Message to the American People by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It so happens that the President of Iran has a blog and I wanted to post this up here for discussion. It's slightly out of date but I thought it interesting enough.

Written by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at 20:50
11-28-06

Quote:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking , while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.

The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.

Noble Americans,

Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.

Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities.

As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine . In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.

No day goes by without a new crime.

Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn't?

For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland.

You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it.

Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Let's take a look at Iraq . Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq , hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq , nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.

Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

In Iraq , about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.

Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq .

I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.

Noble Americans,

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

My questions are the following:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.

What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US :

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history.

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America . But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.

To sum up:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized; Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.

The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

" But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him. " (28:67-68)

I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

His blog can be found here: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - The Official Blog - Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,378 • Replies: 15

No top replies

@Justin,

I acctually like that Mahmoud guy, not just based on this letter to Americans but also by the amount of courage in this guy.

As you might know he's been accused of supplying rebels in Iraq with Iranian weapons and explosives and still he isn't backing down, even though he have started talking in a more respectible way then he probably did before about America!

And I also belive that he's that kind of sneaky sociopath that does whatever he can to improve the conditions for his nation and for himself ofcourse, kind of like Castro with out the communism revolution and killing all of Batistas sidekicks and all that..

I also belive that Bush is pretty angry at him and he wants to invade Iran to but the world are starting to get close to the end of their tolerance for Americas lies about other nations and that whole "war on terror" BS..

And you have to be honest here my fellow world inhabitants that just happens to live in America; Bush screwed up good on the foreign-politics front cause of his total lack of understanding for other nations, you know, little Georgie had almost never been outside of America before he became El Presidente and didn't know much of the world at all, and because of that I think he where werry underclaified for running the current superpower of the world as superpowers allways should be the diplomatic nations that seeks peace and understanding, not war and power because that just reeks of Nazi-Germany or Mussolini-Italy and that's allways a shame when you have to vitness from any side of the fence, be it on the american side or the mexican one Wink

(little joke there about the american-mexican border running)

Anyways thanks for telling about his blog Justin! Had no idea that he had a blog, but now I'm gonna have to start reading it!

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

How does the Iranian President have courage, but Bush does not?

As far as I can tell, they're both worthless.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

How does the Iranian President have courage, but Bush does not?

As far as I can tell, they're both worthless.

Well, I never said that Bush doesn't have courage, but I can't really say that he does because he hasn't shown any courage yet if anything he has shown the opposite with the invasion of Iraq and message of terrorism. He's turning his whole country scared and telling them about how dangerous the rest of the world is, and that sounds like a little coward to me atleast.

But Mahmoud have courage based on the fact that he shows that he's not scared of America eventhough they have allready been nextdoor shooting like lunatics, even though I don't know how he talked about America before the 'war on terror' started.

So why do you see them both as worthless? While I can understand why Bush can be viewed as 'worthless' (not according to me anyways, I see him as less then that...) why is Mahmoud worthless? This is not a challenge, it's a question because I don't know that much about his politics and actions apartfrom what I've seen on some TV shows like 60 minutes when they talked to him and I read about his US-trip and now his blog then. So I think that I got a adequate picture of him as a person and that's where I got the comparission of him and Castro from but ofcourse, Hitler where a leader like that and he f:ed up good with alot of his politics, especially the foreign one but at the same time he did increase Germanys economics greatly! So tell me, what have Mahmoud done to make you call him 'worthless'?

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Well, he does run a theocracy in which the rights of the people are severely limited - protestors killed in the street, that sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian government likes to kidnap foreign soldiers (recall those Brits who were taken?). This is also the same guy who wants to wipe Israel off the map and who denies that the holocaust ever occured.

Americans are not scared because of Bush's stupidity. Terrorism is not a major concern of Americans (according to popular opinion polls). We're more affraid of another foolish war than we are of terrorism. I'd be willing to bet most American's are more affraid of Bush's last few months in office than they are of Osama bin Laden.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Well, he does run a theocracy in which the rights of the people are severely limited - protestors killed in the street, that sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian government likes to kidnap foreign soldiers (recall those Brits who were taken?).

I'm not denying any of this and ofcourse I was aware of this as most of the middle-eastern countires are like this but at the same time when America came into Iraq and started trying to create a diplomacy they failed missarably because they are trying to change a system that have been around for a werry long time and they probably didn't even have a clue of their culture and religion when they tried to create that government, some people need a single strong leader while others need a completly differente system where the more people have say in the matter the better, as it's a reflection of their culture more then the leader in question, ofcourse, this can change but it's a longer proces then to just invade a country and say "this is how it's going to be".
Protesters beeing killed in the street isn't that big of a deal to be honest, just a few years ago here in sweden when a cop was hit by a rock during a riot he busted a cap into the crowd (probably by accident but nontheless) and wasn't it just recently that a American student (think he was a student atleast) got tazerd at an airport or something like that? Isn't that big of a difference to be honest.. A firend of mine told me about his coaches trip to china and while on the train he's Ipod got stolen, he told the conductor about it and the cops where called to the next station, they search every passenger on the train and finds his Ipod on a poor-looking asian man who they force to his knees on the platforme and shoots him once to the back of the head, no trail, no nothing. But ofcourse, when you have to resolve to killing people it's a bad thing, but it isn't uncommon for it to happen no where in the world, not to say that it points towards a bad leader, which in my oppinion, it doesn't really... not direcly atleast..
And for the brittish soldiers who was 'kidnaped', they where cought drive-bying civilians disguised as terrorist, I'd call that a justifyed arrest and not a kidnaping as you did...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

This is also the same guy who wants to wipe Israel off the map and who denies that the holocaust ever occured.

hmm.. did not know that, you know a reason why he wants Israel wiped off the map?
And well, does sounds a bit loco to deny the holocaust.. Not that he would be the first or only one to deny it but.. That doesn't justify it...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Americans are not scared because of Bush's stupidity. Terrorism is not a major concern of Americans (according to popular opinion polls). We're more affraid of another foolish war than we are of terrorism.

