M14 Forum

GeneCo

Well, the context of the democracy there, is being able to vote and the majority electorate wins, as opposed to a dictatorship. For the last 40 years, there's been none of that.

Afa what kind of govt WE have, if we vote and the majority wins( and rules), then it's a democracy, if the election is for a representative central governing govt, then it's a Republic. We are a hybrid Democratic-Republic.


The general concept of democracy is the freedom to choose and the right to have the basic human rights.

Swamp Rat

You'd be surprised, but gun ownership in the ME and North Africa is more prolific then most people realize.

huntinghawk

Lets not turn this into a political thread which would have to be moved.

HH

Dredsen

I heard on bbc radio today they are knocking down walls between the buildings so they can run food and such about while avoiding the snipers (who gun down anyone they see)

bigtrey37

Why does rebel have a negative connotation? Americans were rebels against the british once..Was that negative? These people are rebels..which unless youre the govt. they are against then I would say thats a positive.

GeneCo

Because the fact is, IN THAT SITUATION, there ARE enemy rebels involved that are separate from the citizens and have alterior motives. When the govt speaks of foreign rebels, they are correct, terrorist groups like al quada are there. Iran wants Syria. They are correct that a foreign enemy is tryin' to overthrow them, but so are its citizens, for different reasons. As usual, the terrorists have mixed with the citizens, so they get it too.

UNfortunately, they( the govt) , et al, are correct that the US should not just step in and presume to know what's the best thing to do. IMO, the UN needs to get involved on a purely humanitarian role( meaning UN in that area, not the US). They should broker a cease fire long enough for citizens who want to leave can leave, folks can get medical aid and be evacuated and then let the govt fight it out with the actual foreign rebels. Btw, ID the actual rebels.


Also, you have to question any leader who finds it ok to bomb their own cities and citizens.

bigtrey37

The original poster mentioned nothing of foreign rebels..His comment was that he shouldnt use the word rebel because it was negative regarding the "rebels" he was posting about...that is why I posed the question. Using your logic then the US would be regarded as rebels in Iraq? Bush would disagree...theyre "Merican freedom fighters"!!

MSgtC

And sorry to say a socialist state if we don't change are ways.

God Bless America PLEASE

DukeRustfield

As for how do you survive, my friend grew up during the Lebanonese civil war, which is right next door. He said there was an intersection that was called sniper corner and there were dozens of corpses there. An anecdote he told me was his family was sitting outside eating when they heard what sounded like a garbage truck loading. What is that, they asked. Truck. It's not Tuesday. Get inside! It was one of those tracked mobile missile launchers. When it fired, it liquified the asphalt behind it. This was a civil war, they parked it in apartments so it couldn't be targeted as easily.

How you survive, as a civilian, in short, is by being a civilian. If you pick up a gun and go out on the street, you're going to die. Yes, your chances of random badness are still there, but your life expectancy is probably 100x that of a combatant--that's a made-up statistic, but just look at the ratio of any modern war of civilian total:dead and military total:dead. Commerce still goes on. Garbage is still picked up. Markets still sell food. Only total societal collapse, like in the worst genocide cases in Africa, does that change. Humans are incredibly adaptive. The army (or rebels) are not going to storm the sewage works and shut down the waste water treatment plants. Why would they? It does no one any good.

jim-analog

Greetings,

Bigtrey37, after I wrote the OP I just had a feeling that _in general_ the term rebel is commonly used or implied with a derogatory slant, regardless of any specific historical references. I did not want my writing to reflect that and would have preferred to use the term opposition, hence my PS. All a matter of perspective of course. No need to get into any semantic dialog (it really doesn't matter and my choice of terms had no *significant* meaning one way or the other) and I guess the terms can be used interchangeably dependent on how one interprets them. One persons "freedom fighter" is another persons "terrorist".

DukeR, I have to disagree. In virtually all modern war the number of civilian dead vastly exceeds the military/combatant dead. The figures from WW2 were horrendous in this regard, and the ratio has continued on to Korea, Vietnam, the Balkan wars, etc. and beyond. Shelling, bombing from aircraft, mortar fire and other typical applications of force do not discriminate; and as a given area likely has far higher civilian population density than military the result is generally significant "collateral damage". In addition and in many cases it IS to the advantage of one side or the other to destroy the civilian infrastructure (water supply, food distribution, sewer plants, etc.). Just another method to manipulate public opinion and/or control the population.

GeneCo and others. Any "civil war" within a given nation is usually much more complex than just two discreet sides fighting it out for control. There are almost always more divisions than two with differing and shifting alliances, foreign intervention on either/any/all sides, opportunists of any variety and supporters of the same involved. In some cases, it's so confusing that it can be just about impossible to determine who is fighting who for what reasons.

Civil war is usually the most terrible and brutal type of war (though, IMO war itself is the most horrific invention of man).

Regards, Jim

Butzbach

that we didn't take out Damascus decades ago. There is no doubt a huge behind the scenes balancing act going on. I just don't see how permitting Syria to be any kind of regional player is in our strategic national interest. If we took them out it would make Israel's life a lot easier. Unless Iran just filled in the power vacuum.

KaribouKidd

The ME has been in a constant state of tribal conflict since long before muhammed (may p!ss be upon his name) came in and further messed things up. There is no rational solution to this mess.

Our only hope is to nuke the entire area from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

Excluding Israel of course.

GeneCo

The OP didn't represent the situation accurately....there certainly are, by any definition, actual rebels..........Infiltrator insurgents from another Country with the intent of overthrowing the govt.

Citizens change the govt by non violent means of voting, if there is not the option of voting, then what?

No, Americans would not( altho some have considered us rebels) be rebels in Iraq, the people of Iraq wanted us to be there,,, they want democracy, just like citizens of Syria wants us ( or anyone) to come in and help them.


AFA Our Revolution, still not rebels( altho Britain called us rebels and traitors), we would have to have went over to Britain and try to overthrow the Crown to be rebels, by definition.....we were actually fighting to defend our right to be.


Now, the "War between the States"? (Southern) rebels, because they wanted to "overthrow" the govt.


Btw, connotation of rebel is subjective. Many in the South were( and to this day ) proud to be called Rebels.

GeneCo

Well, for the purposes of this discussion, we can ID civil war, as opposed outright invasion, like Germany to Poland, Italy, et al.


Btw, IMO, surviving the two are different.

Of course, most wars are complex in nature, that's a given.

Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu said about war: