Это американский Ирак

[birdwatcher]

"The convicts were not subjected to any mistreatment," Dabbagh said describing the beheading by the rope as a rare mishap. "Their rights were not violated. There was no chanting."

Update.
Ага, дальнейшие события. Шутка здесь в том, что у тов. Барзана аль-Тикрити в момент повешения оторвалась голова. Это бывает, если веревка слишком длинная, и, положа руку на сердце, на качество не влияет. События излагает лента.ру:

Надо подчеркнуть, что к ленте.ру абсолютно никаких претензий нет. Никто не обязан идеально знать английский, обладать исчерпывающим здравым смыслом и абсолютно правильно переводить любой бред. Это теперь про нас будет широко известно: установленное нами правительство сначала вешает людей, а потом еще дополнительно отрезает им головы. Не надо потом жаловаться, что нас никто не любит.

Comments

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Кто в этом собирается разбираться? Ненавидеть будут всех вместе, взрывать тоже.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

Вот именно поэтому их нужно вешать. И побольше.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

Чтоб охота взрывать пропала.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Купите себе виселицу и вешайте сколько влезет. Меня раздражает круговая порука. Взрывают-то потом меня? Это очевидно несправедливо.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

Да нифига Вас не взрывают. И марксисткое псевдообъяснение, что причина терроризма - griavances третьего мира и его национальнао-освободительная борьба (freedom fighters my ass) против американского империализма ни в какие ворота не лезет. Причина терроризма проста - тупость и фанатизм. И это тупость нужно выбивать из их голов. Они мочили друг друга в кровавых massacres тысячи лет до установления американской гегемонии. И withdrawal тут не поможет. Someone must carry the burden of hegemony. Если гегемона не будет- всем будет пиздец - и гегемону, и всем остальным. Сотый раз повторяю - хаос будет неизбежен. Если хотите погружаться в темные века, погружайтесь. Я я буду вешать. При этом я не говорю, тчо современная американская внешняя политика эффективна. Она неэффективна, поскольку основана на ложных левых принципах - engage Iran and North Korea (engage my bloody ass!), ублажить врага и поднести ему на тарелочке с голубой каемочкой оружие, которым он тебя же и убъет.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Не имею ничего против, чтобы они и впредь мочили друг друга. В равной степени не имею ничего против, чтобы вы отправились туда и несли ношу гегемонии -- но после того, как последняя лента.ру идеально четко понимает, что между нами двоими нет абсолютно ничего общего. Пока мы оба коллективно называемся "американцами", ваше вмешательство в арабские дела не в моих интересах.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

Я не американец, кстати.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Ах, ну так бы и говорили. Я понимаю, что для неамериканца такой дед-мороз истребления как мы -- идеально полезен.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

К сожалению, для Вас он более полезен. Поэтому я скоро буду у Вас.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

В смысле в США

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Это иногда меняет перспективу.

[averros.livejournal.com]

That's one pretty good reason to get rid of the ruling gang, once and forever. They are dangerous to be around, that's for sure.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Во-во.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

The sad truth is that you’re unlikely to offer anything better if you, like Mr. Birdwatcher, are an anarchist and an isolationist. Those who think that the US’ golden age took place when isolationists dominated the country are not fully aware why that happened. First, the US has never been FULLY isolated. It has flaunted its military strength since the very day when it was founded and protected its citizens from thugs overseas. Second, in the 19th century and the early 20th century the US benefited from the stable world order established by its former suzerain, Great Britain. If the US withdraws now there won’t be any stable world order now because no country is qualified for the superpower status. If you want chaos and recession, you’ll get it. Join your pacifist comrades from the liberal and progressive wings of the Dhimmicrat Party (this is not a misspelling). Why criticize them if you share their ideology?

[averros.livejournal.com]

You must be insane to imply that anarcho-capitalists (which are individualists) share ideology with social-democrats (which are collectivists).

By the way, ancap is not about isolationism. Quite opposite, in fact. Isolationism assumes some national borders - it is kind of hard to reconcile that with the notion that boundaries of states are nothing more than roadblocks erected by organized crime.

What we _are_ against is military interventionism. It is immoral both because it amounts to killing people who didn't do anything wrong to the interventionist, and because this killing is funded by the loot from the citizens of the interventionist country. Taxes, after all, are always extracted under the threats (or with actual) violence.

[reaganx.livejournal.com]

=You must be insane to imply that anarcho-capitalists (which are individualists) share ideology with social-democrats (which are collectivists).=

I'll have to disappoint you. Of course, anarcho-capitalists don't share all of social democrats' ideas and ostensibly anarcho-capitalists are supposed to be individualists. However, at the basic philosophic level the key root of both is irrationalism, which is closely correlated with collectivism and altruism. Ayn Rand, the founder of the most individualist philosophy to date, Objectivism, was an outspoken critic of anarchism and mainstream libertarianism (some forms of libertarianism, however, are pretty close to Objectivism)

=By the way, ancap is not about isolationism. Quite opposite, in fact. Isolationism assumes some national borders - it is kind of hard to reconcile that with the notion that boundaries of states are nothing more than roadblocks erected by organized crime.=

It depends. It is a bad thing if the roadblocks are erected for looting, which is the case in varying degrees in all contemporary countries. It is a good thing, however, if they are used for protecting human rights, which happens sometimes (not always, unfortunately) in some of the world's best-run countries, including the US. This means that the government of such a country protects human rights in its territory.
Anarcho-capitalism is unfeasible and unrealistic because it means not only leaving people to their own devices but also allowing them to commit any imaginable crimes. The best system would be one where people would be allowed to do everything EXCEPT violating other people's rights. And violating human rights is what anarcho-capitalism is all about. Besides, there won't be any capitalism at all in such an anarchistic system because capitalism requires the protection of human rights. There can't be any property rights, the basis of capitalism, without their consistent enforcement. Moreover, considering that most of the world and even the US is very leftist, promoting anarchy would result in the establishment of numerous leftist dictatorships rather than capitalist societies.

=What we _are_ against is military interventionism. It is immoral both because it amounts to killing people who didn't do anything wrong to the interventionist, and because this killing is funded by the loot from the citizens of the interventionist country. Taxes, after all, are always extracted under the threats (or with actual) violence.=

First, military interventions and government as a whole can be funded voluntarily. Government should not interfere with economics (the welfare state and all economic regulations should be abolished) but it should exist in order to maintain LAW, the key prerequisite of the free market. That's why there will be people who will be willing to finance it voluntarily. If you think otherwise please explain how markets can function in a lawless society.
Second, here's what you and your "liberal" comrades have in common. It is the ideology of self-sacrifice and altruism as applied in foreign policy. If, say, Iran takes US nationals hostage a US military intervention will be a just and morally right retribution. What you propose, however, is to sacrifice US citizens' lives for the idea of non-interventionism. The Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as a shield against Israeli attacks. The altruist doctrine states that the Israelis should have sacrificed Israeli lives for the sake of Lebanese civilians. The egoist, individualist doctrine states that Lebanese civilians should not concern Israel. If the Lebanese government cannot maintain order in Lebanon it is morally right for the Israelis to do that on their own.