Great f*****g thing too!
But ofcourse it's only reasonable that the fear of terrorism have started to cool down and most americans (according to polls I've seen) have started to realize that Bush is a grade-A moron, but I belive that you can agree with me on the fact that you have (not you personally but you as the american people) been afraid of big chuncks of the world due to terror threats and propagande by the Bush administration trying to justify the war on Iraq right?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'd be willing to bet most American's are more affraid of Bush's last few months in office than they are of Osama bin Laden.

I'm still expecting some kind of a suprise to come from Little Georgie about him becoming a dictator of America, or some rigged election where Guilliani takes his place or something.. I'm hoping that your next president becomes Barack Obama not only base on the fact that I think that he will call back the troops and possibly that he will give some of your liberties back that Bush stole from you but also because he's black! Now I'm not black (I'm a cracker) but it puts more preassure on him to do good and to be liked by the masses as he would be speciall as a president instead of just one of the bunch, I also think that he's a decent man and probably only wants the best for USA and it's people but also the world to some degree. Now you could use the same pressure-argument for Clinton but I don't trust that old bat for a second, even less for four years... Elect her and she'll see to it that the end of the world comes before 2012... (what do I know really? she could be good but I just get a cold sensation in my whole body when I see her, like if you would see the grim-reaper or something..)

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Quote:

I'm not denying any of this and ofcourse I was aware of this as most of the middle-eastern countires are like this but at the same time when America came into Iraq and started trying to create a diplomacy they failed missarably because they are trying to change a system that have been around for a werry long time and they probably didn't even have a clue of their culture and religion when they tried to create that government, some people need a single strong leader while others need a completly differente system where the more people have say in the matter the better, as it's a reflection of their culture more then the leader in question, ofcourse, this can change but it's a longer proces then to just invade a country and say "this is how it's going to be".

How do the failings in Iraq make the Iranian president any better?

Quote:

Protesters beeing killed in the street isn't that big of a deal to be honest, just a few years ago here in sweden when a cop was hit by a rock during a riot he busted a cap into the crowd (probably by accident but nontheless) and wasn't it just recently that a American student (think he was a student atleast) got tazerd at an airport or something like that?

No country has a perfect track record; American soldiers have opened fire into crowds of rioters. But a riot, in which anarchy is the ultimate result, is very different than political protest - even if the protestors are throwing rocks. Over here, you would be arrested, maybe pepper sprayed, but they wont kill you. There have been occasions where tasers have killed people, but the one's I've read about were not during protests.

Quote:

Protesters beeing killed in the street isn't that big of a deal to be honest, just a few years ago here in sweden when a cop was hit by a rock during a riot he busted a cap into the crowd (probably by accident but nontheless) and wasn't it just recently that a American student (think he was a student atleast) got tazerd at an airport or something like that? Isn't that big of a difference to be honest.. A firend of mine told me about his coaches trip to china and while on the train he's Ipod got stolen, he told the conductor about it and the cops where called to the next station, they search every passenger on the train and finds his Ipod on a poor-looking asian man who they force to his knees on the platforme and shoots him once to the back of the head, no trail, no nothing. But ofcourse, when you have to resolve to killing people it's a bad thing, but it isn't uncommon for it to happen no where in the world, not to say that it points towards a bad leader, which in my oppinion, it doesn't really... not direcly atleast..

The failings of China, a nation that has slaughtered millions of it's own people and millions of Tibetans, makes the Iranian president a better leader?

Quote:

And for the brittish soldiers who was 'kidnaped', they where cought drive-bying civilians disguised as terrorist, I'd call that a justifyed arrest and not a kidnaping as you did...

Civilians disquised as terrorists, you say?

Quote:

hmm.. did not know that, you know a reason why he wants Israel wiped off the map?
And well, does sounds a bit loco to deny the holocaust.. Not that he would be the first or only one to deny it but.. That doesn't justify it...

Because he is the President of a radical Islamic theocracy.

Quote:

But ofcourse it's only reasonable that the fear of terrorism have started to cool down and most americans (according to polls I've seen) have started to realize that Bush is a grade-A moron, but I belive that you can agree with me on the fact that you have (not you personally but you as the american people) been afraid of big chuncks of the world due to terror threats and propagande by the Bush administration trying to justify the war on Iraq right?

No, not really. Sure, there were some who were affraid, but they are the same sort of sensationalists who are terrified of every news report. Lead paint, they wet themselves.
Being affraid of foreign powers is not normal to Americans. With the exception of the War of 1812 and the Cold War, with fear of nuclear warfare with the USSR, I dont think fear has been much of an issue to Americans when it comes to war. Sure, we fear losing Americans in the process of fighting a war, but we do not fear the enemy. Even if we lose a war, a major war overseas, the American people are well armed, and willing to fight in the streets. As long as we have our guns, no one will take any part of the lower 48.

Quote:

I'm still expecting some kind of a suprise to come from Little Georgie about him becoming a dictator of America, or some rigged election where Guilliani takes his place or something.. I'm hoping that your next president becomes Barack Obama not only base on the fact that I think that he will call back the troops and possibly that he will give some of your liberties back that Bush stole from you but also because he's black! Now I'm not black (I'm a cracker) but it puts more preassure on him to do good and to be liked by the masses as he would be speciall as a president instead of just one of the bunch, I also think that he's a decent man and probably only wants the best for USA and it's people but also the world to some degree. Now you could use the same pressure-argument for Clinton but I don't trust that old bat for a second, even less for four years... Elect her and she'll see to it that the end of the world comes before 2012... (what do I know really? she could be good but I just get a cold sensation in my whole body when I see her, like if you would see the grim-reaper or something..

