----------



## JAMJTX (Mar 5, 2005)

why is our government better than their's?

Well, for starters, our government does not have rape rooms for the president and his sons to drag women off to and have thier way.  Although I suppose you can say that Bill Clinton used the oval office in a similar way.

To my knowldege, President Bush has not been torturing, gassing and murdering politcal dissenters the way Saddam has.

In looking at the reaction of the Iraqi people, they are not welcoming the idea of what to some looks like an occupation of thier country, but clearly, the majority are grateful that hussein is gone and they have some taste of freedom.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

Please cite some evidence for your claims.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 5, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> why is our government better than their's?
> 
> Well, for starters, our government does not have rape rooms for the president and his sons to drag women off to and have thier way.  Although I suppose you can say that Bill Clinton used the oval office in a similar way.
> 
> ...


 What do you call Abu-Ghraib?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Wow, politics and martial arts...whomever thought that it can be hand in hand?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 6, 2005)

pkozub said:
			
		

> What do you call Abu-Ghraib?


Wrong...but still a far cry from those examples.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 6, 2005)

Hey, you folks are right.  I've been agreeing all along, haven't I?  Whenever we face evil in the world, we should ignore it.  We shouldn't get involved.  After all, who are we to interfere?  Who are we to decide?

It's like when you see a woman being raped on the street.  Who are we to judge her relationship to her rapist?  By what legal means do we, as mere citizens who are not police officers or members of the military, presume to get involved?

Here name was Kitty Genovese, I think...


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

It appears to me that you think conservatively.


----------



## pkozub (Mar 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wrong...but still a far cry from those examples.


 How is it off, though? Thoes people were tortured, humiliated,, etc., etc., by OUR OWN TROOPS. In their eyes, we're the devil coming to screw them and cause chaos. Yeah, they weren't <i>exactly</i> raped, but would you like to have some of the things happen to you that the POWs endured?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wrong...but still a far cry from those examples.



At Abu-Ghraib, little boys were raped and people were sodomized with broomsticks.  Is this such a far cry from SHussien?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 6, 2005)

I agree that Iraqi democratic self rule is better than an oppressive dictatorship. However I still don't believe for one minute that George W. Bush was or is particularly concerned with the welfare of the poor Iraqi people. I don't find him particularly concerned about poor American people either. 

His _casus belli_ was weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's imminent ability and desire to attack the United States. It was only after it became clear to the American public that this was not true that he developed other "concerns," like "liberating" the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the administration had a plan to take out Saddam, but no plan to "liberate" or enfranchise the Iraqi people.

Now, you may argue that the end justifies the means. But we haven't seen the "end" yet.

There is a large contingent in the new Iraqi Parliament who are Islamists. What happens if they want a theocracy? What happens if they decide that, like our buddies in Saudi Arabia, women will have no rights? Well we already know that Bush has always turned a blind eye to Saudi women--do you believe he'd intervene for Iraqi women, "liberating" them?

What happens if they decide they want a more socialistic government, where Iraq controls the oil, gas, electricity, and telecommunications. Do you really believe Bush will say, OK, no problema, you free Iraqis deserve self rule, so Halliburton and I will just pack up and leave?

If you believe that, I suggest you go back and re-read the "Project for the New American Century."


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Rather Bush, or any other politician have a agenda for making more money, at least, if it will happen, the people would not be ruled by Hussein. However, I dont see the US going after Iran or Korea....hmnnnn


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

But what most people do not realize....follow the examples of previous wars. It takes time and with a occupying insurgence, to organize and create structure and time, to return things to a state of civilized order.

People do not know that we, or the allies, still had problems with small terrorizing infactions of Nazis still in Germany after the war. We just did go in there, win, at leave. We had to reamon there until everything became into order. it took several years after the war to do this. And yes, the U.S. and Russia were getting their own "action". I guess any actvity after war, politically or financially, could be considered "the spoils".


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 6, 2005)

pkozub said:
			
		

> Hello,
> However, I feel that it is necessary to take a different perspective on how we have imposed our form of government on a people that are used to a dictatorship. I do not deny that Hussein is/was a sick and twisted individual, but he was their ruler, and for the time being it was working. Think about it: why is our government better than their's? Because we have proof? NO! There's just as much corruption as there is anywhere else! My point is this: "democracy is the best" is an OPINION, not a FACT


"For the time being, it was working."

Working for who? Saddam and his co-horts for sure. For the average Iraqi? 
For the Kurds who were gassed? For the who knows how many 1000's killed and tortured by Saddam and co.?

Also, for the sake of argument, since this post is about forms of government, do you think America and other countries were right to sit idly by while Hitler rose to power and initated his plans to exterminate the Jewish race and other undesirables? Hitler was the ruler and some might say his government was "working" for the German people.

I don't believe you do, not for a second. (There are many geo/political differences between the two situations, let's not get into that) I don't believe GW went to war with the main goal to "liberate" the Iraqis, but while we're there, what is wrong with helping them establish some form of self-government, as opposed to a dictatorship? If the Iraqi people decide on a theocracy or monarchy, yeah, that's a risk. But maybe , it is worth it?

Also, in a true democracy, we get to kick our ******** out of office if they are not serving our (or a least a majority ) interests. 

Tough questions and I don't pretend to have the answer.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Yeah, everyone wants to be anti-US government this or that. Id rather be living in the US than anywhere else.


----------



## Blind (Mar 6, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Hey, you folks are right. I've been agreeing all along, haven't I? Whenever we face evil in the world, we should ignore it. We shouldn't get involved. After all, who are we to interfere? Who are we to decide?
> 
> It's like when you see a woman being raped on the street. Who are we to judge her relationship to her rapist? By what legal means do we, as mere citizens who are not police officers or members of the military, presume to get involved?


Cambodia comes to mind here, was Pol Pot supported by the CIA?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 6, 2005)

The CIA and Wal*Mart.  Bastards.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2005)

Blind said:
			
		

> Cambodia comes to mind here, was Pol Pot supported by the CIA?



Pol Pot came to power because our attempted "domino effect" theory failed in Vietnam.  Now we have another "domino effect" theory in place...

See this thread.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 6, 2005)

From good old Mark Twain's, "The Stupendous Procession," written back when he worked on the Anti-Imperialist league, one hundred and five years ago:

A GREETING FROM THE NINETEENTH TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

    I bring you the stately nation named Christendom, returning,
    bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored, from pirate raids in Kiao-
    Chou, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Philippines, with her soul
    full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of
    pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and towel, but hide the looking-
    glass...


As the good old French would say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le same frickin' thing."


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Mar 7, 2005)

Wow.. Neat thread.

I see both points being made here. To analogize: 



I see the valiant knight rushing off to help those he can. He may not have the perfect country, and he cannot cure all the sick, heal all the injured, make the blind see and crippled walk, but he has tried... He understands he is human and cant fix every social injustice because to try would be a social injustice. So he looks to find the perceived Evil where he hears his neighbors scream and do what he feels is doable.



I also hear the voice of our common conscience trying to justify our knight leaving to help others when he has needy at home. It wants proof that the knight is indeed fixing something that: 1.) Can be fixed 2.) Should be fixed 3.) Is the knight the one who should fix 4.) Is the evil real, or is just someone elses right.



Now before someone starts with accusations of wanting to "Knight" Mr. Bush, I dont. He won, get over it. Vote again next time. My analogy of the Knight is our country, past, present and future. There IS evil in the world. WE can do something about it. Our culture has created, built, cured, and healed more than every other culture in the world, throughout history. WE are AMERICANS and we try to do the right thing. 



Now before someone starts with the accusations of consorting with the commies, we do have a litany of things at home our resources could be applied towards. Our way of life is not for everyone. Our country and culture is rare and voluntary. Our country has taken in every race, culture and religion from every mound of dirt on Earth and made them American. This does not give us the moral authority to float 4.5 acres of US airstrip off the coast of the "Peoples Republic of Mr. I Hate America" and incinerate them. 



