Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Iraq's "puppet" sovereign government? What do you want?

To whom am I speaking? If you think it's to the so called puppets, you're mistaken. I am addressing those alleging that the interim government is a puppet regime.

The basis for the animosity held for the interim government probably varies. It ranges from CIA connections to not being popularly elected, and those reasons and the ones in between are understandable from a nationalistic perspective, if one is Iraqi or empathetic to the people of Iraq. And it may be that Iraq's interim leaders are all marionettes, or at least partially so. But it's possible they are not, and would take the coalition (primarily made up of U.S. forces) in to help with security of their own volition. I will not bother myself with which is the case, though I do confess to a lean towards puppet regimes because of distrust in the non manipulated (free) development of the Iraqi government. To be frank, I'll not be surprised if we have to fight, or are told we should, against the interim PM of Iraq in 4 months. But I'll not dwell on long term negatives pertaining to individuals, statements that might be seen as an assault on those individuals' character.

Animosity towards the installment of the government is mostly tied in with empathy toward those whom must fall under the governance of the "puppets" and the belief that coalition forces are being misused, diverted from Afghanistan and where ever else. And I will not challenge the morality nor the strategic soundness of those contentions by themselves.

What I want to know is this. If you believe that a, the occupation is wrong but the forces of the occupiers have to stay to maintain security, and because of moral obligations from the war leading to the security problems; b, that the prolongment of foreign presence, at least in the direct role of leadership, or as the "behind the scene true" leaders, is wrong but acknowledge the people of Iraq must contend with an imperfect, in other words, a pseudo or non democratic government (as all are regardless of the circumstances under which they are chosen) as a consequence of early soveriegnty, as well as the foreign military forces that must sustain it until Iraq's own forces are ready to take over all matters of security, then, accepting the charge that the interim government is a puppet legitimized by the coalition's might more than anything else, and if you accept all of the above as pragmatically necessary; morally obligatory; then it is fair to ask, moral notions on conduct leading to the puppets installment and said installation aside, what good does your criticism do? Are comments that serve to weaken the interim government that you may even believe is the best compromise beneficial to the people of Iraq? Even if you think I am leaning far too presumptuously as to your beliefs, my question remains, to what goal do you blast the Iraqi interim government?

My hope is that it is not a matter of pride, that of the need to validate within yourselves a perceived moral superiority by willingly, I presume out of sincere belief, pronouncing the interim government lacks credibility and perhaps integrity. But that is because you forsee a benefit to your claims. If the latter is the case, when and how will the Iraqis benefit? You might claim the end of the coalition presence is the greatest gift of all. I ask that you answer sincerely, not with disingenuous beliefs and hypotheses.



For personal reasons I will be on a long, psuedo hiatus from all groups I belong to. Those from the groups whom wish to converse with me further may do so by e-mail if they have my e-mail address, or may place a statement in any of comments sections to any of the posts of my blog, even if their message is off topic. It's not that I will never post a reply like once a week or more or less frequently, but that it is that I want, and need, to devot my time elsewhere.



First, I will lay out my basic philosophy on the topic, then, in general terms, address some counter arguments which might be made in response.

My philosophy is simple: Individual right of self defense against intended harm precludes the hypothetical consequence to the general welfare of the public if a firearm is the instrument of individual self defense.

Now to address some counter arguments as they come to me and as best as I can recall them.

Total or major banishment of guns has succeeded in multiple countries, lowering crime rates.

Re: As I said, I am being general in my contentions; and as this is a moral issue for me, even if such statistics are true, they really would not persuade me away from my beliefs on the matter. But it is fair to ask whether or not those supposed successes are applicable in the United States. The strongest point to be made for firearm control is the presumptive benefit to society by virtue of the inherent nature of most people to be law abiding, thereby making the gun problem lessened, one hopes. But it is also inherent in people that they remain true to their nature, good or bad. I will grant that firearm control can succeed. I wish tranquil times to all societies who have chosen strict limitations on the ownership of firearms, but not every society is guaranteed such success, which may not be possible with the nature of some of them. Since this is imperfect, it leaves what I hyperbolically call "sacrifices for statistics." Such sacrifices are those individuals who were violated in some way which perhaps could have been resolved by a firearm in their favor. I place high value on them, as they, like many others, are limited on what they can rely on for their well being.

But you acknowledged the intent is to lessen the overall crime rate, and you did not contend that it would not do so. And that's a good thing.

Re: That is true, but I am not trying to play psychic. My objection is with the notion that a person must be reliant on the ableness of the community, from neighbors to police officers when it cannot always viable. And intent matters greatly to me. I know this may sound cruel; like reversed priorities to some people, but if it comes down to a man's right to use deadly force, or the threat thereof, in protection of his person and family, et al, I will always put that above the children slain as a result of the alleged firearm culture (negatiive context).

But the firearm culture is the problem. It's an endless cycle of violence.

Re: Which also causes one to ask whose benefit it would be if strict firearm control were enacted. Would violent people cease their nature because of it? Not likely. From a strategic standpoint, and safety in some cases, arms are preferrable because of they're superiority against most other weapons, designed and adopted, so a weak person may be wise in having a gun ready against a person not armed. It is not the obligation of intended victims to be weaker than those assaulting them.

Guns don't often work in common situations.

Re: That's probably more often the result of human error, which is an inescapable part of life. And we can apply human factor of human error not only to a defendant's use of a firearm, but to his attacker's use. It is error and circumstance which affords a person the opportunity to use his gun defensively. In other words, situations are not the same and not universal in result. And the firearm's capacity for defense and attack remain a physical fact upon which a person in the former position may need to survive.

PS. At some later date I might address this issue further.


Angels and spirits of past remembrances.

While looking over an article in a local publication, I came to wonder, if not for the first time, then again, if I had spent that short and fleeting time oh so many years ago, where my memory fades away, with an angel. Yet I have no sense of great comfort with those moments, but I do miss her.

Years ago, within the first half of my life so far, I used to be able to relax and be transported into a forest wherein a young blonde, pig tailed girl lived, along with her mother. I recall nothing of our conversations, only that I have a basic idea of what she looked like (I presume she would have reminded most people of a young Swedish or Dutch girl). I think the dress and house, though I'm less sure of what the house looked like than what the girl did, would set the family pre 1930, perhaps 1830; maybe earlier. I believe the mother disliked me. I want to go back, but something is telling me I should not. Some of that is because of the little girl. My mind keeps telling me that she does not want me back, or she is telling me that. I wonder why. Maybe it is best I do not know. I hope I can be forgiven someday and be allowed to return. Just to know who she was, why we met, and what she wanted, and hopefully learn more about what I want.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click