Someone would shoot him if that happened. We assasinate President's over here, too.

And yes, I also like Barrack a great deal. Most americans don't trust Hillary either. I'm one of them. Not that I trust many politicians at all, but she definately does not make that unfortunately short list.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

How do the failings in Iraq make the Iranian president any better?

Well, it doesn't but I'm just saying that where the culture isn't used to free and open elections but dictatorship and you do as you are told aren't mentally prepaird for democracy, so they need a single leader eventhough it's ultimatly a bad thing. If anybody would have tried to make a democracy out of a european country during the medieval era they probably wouldn't have succeded in any greater manner, because those things have to grow up, not just be put in..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No country has a perfect track record; American soldiers have opened fire into crowds of rioters. But a riot, in which anarchy is the ultimate result, is very different than political protest - even if the protestors are throwing rocks. Over here, you would be arrested, maybe pepper sprayed, but they wont kill you. There have been occasions where tasers have killed people, but the one's I've read about were not during protests.

Ofcourse no country are perfect I understand that but you have to agree that the difference isn't that big, you don't know the violence in their protests, it could be like a riot here couldn't it? I'm not saying that you are wrong in any way, they probably execute their protesters I'm just saying that you have to be critical of these "facts" as they are often blown out of porportion..
Ofcourse people don't get killed in the streets here either, not even by the civilians to the same extent as in america, not even per capita.. We where wikings and brutes once upon a time and we still have some great military power even though it's fairly un-used and small, we aren't to be triffeld with Wink

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The failings of China, a nation that has slaughtered millions of it's own people and millions of Tibetans, makes the Iranian president a better leader?

Ofcourse not, but that was just a comparison to make the point of the fact that executions without trail isn't that uncommon and it's a reality for some fairly developed countires to, not just the un-developed once..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Civilians disquised as terrorists, you say?

Oh, sorry I wrote it wrong
The soldiers where desquised as terrorists and they shot civilians

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Because he is the President of a radical Islamic theocracy.

Yeah but, why just Israel?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, not really. Sure, there were some who were affraid, but they are the same sort of sensationalists who are terrified of every news report. Lead paint, they wet themselves.
Being affraid of foreign powers is not normal to Americans. With the exception of the War of 1812 and the Cold War, with fear of nuclear warfare with the USSR, I dont think fear has been much of an issue to Americans when it comes to war. Sure, we fear losing Americans in the process of fighting a war, but we do not fear the enemy. Even if we lose a war, a major war overseas, the American people are well armed, and willing to fight in the streets. As long as we have our guns, no one will take any part of the lower 48.

Hmm.. Well, since you did want to go to war in the first place it does show that you where afraid to some level atleast doesn't it? And I saw polls where the larger parts of america acctually said that they would give up more liberties if it helped the war on terror and that also proves that they where afraid of those crazy terrorists... Razz

And the this is probably the same case with Iraq and that's why your soldiers are dying over there, they have weapons and they are willing to fight while you might think that "why would they fight us? We are liberating them!" they might not even know your intentions! The same thing could happen to america and belive me, untrained, unorganized civilians armed with handguns and SMG:s can't beat a larger invasion, when those tanks comes rolling down the streets, people might not be so patriotic as you think... But the reason why americans can be armed isn't really incase the commies comes knocking on your door, it's to protect the citizens from the government because "the founding fathers" where opressed by the english government and didn't want that to be the case in a houndread years so everybody should be allowed to own a weapon, cause who can you call when it's the police doing the crimes?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Someone would shoot him if that happened. We assasinate President's over here, too.

might not be so easy... Why didn't somebody shoot Stalin? Or hitler? Or Mussolini? They where free countires before those guys came along, why didn't somebody stop them? They sure had criminals, criminals with guns, they could have shot their new dictator couldn't they?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

And yes, I also like Barrack a great deal. Most americans don't trust Hillary either. I'm one of them. Not that I trust many politicians at all, but she definately does not make that unfortunately short list.

You shouldn't trust politicans, authority isn't the truth, the truth is the authority Wink

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Quote:

Well, it doesn't but I'm just saying that where the culture isn't used to free and open elections but dictatorship and you do as you are told aren't mentally prepaird for democracy, so they need a single leader eventhough it's ultimatly a bad thing. If anybody would have tried to make a democracy out of a european country during the medieval era they probably wouldn't have succeded in any greater manner, because those things have to grow up, not just be put in..

Very true, the people have to be ready. The Iranians are ready - they have protested, rioted and even had a revolution to establish free elections.

Quote:

Ofcourse no country are perfect I understand that but you have to agree that the difference isn't that big, you don't know the violence in their protests, it could be like a riot here couldn't it? I'm not saying that you are wrong in any way, they probably execute their protesters I'm just saying that you have to be critical of these "facts" as they are often blown out of porportion..

Of course we must be critical of what we hear. Let's do that, let's be critical.

Being critical, there is a great difference in the way protest is handled in my country, the US, and in nations like Iran or China. Tieneman Square anyone?

Quote:

Ofcourse not, but that was just a comparison to make the point of the fact that executions without trail isn't that uncommon and it's a reality for some fairly developed countires to, not just the un-developed once.

Being common in some "developed" countries does not change the fact that such countries are inhumane.

Quote:

Oh, sorry I wrote it wrong
The soldiers where desquised as terrorists and they shot civilians

Was that what al-Jazera reported, or the BBC? Those fifteen British were doing a routine check of ships suspected of smuggling cars in Iraqi waters. They were captured at gunpoint by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Quote:

Yeah but, why just Israel?

Power and hate.

Quote:

Hmm.. Well, since you did want to go to war in the first place it does show that you where afraid to some level atleast doesn't it?

