| |
  |
|
| Militias - Okay, or Not Okay? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Gryphon |
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Militias - Okay, or Not Okay? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
|
Would be interested to hear the American view of the current situation in Iraq where Iraqi Govt forces are trying to disarm powerful militia groups that have political influence, exercise control over significant territory, and have lots of weapons.
The US Constitution grants US citizens the right to form militias for the express purpose of protecting themselves from Govt injustice, and to bear arms within those militias to protect their rights.
Now apply the logic of the US Constitution to Iraq and give me your view on whether the US should support the Iraqi Govt in disarming the Mehdi militia.
I'm not being inflammatory here, I'm just interested in what Americans think this provision of the Constitution actually means in this day and age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Militias - Okay, or Not Okay? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1217
|
| Gryphon wrote: |
Would be interested to hear the American view of the current situation in Iraq where Iraqi Govt forces are trying to disarm powerful militia groups that have political influence, exercise control over significant territory, and have lots of weapons.
The US Constitution grants US citizens the right to form militias for the express purpose of protecting themselves from Govt injustice, and to bear arms within those militias to protect their rights.
Now apply the logic of the US Constitution to Iraq and give me your view on whether the US should support the Iraqi Govt in disarming the Mehdi militia.
I'm not being inflammatory here, I'm just interested in what Americans think this provision of the Constitution actually means in this day and age. |
The US Constitution premise, does protect people from the government, however Militia's were formed and used for protection from enemies of the country. In 1898, during the 'Spanish/American', the militia was found inadequate for this task, leading to our 1903 Militia Act, which in effect is now our 'National Guard' or part time active military.
The right to bear arms, was also intended for that purpose, but over the years has been deemed the need for personal protection and a basic right.
Not to protect against government. Militia, are not illegal however and many fringe groups have formed (Waco), exist today and unless the intent is the 'overthrow government' (illegal) they can be, but general additional laws are broken in their agenda.
The group your thinking is one group of Sunnis, led by AlSadder (Sp?), who is intent of overthrow of the Iraq Government, suspected to be aligned with Iran. All other Sunnis, are now aligned with the Iraq government and seated in the Iraq government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gryphon |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
|
The justification on external threat grounds makes sense.
One point of detail, however - the Mehdi Army, under Moqtada al Sadr, is Shia, not Sunni. Yes, they are supported and supplied by Iran (Shia state). Interesting that Sadr was one of the key figures that supported Maliki (also Shia) getting a Govt together. Seems they have fallen out over Maliki's refusal to demand a date for US withdrawl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 743
|
| Quote: |
| Seems they have fallen out over Maliki's refusal to demand a date for US withdrawl. |
There's more to it than that, I suspect. Al Sadr was in control of Basra, which is Iraq's only seaport and main outlet for their oil. If Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign state it would be totally unacceptable to allow an Iranian proxy to control the export of oil so Maliki felt he had to act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
LOL Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign state, thats a good one. The US has over 100,000 troops and you complain about an Iranian proxy? What would it be if the 100,000 trooops were Iranian?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1217
|
| icewendigo wrote: |
| LOL Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign state, thats a good one. The US has over 100,000 troops and you complain about an Iranian proxy? What would it be if the 100,000 trooops were Iranian? |
Well over, about 160k US active military and an unknown number of others, all with the same objective in Iraq are allied folks. If there were an equal number from Iran there, suppose you might call that war with Iran. As I recall, very little, fighting was done in Germany WWII, until the end and I don't think any troops fought in Japan. Some 'keeping the peace' afterwards....
B & G; Sadr, wants control of government IMO, but as the minority party realizes this will not happen, so long as US influence/money has an influence. While insisting on a stated with-drawl date, he knows that time will come and go w/o that withdraw, allowing his influence to grow...not unlike the Democrat party in the US, who full well know troops remain in many Nations years after any conflict... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: Re: Militias - Okay, or Not Okay? |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 970
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
| Gryphon wrote: |
Would be interested to hear the American view of the current situation in Iraq where Iraqi Govt forces are trying to disarm powerful militia groups that have political influence, exercise control over significant territory, and have lots of weapons.
The US Constitution grants US citizens the right to form militias for the express purpose of protecting themselves from Govt injustice, and to bear arms within those militias to protect their rights.
Now apply the logic of the US Constitution to Iraq and give me your view on whether the US should support the Iraqi Govt in disarming the Mehdi militia.
I'm not being inflammatory here, I'm just interested in what Americans think this provision of the Constitution actually means in this day and age. |
The US Constitution premise, does protect people from the government, however Militia's were formed and used for protection from enemies of the country. In 1898, during the 'Spanish/American', the militia was found inadequate for this task, leading to our 1903 Militia Act, which in effect is now our 'National Guard' or part time active military.
The right to bear arms, was also intended for that purpose, but over the years has been deemed the need for personal protection and a basic right.
Not to protect against government. Militia, are not illegal however and many fringe groups have formed (Waco), exist today and unless the intent is the 'overthrow government' (illegal) they can be, but general additional laws are broken in their agenda.
The group your thinking is one group of Sunnis, led by AlSadder (Sp?), who is intent of overthrow of the Iraq Government, suspected to be aligned with Iran. All other Sunnis, are now aligned with the Iraq government and seated in the Iraq government. |
It depends on how you read the clause. It opens: " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
There's a double meaning here.
1) - Standing armies were seen by the founders as a danger to freedom, because its all too easy for the military leadership to stage a coup.
2) - An armed public can always rebel if the government begins to oppress them. That ensures the government will do its job right because it doesn't want a rebellion on its hands.
The founders were extremely careful in their wording, because they'd seen too many different forms of tyranny and democratic subversion (Most of the colonies had had some kind of democratic government leading up to the revolution.)
Their goal was to create a democratic government that would not fall back into dictatorship later on if a foolish generation took over after them. They did pretty well, if you look at the last 200 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