The previous post of the poor guy walking the 10x10 perimeter is appropriate and in some cases the moral course of action, may be to do nothing. 



It may have been sarcasm about seeing the lady on the street getting raped and beaten and us doing nothing but I recall another thread with a post about someone rushing to the rescue only to then be attacked by the victim because it was "her husband and she loves him". Battered woman syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, what ever you want to label it, sometimes those who make their bed must sleep in it. 



I have answered no questions, I offer no answers (at this time), but respect for both sides I not only have, but also protect. (See 1st & 2nd Amendments)


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

Wow, I love analogies. That knight one was GREAT!!!!!!!

The follow-up was too.....

So in short:

"You're damned if You Do, and damned if You Don't"


----------



## ginshun (Mar 7, 2005)

First off, I think that our country's government should be worrying more about domestic issues than it should be worrying about founding democracy abroad. That aside, I think the fact that over 70% of Iraqi's showed up to vote under threats of violence/death if they did, goes a long way to show that the people there are commited to making a democracy work.

 Now, the fact that they will probably end up with a theocracy run by the Shiites, who will then join with the Iranians to form a modern day Persian state under one Shiite rule (or pretty much so at least) seems to have escaped Bush and cronies.  But hey, it ought to be interesting at the very least.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

It's been a pleasure to see the justifications for attacking Iraq slide from self-defense to regional stabilization to bringing democracy to Just Helping.

One wonders what the next rationalization will be.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 7, 2005)

Political leftists do seem to take an awful lot of pleasure in American military failures.  One wonders what the next rationalization for their lack of patriotism will be.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

Speaking of, "political arrogance...," it's always good to see the old, "Anybody who disagrees with me or objects to my government's lying must Hate America," once again. 

After all, that's way much easier than learning about the world as it really is.

But hey--if ya need to find traitors, I'll be honored to be put in the same bag as Samuel Langhorne Clemens and the rest of those wacky, strange out-there Commies....you know, Thoreau, William Jennings Bryant, Eisenhower...


----------



## Bester (Mar 7, 2005)

But it's true.  Anyone who didn't vote for G.W. is unAmerican.  After all, he has a mandate from the people (like 50% is a real mandate) to continue to lead this war against all UnAmerican things (that are possibly profitable to his buddies), and those of us who dare question his Divine Right to do so should pack our tooth brushes and prepare to be anally violated (in the name of Freedom!) by an elite group of specially trained Inquisitors who are acting without orders (right) and are just a bit over zelous (right) in performing their duties (asking questions, sexually assaulting children) in promoting all that America stands for (as long as it is ok with God and Our Glorious Emperor).

Lets invade a few more nations under the pretense of "freedom" and "war on terror".  Who cares if there are people in the US who are unemployed, hungry, cold or sick?  Who cares if our infastructure is crumbling, if our citizens can no longer support a bloated lethargic pig of a government.  We can draft theitr young, tax the old and have the middle work 2 jobs just to reach zero.  Lets continue to pay people $80-120,000 a year to read romance novels and play cards, while shutting libraries and parks and vital services like police and fire.  Lets continue to allow fat-cats to have their drivers and annual pay raises while the rest of us debate if we pay the heat OR eat this month.  Yep, lets spread that good American lifestyle to the rest of the world.

And, before anyone says "Amerrrrica! Love it or Leaaaave it" answer this:
Did you vote? Do you get involved or do you just shoot the mouth off online? 

If not, I got 2 words for you.

And if you're some nutcase who thinks everyone who doesn't think your way should be shot/deported/locked up/etc, then I have those same 2 words for ya.

So, what I want to know is, when are we going to invade France and force them to use soap?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Lets continue to pay people $80-120,000 a year to read romance novels and play cards, while shutting libraries and parks and vital services like police and fire. Lets continue to allow fat-cats to have their drivers and annual pay raises while the rest of us debate if we pay the heat OR eat this month.


Sounds like you are familiar with whats going on in Erie County here in New York.....cant blame that on the Feds though. I have friends in North Carolina who are doing just fine.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As the good old French would say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le same frickin' thing."


----------