No, it means politicians thought they could benefit from the war. Further, it wasn't fear that drove support for the war, it was revenge weakly vieled in some silly notion of patriotism.

Quote:

And I saw polls where the larger parts of america acctually said that they would give up more liberties if it helped the war on terror and that also proves that they where afraid of those crazy terrorists...

Maybe a Fox News online poll.

Quote:

And the this is probably the same case with Iraq and that's why your soldiers are dying over there, they have weapons and they are willing to fight while you might think that "why would they fight us? We are liberating them!" they might not even know your intentions! The same thing could happen to america and belive me, untrained, unorganized civilians armed with handguns and SMG:s can't beat a larger invasion, when those tanks comes rolling down the streets, people might not be so patriotic as you think... But the reason why americans can be armed isn't really incase the commies comes knocking on your door, it's to protect the citizens from the government because "the founding fathers" where opressed by the english government and didn't want that to be the case in a houndread years so everybody should be allowed to own a weapon, cause who can you call when it's the police doing the crimes?

The Iraq war wasn't about liberation, it was about oil. By the time troops hit the ground in Iraq, I think most Americans understood this.
And yes, untrained civilians can do a great deal when those tanks come rolling down the street. As for being willing to stand up and fight when the time comes, we've done it before.
As for the purpose of citizens having guns, you're right, it's for protection against the central government, against any central government, even a foreign one.

Quote:

might not be so easy... Why didn't somebody shoot Stalin? Or hitler? Or Mussolini? They where free countires before those guys came along, why didn't somebody stop them? They sure had criminals, criminals with guns, they could have shot their new dictator couldn't they?

Yeah, but Americans know how to use their guns. Remember the Kennedy assasination - not a bad shot.
Further, most people who didn't like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were either killed or put into prison. In America where "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" the notion of a dictator is taken seriously. Recall the Roman fear of a King, and the way they reacted to politicians who began to set themselves up as king? That's basically what we have over here.

Quote:

You shouldn't trust politicans, authority isn't the truth, the truth is the authority

Which is why I don't trust them.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Very true, the people have to be ready. The Iranians are ready - they have protested, rioted and even had a revolution to establish free elections.

Not saying that they aren't, just saying that there is a cultural difference that can make any system of government difficult to force upon a people in the Iranian case, it's possible that they are ready, just as the cuban people probably are ready. Doesn't mean they are getting it and I'm against the "lets go in and create a government system that we like" style that america is -to some degree- known for..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Of course we must be critical of what we hear. Let's do that, let's be critical.

Being critical, there is a great difference in the way protest is handled in my country, the US, and in nations like Iran or China. Tieneman Square anyone?

Being common in some "developed" countries does not change the fact that such countries are inhumane.

Ofcourse there is and we handle it the same way here in sweden, we have one of the worlds most -if not the most- humane law systems, why do you think Saddam wanted to be trailed here? He probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist and a "boys will be boys" and then have been sent on his way... Anyways as I said I'm not trying to justify it, just making the point that it's not uncommon even though that is also a shame..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Was that what al-Jazera reported, or the BBC? Those fifteen British were doing a routine check of ships suspected of smuggling cars in Iraqi waters. They were captured at gunpoint by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Don't think that we are talking about the same prisoners here... The once I'm talking about where just two guys, but they where brittish.. And I think brittish and US soldiers busted in and stormed them out by force, killing prison guards and so on..
And wasn't either of them I read about the jail break and so in a swedish newspaper i belive and saw discussions about it online..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, it means politicians thought they could benefit from the war. Further, it wasn't fear that drove support for the war, it was revenge weakly vieled in some silly notion of patriotism.

Possibly, I still belive that there was some fear in the mix of destruction..
In anycase I know that Americans loves the word 'patriotism' and it constantly gets missused.. For alot of people, patriotism is a accepteble form of racism while in reality, it's wanting what's best for you country and war is in werry few cases the best for anything...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Maybe a Fox News online poll.

Don't think so, think it where on TV like 60 minutes or something like that..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The Iraq war wasn't about liberation, it was about oil. By the time troops hit the ground in Iraq, I think most Americans understood this.
And yes, untrained civilians can do a great deal when those tanks come rolling down the street. As for being willing to stand up and fight when the time comes, we've done it before.
As for the purpose of citizens having guns, you're right, it's for protection against the central government, against any central government, even a foreign one.

Oil = yes ofcourse it was about oil but I'd also like to throw in "revenge" as you metioned earlier in here just because Saddam where a prime target and Icon for getting the american people satisfied for 9/11...
And sure civilian rebellion have proven to be effective in some cases but I don't agree with what you say about that you've "done it before" as I wouldn't like to count in either the american independence war or the american civil (is it spelled that way?) war in this as it both times where organized militta who did most of the fighting, other then that I can't think of any time when you've had to fight on your own grounds..
Yeah that's one if not the only thing I'm yellous about with American Politics and it bugges me that everybody (i've had this debate with lots of people) is so against guns, I allways make sure to ask them who they would call if it's the police they want to report and they allways asks me "why would I like to report the police" and when I explain that somebody acctually CAN become powerhungry, anywhere, as say hitler became, they allways says "It can't happen here"... I hate when people don't understand that they aren't free of danger just because they are that right now, who know what tomorrow will bring?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yeah, but Americans know how to use their guns. Remember the Kennedy assasination - not a bad shot.
Further, most people who didn't like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were either killed or put into prison. In America where "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" the notion of a dictator is taken seriously. Recall the Roman fear of a King, and the way they reacted to politicians who began to set themselves up as king? That's basically what we have over here.

So you're saying that juse because one president where taken out at distance with a high-power rifle all americans know how to shoot? My guess is that the person who did take out Kennedy had military training because as you said - not a bad shot.
Further, you don't belive that Bush could do the same thing? The once that tazerd that student where from some police/military task force who answerd direcly to the president wheren't they? What are they called? Brown shirts? Brown collars? (I honestly don't remember, was it even "brown"?)
Sure I know that dissent is important in america but that doesn't change that there's a possibility that one could force the public to kneel, although it's unlikely.. What I meant about Bush giving everybody a suprice is that I wouldn't be shocked if it happend, not that it was going to happend...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Which is why I don't trust them.

Me neither, but I don't trust anybody that wants to inform me either.. I feel that if you try to see and hear all stories, you might get a little truth in there atleast Wink

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Quote:

Not saying that they aren't, just saying that there is a cultural difference that can make any system of government difficult to force upon a people in the Iranian case, it's possible that they are ready, just as the cuban people probably are ready. Doesn't mean they are getting it and I'm against the "lets go in and create a government system that we like" style that america is -to some degree- known for..

Our foreign intervention of the past hunred years has definately caused many problems.

Quote:

Ofcourse there is and we handle it the same way here in sweden, we have one of the worlds most -if not the most- humane law systems, why do you think Saddam wanted to be trailed here? He probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist and a "boys will be boys" and then have been sent on his way... Anyways as I said I'm not trying to justify it, just making the point that it's not uncommon even though that is also a shame..

Okay, that's fine - I guess I just dont understand why you brought this up in response to me saying the Iranian president is worthless.

Quote:

Don't think that we are talking about the same prisoners here... The once I'm talking about where just two guys, but they where brittish.. And I think brittish and US soldiers busted in and stormed them out by force, killing prison guards and so on..

Then my point regarding Iran's actions remains.

Quote:

In anycase I know that Americans loves the word 'patriotism' and it constantly gets missused.. For alot of people, patriotism is a accepteble form of racism while in reality, it's wanting what's best for you country and war is in werry few cases the best for anything...

Yes, many do have a very confused notion of patriotism. There are a quite a few of us though, that understand patriotism. Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." That is the real American tradition, standing up to authority when we disagree.

Quote:

And sure civilian rebellion have proven to be effective in some cases but I don't agree with what you say about that you've "done it before" as I wouldn't like to count in either the american independence war or the american civil (is it spelled that way?) war in this as it both times where organized militta who did most of the fighting, other then that I can't think of any time when you've had to fight on your own grounds..

For most of our history we've fought on our own grounds. Between Indian wars, disputes with Spain in Florida, Mexico in the West, numerous violent rebellions, and persistent gang warfare for the past hundred years, from bootleggers and mafia, to street gangs, we've never not fought. Not a year has passed in the past 200 years of American history in which we did not perform some sort of military action.

Besides, how many nations have not fought? Especially nations so large.

Quote:

So you're saying that juse because one president where taken out at distance with a high-power rifle all americans know how to shoot? My guess is that the person who did take out Kennedy had military training because as you said - not a bad shot.

Yes, he had military training, but you underestimate how many Americans own guns and are well trained with their weapons. Also, the Kennedy assasination was not the first time an American president has been shot, even in modern times.

Quote:

Further, you don't belive that Bush could do the same thing?

No. His policies have brought us closer to the sort of nation where a leader could, but we still have a way to go, and Bush simply isn't popular enough. Remember, Hitler and Mousolini were political stars.

Quote:

The once that tazerd that student where from some police/military task force who answerd direcly to the president wheren't they? What are they called? Brown shirts? Brown collars? (I honestly don't remember, was it even "brown"?)

The only police force answering directly to the President is the Secret Service, his personal bodyguard.

Quote:

Sure I know that dissent is important in america but that doesn't change that there's a possibility that one could force the public to kneel, although it's unlikely..

For some it is important. I dont think you could supress the public in such a way. We have always had our elections on time, and any change in that would be too drastic for the public to swallow right now. Even the military wouldn't stand for it. We would have elections.

Quote:

What I meant about Bush giving everybody a suprice is that I wouldn't be shocked if it happend, not that it was going to happend...

I would be shocked. We have a Democratic majority in Congress. All he could do is issue an Executive Order, and if he did the Congress would just impeach him. Even his own party would turn against him, many of them already have.

Quote:

Me neither, but I don't trust anybody that wants to inform me either.. I feel that if you try to see and hear all stories, you might get a little truth in there atleast

The tough part is finding the where that truth is in all of the stories.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, many do have a very confused notion of patriotism. There are a quite a few of us though, that understand patriotism. Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." That is the real American tradition, standing up to authority when we disagree.

Can't remember any greater amount of angry people when the "USA Patriot act" where passes, but then again he used the coffin-salesman tactics on you...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

For most of our history we've fought on our own grounds. Between Indian wars, disputes with Spain in Florida, Mexico in the West, numerous violent rebellions, and persistent gang warfare for the past hundred years, from bootleggers and mafia, to street gangs, we've never not fought. Not a year has passed in the past 200 years of American history in which we did not perform some sort of military action.

Besides, how many nations have not fought? Especially nations so large.

You call indian times a fight on your own grounds? That's English fighting on the indians home grounds man come on..
and gangs, mafias and gangsters aren't anything even close to special for america although you have most murders and assaults but that's mostly hate crimes and people who know eachother killing eachother... Organized crime is no more or less in america atleast to my knowledge, Costra Nostra still have Italy under siege, The Red Mafia got russia and everything that used to be Soviet Union as their own, Triads in China, Yakuza in Japan, Hell's angels, Bandidos and so on still roam the world only difference in america is that you have most of these depending on where you are located due to the heavy immegration into america.. But other then that, it's no real difference and that's not even that speciall, We aren't to far from that here in sweden, we have some big-time russians, turkish mafia here and also our own gangs ofcourse not the mention Hell's Angels and Bandidos tearing eachother up..

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, he had military training, but you underestimate how many Americans own guns and are well trained with their weapons. Also, the Kennedy assasination was not the first time an American president has been shot, even in modern times.

Well I probably do underestimate Americans gun knowledge while at the same time I belive you overestimate it Wink

maybe the truth is somewhere in between? Wink

But for assassinations, atleast only I know of Lincoln who where shot at close range with a single bullet, Garfield where shot at a trainstation (right?) also fairly close range and McKinley who also where shot at close range wasn't he? (I do know some american history...) So the only impressive shot where the one that took out Kennedy... Ofcourse this doesn't prove anything really other then that you can't claim that there's been alot of assassinations that proves that a dictator could be taken out but then again, anybody can kill anybody...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No. His policies have brought us closer to the sort of nation where a leader could, but we still have a way to go, and Bush simply isn't popular enough. Remember, Hitler and Mousolini were political stars.

Well yeah they where and so was stalin but if Bush wasn't a idiot he probably could have continued to be popular and it would have been more possible for him to become a dictator I agree with you there, and also on the policies that brought you closer to dictatorship... I saw somebody who talked about "the blue print of closing down a modern democracy" I'll see if I can find it and link it to you.. Here it is, a speech of Naomi Wolf: YouTube - Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America .

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The only police force answering directly to the President is the Secret Service, his personal bodyguard.

Nooo you're wrong here... She talks about them to and the brown shirts where from another country or something, yours is called "black water" apparently... And they act as a business but still responds to the government and not the people...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

For some it is important. I dont think you could supress the public in such a way. We have always had our elections on time, and any change in that would be too drastic for the public to swallow right now. Even the military wouldn't stand for it. We would have elections.

Well germany, italy and russia where all democracys before their dictators stepped up and that changed that and it happend fast... I'm not saying that it will happen but everybody should be aware of the fact that it CAN happen...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I would be shocked. We have a Democratic majority in Congress. All he could do is issue an Executive Order, and if he did the Congress would just impeach him. Even his own party would turn against him, many of them already have.

Well, yeah probably... The next one might continue thought and that's dangerous too since it would be easier for them...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The tough part is finding the where that truth is in all of the stories.

Well yeah it is but it's the best chance to get a little bit of truth...

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Quote:

Can't remember any greater amount of angry people when the "USA Patriot act" where passes, but then again he used the coffin-salesman tactics on you...

You dont live over here. The people were livid. I was livid. It was Congress that saw no reason to object to the Patriot Act - Congress definately change it's opinion when they started fielding responses from the voters.

Quote:

You call indian times a fight on your own grounds? That's English fighting on the indians home grounds man come on..

The United States Government fought native tribes for nearly two hundred years. Some of that fighting occured far from any American settlement, sometimes the fighting took place within the settlements.

Quote:

and gangs, mafias and gangsters aren't anything even close to special for america although you have most murders and assaults but that's mostly hate crimes and people who know eachother killing eachother... Organized crime is no more or less in america atleast to my knowledge, Costra Nostra still have Italy under siege, The Red Mafia got russia and everything that used to be Soviet Union as their own, Triads in China, Yakuza in Japan, Hell's angels, Bandidos and so on still roam the world only difference in america is that you have most of these depending on where you are located due to the heavy immegration into america.. But other then that, it's no real difference and that's not even that speciall, We aren't to far from that here in sweden, we have some big-time russians, turkish mafia here and also our own gangs ofcourse not the mention Hell's Angels and Bandidos tearing eachother up..

Other nations have serious trouble with organized crime, the thing is there is a huge difference.
Given the fact that every major crime organization is well represented on American soil, and that many of them are based here (American Italian Mafia is more expansive than the Cosa Nostra, Hells Angels, ect) these groups have a great many enemies with one another. We also have a great many native groups - Bloods, Crips, MS13, and various other large street gangs which wage cross country war with one another.
You should ride through some American ghettos if you're ever over here. I remember visiting Memphis a few years ago for the first time. It was July, and already they have 165 reported murders. That's over 20 deaths a month in Memphis alone. Now imagine New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta...

Quote:

Well I probably do underestimate Americans gun knowledge while at the same time I belive you overestimate it maybe the truth is somewhere in between?

Maybe, but I doubt it. I dont use guns, but I know how. I've been to the gun clubs and seen the sharpshooters. Between gun clubs, militia groups, and just good ole country boys that have been hunting sence they could walk, I think I have a firm handle on our ability to use weapons. Espcially in the south.

Quote:

Nooo you're wrong here... She talks about them to and the brown shirts where from another country or something, yours is called "black water" apparently... And they act as a business but still responds to the government and not the people...

No, I would be acreful about watching Youtube videos and expecting truth. "Black Water" is a mercenary group deployed in Iraq. They do not answer to the president, nor do they serve the President directly. They are hired by the Pentagon, work for the Pentagon. Mercenary groups are not deployed to the United states.

Quote:

Well germany, italy and russia where all democracys before their dictators stepped up and that changed that and it happend fast... I'm not saying that it will happen but everybody should be aware of the fact that it CAN happen..

Germany had been a democracy after the first World War, which amounts to about twenty years. We have over two hundred years of Democracy. Russia was run by a Tzar prior to it's communist rebellion, and was only democratic for about twenty years prior to Putin taking power.

Quote:

Well, yeah probably... The next one might continue thought and that's dangerous too since it would be easier for them...

Yes, especially if the next president is popular.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You dont live over here. The people were livid. I was livid. It was Congress that saw no reason to object to the Patriot Act - Congress definately change it's opinion when they started fielding responses from the voters.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The United States Government fought native tribes for nearly two hundred years. Some of that fighting occured far from any American settlement, sometimes the fighting took place within the settlements.

Don't have any idea what you are talking about... I thought the english, spanish etc. people who went armying into the indians lands almost whiped them out... But odds are that you are right about this so I'm not going to argue with it other then: it's some time ago man...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Other nations have serious trouble with organized crime, the thing is there is a huge difference.
Given the fact that every major crime organization is well represented on American soil, and that many of them are based here (American Italian Mafia is more expansive than the Cosa Nostra, Hells Angels, ect) these groups have a great many enemies with one another. We also have a great many native groups - Bloods, Crips, MS13, and various other large street gangs which wage cross country war with one another.
You should ride through some American ghettos if you're ever over here. I remember visiting Memphis a few years ago for the first time. It was July, and already they have 165 reported murders. That's over 20 deaths a month in Memphis alone. Now imagine New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta...

Well yeah I'm not argueing with that you might have more gangs and ofcourse more murders but I don't belive that you have more gangbangers per capita though... Lets just say it like this; Sweden have around 9million citizens and New York City have around 8,25 million citizens and if you compare the organized crime in new york to our organized crime, well, the question is if we wouldn't beat you man... I mean you have the five families (italian mob) and if the irish mob is still there you have them too while we have russians, turkish, swedish, polish, yugoslavian and estonian crime organizations which could be called "mafias" as far as I know so me might have more to but the same may you.. We have probably around 10(?) biker-gangs but four major once (Hell's Angels, Bandidios, Outlaws and Red Devils) but New York probably have as many and then we have probably a houndred street gangs to but it isn't impossible that New York have similar numbers so I don't know, I don't think that there's that big of a difference no where in the world besides how manny the gangs might be as Costra Nostra don't have any competition in Italy and the Red Mafia don't have any in Russia...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Maybe, but I doubt it. I dont use guns, but I know how. I've been to the gun clubs and seen the sharpshooters. Between gun clubs, militia groups, and just good ole country boys that have been hunting sence they could walk, I think I have a firm handle on our ability to use weapons. Espcially in the south.

Well, so what makes this any different from any other nation? We have gunclubs and shooting is quite a likeble sport over here (ofcourse I compare to sweden cause here I know what it's like..), we have a werry well supported and supplied militia army designed mostly to help in distasters (floodings, forest fires etc.) but non the less they are fairly well trained too.. And hunting? Sweden is like 80% forrest ofcourse people here hunt! Atleast 50% of all adult males I know have hunting licenses and rifles and shotguns at home... This is the same damn thing around most of the world but you're talking about a small procent of your total population here! Although shooting ranges might be more common over there.. It's completley legal for you to own a hand gun, why don't you? If anything it could be werry usefull for selfprotection couldn't it? And you say that "somebody would take him out" wouldn't you be prepared to do it? Cause if you wouldn't, how can you expect that anybody els would be?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, I would be acreful about watching Youtube videos and expecting truth. "Black Water" is a mercenary group deployed in Iraq. They do not answer to the president, nor do they serve the President directly. They are hired by the Pentagon, work for the Pentagon. Mercenary groups are not deployed to the United states.

I know what black water is suppose to do but they where also deployed on american soil the first time in New Orleans and have been critizised for their heavily armed presence in the city... Also they are one of five of these organized mercinary "companies" that have gotten a contract to help with some sort of "anti-narcotic"programm which to me sounds like they are present on US soil (ofcourse, I can't know this) but even if they respond direcly to the pentagon and not the president is pretty inrelevant when it's still a private army controlled by the state...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Germany had been a democracy after the first World War, which amounts to about twenty years. We have over two hundred years of Democracy. Russia was run by a Tzar prior to it's communist rebellion, and was only democratic for about twenty years prior to Putin taking power.

I'll have to trust you on this as I don't know much about either of these countries in the pre-WWII times... Non the less they where democracit nations that was turned into dictatorships werry fast...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, especially if the next president is popular.

Yeah...

1 Reply

@Wizzy,

Quote:

Don't have any idea what you are talking about... I thought the english, spanish etc. people who went armying into the indians lands almost whiped them out... But odds are that you are right about this so I'm not going to argue with it other then: it's some time ago man...

Disease devestated native american populations, you are right. However, when the US became a nation, almost everything west of the Appalachian mountains was generally uninhabited by European settlers, and still securely in the hands of native tribes. The US pushed slowly west from it's birth until the 1890's, fighting native tribes, the French, the Spanish, the British, and Mexico.

Quote:

Well yeah I'm not argueing with that you might have more gangs and ofcourse more murders but I don't belive that you have more gangbangers per capita though... Lets just say it like this; Sweden have around 9million citizens and New York City have around 8,25 million citizens and if you compare the organized crime in new york to our organized crime, well, the question is if we wouldn't beat you man... I mean you have the five families (italian mob) and if the irish mob is still there you have them too while we have russians, turkish, swedish, polish, yugoslavian and estonian crime organizations which could be called "mafias" as far as I know so me might have more to but the same may you.. We have probably around 10(?) biker-gangs but four major once (Hell's Angels, Bandidios, Outlaws and Red Devils) but New York probably have as many and then we have probably a houndred street gangs to but it isn't impossible that New York have similar numbers so I don't know, I don't think that there's that big of a difference no where in the world besides how manny the gangs might be as Costra Nostra don't have any competition in Italy and the Red Mafia don't have any in Russia...

That's the thing, though. There is hardly an international organization not heavily invested in the US. The biker gang is an American invention; they moved from the US to other countries. You're right to mention size of the nation, the sheer size of our market is enough to ensure this sort of activity goes on to a great extent. Place on top of that the immense income disparity from neighborhood to neighborhood, street gangs also flourish. All of these groups wage war. There was a famous gang peace treaty in the early 90's ending years of bloodshed between rival gangs openly waging war against one another.

Quote:

Well, so what makes this any different from any other nation? We have gunclubs and shooting is quite a likeble sport over here (ofcourse I compare to sweden cause here I know what it's like..), we have a werry well supported and supplied militia army designed mostly to help in distasters (floodings, forest fires etc.) but non the less they are fairly well trained too.. And hunting? Sweden is like 80% forrest ofcourse people here hunt! Atleast 50% of all adult males I know have hunting licenses and rifles and shotguns at home... This is the same damn thing around most of the world but you're talking about a small procent of your total population here! Although shooting ranges might be more common over there.. It's completley legal for you to own a hand gun, why don't you? If anything it could be werry usefull for selfprotection couldn't it? And you say that "somebody would take him out" wouldn't you be prepared to do it? Cause if you wouldn't, how can you expect that anybody els would be?

I'm sure Sweden is well defended, but size is definately an advantage. As far as I know, Sweden's population centers are coastal. While we have a great deal of our population on the coast, we also have a great many inland, and the further inland you go, the better armed.
I'm not sure what the point is, though. All I suggested was that the assasination of an American President is certainly possible if enough extreme anger is there. Enough people are capable of the task. Sweden may be no different in this regards.

As for myself and guns, I don't like them. The world doesn't need such violent ways of waging war. The progress of war technology is wholly depressing.
As for self protection, what need have I for a gun? Only by having the gun would I need the gun. If someone mugs me, is his life worth the few dollars I have in my pocket? And yes, I've been mugged, I talked them out of keeping my wallet and cell phone, the only thing they took was forty dollars. I support the right to own firearms, I think the people should be able to own any weapon the government can own. But that doesn't mean I need an AK-47, nor does this mean I think we should ever use them. I'm non-violent.

Quote:

I'll have to trust you on this as I don't know much about either of these countries in the pre-WWII times... Non the less they where democracit nations that was turned into dictatorships werry fast...

They were hardly democracies! History prior to the second World War could be useful.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Disease devestated native american populations, you are right. However, when the US became a nation, almost everything west of the Appalachian mountains was generally uninhabited by European settlers, and still securely in the hands of native tribes. The US pushed slowly west from it's birth until the 1890's, fighting native tribes, the French, the Spanish, the British, and Mexico.

Didn't really know that... Never where that interested... I've read about the discovery and first settlements in america and so on but not much after then until modern history...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That's the thing, though. There is hardly an international organization not heavily invested in the US. The biker gang is an American invention; they moved from the US to other countries. You're right to mention size of the nation, the sheer size of our market is enough to ensure this sort of activity goes on to a great extent. Place on top of that the immense income disparity from neighborhood to neighborhood, street gangs also flourish. All of these groups wage war. There was a famous gang peace treaty in the early 90's ending years of bloodshed between rival gangs openly waging war against one another.

Ofcourse they flourish and that's because politicians are morons, they try to fight the gangs when they so easily could remove the power that gangs have, that they can make money on breaking the law.. If drugs and prostitution where legalized and government controlled the gangs would lack income, and the gangs wouldn't have any reason to fight about anything really, and the gangs would probably be wounded beyond survival.. That's atleast my thought which I've also posted on my website... Ofcourse alot of people dissagree with me saying that "drugs would become to avalible to the public" and atleast me have been offerd drugs more times then I can remember (never even tryed any drugs thought, and with drugs I mean narcotics) so I belive that they are ignorent or in denyle (spelling?)...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm sure Sweden is well defended, but size is definately an advantage. As far as I know, Sweden's population centers are coastal. While we have a great deal of our population on the coast, we also have a great many inland, and the further inland you go, the better armed.
I'm not sure what the point is, though. All I suggested was that the assasination of an American President is certainly possible if enough extreme anger is there. Enough people are capable of the task. Sweden may be no different in this regards.
As for myself and guns, I don't like them. The world doesn't need such violent ways of waging war. The progress of war technology is wholly depressing.
As for self protection, what need have I for a gun? Only by having the gun would I need the gun. If someone mugs me, is his life worth the few dollars I have in my pocket? And yes, I've been mugged, I talked them out of keeping my wallet and cell phone, the only thing they took was forty dollars. I support the right to own firearms, I think the people should be able to own any weapon the government can own. But that doesn't mean I need an AK-47, nor does this mean I think we should ever use them. I'm non-violent.

Well, ofcourse the majority of the population lives on the coasts but alot of our people also lives outside of cities and therefor hunt alot and so on.. Also we have to have alot of hunters or our forrests would be over-runned by elks and deers...
I'm with you that I'm against violence, but I find it neccecary though... Some conflicts can't be resolved by words and that's when we need guns.. This causes a conflict for when because I'm pro guns for selfdefence and to make sure that no government can push you around, but against them when you start talking about violence on a local level... Ofcourse, there's no middle here and it's either the american "guns for everybody" or the popular choice "guns for cops"... And in that question, I have to go with "guns for everybody"...
And yes, modern warfare is devestating, complete destruction and death for everybody... But the problem is that you can't expect this to change due to the fact that every nation is afraid of a invasion more or less and this makes the fact that, nobody will decrease their military untill the one with the most decreases theirs (america at the moment) and there's no way that you guys will do that... Not for a while atleast...
And I've never been succesfully mugged... Been attempted twice though.. Once I got cut by a knife while defending myself but he ran away after I got him to the ground and the other time I swat the mugger across the mouth with a steel pipe I got my hands on.. Although I belive a gun could have stoped the whole muggings before I had to harm the other person (not that I really care about that...) but it could also have made me shoot them.. So I understand what you are saying but I was thinking more of protecting your home from intruders...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

They were hardly democracies! History prior to the second World War could be useful.

Ofcourse I know history before WWII but not direcly before it, or the whole time between the two world wars are kind of blurry for me.....

0 Replies

Message to the American People by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know