We're not as "free" as we think

[skylark913]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

Some people know how Puerto Rico can't vote. But they don't have to pay taxes either. The people in the Districat of Columbia still have to do everything that people in the states do, but they don't have any say in it. They bring the right to vote to Iraqi's, but some of our US citizens are still denied it? Does that really make sense? We need to deal with the problems in our country before we go off policing the world. Who made that the job of the US anyways. Why does it even need to be done. We shouldn't be getting involved anywhere until our own problems here are solved. Not only is it hypocritical, but it's also wasting the money that could be used to fix it here, as well as a great deal of lives. If people want to go over there and help, by all means they should go. But it should not be with government funding, approval and backing. They can go over there and start whatever kind of revolution they want, without a government. If the people in that country really want it to happen, then when someone ignites the kindling of unrest that's there, then they'll spark up too and join in. If a whole people revolt, change is inevitable. You don't need foreign governments for that.

Alright, I'm done getting working up for now. Ciao!

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

We aren't oppressed by a ruthless dictator, nor are thousands of our citizens killed each year by what can only be called genocide. Do the people in D.C. get slaughtered on a daily basis? Are they forced to live in poverty?

[lifeinanutshell.livejournal.com]

No, but they are denied the basic freedoms that they are guaranteed under our country's constitution. Sure, there are bigger travesties in the world, but we don't live in Africa or the Middle East. We live in a privelidged(sp) country in which there are guidelines that people must obey and the government must obey in governing these people. When people are subject to the same laws, regulations, and taxes as every other American and yet are denied the right to vote on the laws, etc. that govern them, it is unjust.

No, they don't have horrible living situations and live in fear every day as their last as those in third world and the like of countries do. But there is a price you pay to have that luxury, and a duty that is to be performed to uphold this standard, and when the system goes down.. who knows.

[vuvarys.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, yes... it is a horrible thing. But I don't think it to be our buisness. It is the buisness of the people who this is being done to. I mean, everyone knows many people supported going to Iraq because they thought we were in danger. But as we found out this was never a threat. It is highly likely that not nearly as many people would have supported going to Iraq on the basis of Iraq's freedom. This is simply being used as means of a coverup to the fact they invaded for no reason. Even at this point, many people are realizing that a democratic government in Iraq is not something to be expected in the near future. This accounts for the ever increasing dislike of America being in Iraq.

So, all in all, we do need to first address America's problems, such as the growing threat to our basic civil liberties due to the Patriot Act among other things, before we start policing the world.

[(Anonymous)]

Firstly, no the people aren't forced to live in poverty, but if you've ever been there you'll know that a lot of them do, its not unusual to see large numbers of homeless people sleeping in parks in the DC area. As to leaving it up to the people its being done to, we can't, did you miss the part where they have no say? We as a country are so concerned with he politics of every other country in the world but we can't step in and give basic rights and freedoms to our own citizens? That is absurd. I do however agree whole heartedly with doing away with the peeping tom patriot act

[vuvarys.livejournal.com]

I'm sorta confused as to hwat you were getting at. I was addressing the people of Iraq in my reply... it sounded like you thought I was talking about people in the US.

[midnightpyro.livejournal.com]

Obviously it's common knowledge that the reasons we got into Iraq are a bit flawed. There were no weapons of mass destruction (theretically). But Sadaam could've been shipping them to Kuwait or something. It wouldn't be in his best interest to leave nucler warheads lying around. But you CAN'T compare Washington D.C. to Iraq. Okay, so they lack voting rights. It'll take Congress a good long time before they even think about passing it, because they're congress. But the people there can either move to somewhere where they have voting rights, or just live without voting rights. I'm sure it's not a bad place to live. It's America, and they still have their freedom. Obviously the people in Iraq weren't so lucky. We should be fixing problems at home, but NOT when there's other pressing matters. I really wouldn't concentrate on voting rights in D.C. when you can buy a small dog for the cost of a barrel of oil, or when North Korea is run by a madman (with nuclear capability).

[(Anonymous)]

I'm thinking you missed the point, we can compare Iraq to DC because we thought it was so necessary to send soldiers into a foreign country to fight and die to give them freedoms like voting. We can send people to fight and die for a foreign nation's rights but we can't give our own citizens those rights? Congress has had plenty of time to work it out and its not happening so we can't let it be and hope it works out. As to your global concerns, if it hadn't been for the US oil prices would have stayed low us sticking our nose where it doesn't belong is putting prices on the rise equally by creating militaristic demand and by US ownership of oil reserves, the capitalist programs in America can't wait to exploit the necessities they hold rights to now. If Kim Jong Il is such a problem why aren't we in SoKo? We know for a fact that he has the weapons we started conflict in the middle east over, and that invasion was based in speculation. We care nothing about WMD's as the politicians would have us think, the order of conflicts the US is getting involved in has nothing to do with anything but the administrations personal agenda.

[midnightpyro.livejournal.com]

I'm quite sure I'm not missing the point at all. Iraq and DC are two different matters. Maybe Congress has had plenty of time to work it out, but that's what's so great about America. Email your congressmen, tell them your feelings on D.C. If they ignore you, don't vote for them. I agree that the United States jumped the gun on Iraq. I agree that we shouldn't deprive our citizens of these rights. I personally think Sadaam was a threat to world peace. Did we invade Iraq prematurely instead of using diplomacy? Probably. Should we do a full scale invasion of North Korea to take Kim Jong out of power? No. We have one war on our hands, and look at the backlash the administration recieved on declaring war on Iraq. The country is divided down the middle on the issue. Invading North Korea would be insane. I don't think anyone invaded anyone over a personal agenda. I think the United States invaded Iraq because we believed (and the American people believed) that Iraq possesed weapons of mass destruction. There is no hidden agenda or conspiracy theory involved. We didn't invade Iraq because of oil. Obviously there was bad intelligence involved. But what we're doing in Iraq is repairing the damage that we did and giving the people the right to vote. And in my personal opinnion, we have far more pressing matters than giving D.C. the right to vote. Don't get me wrong, I think that's an important thing to have that needs to be addressed, but I think there's things which are a much bigger problem (AIDS, oil prices, kids starving in Africa, terrorism, drugs, crime...)

Hypocrisy

[skylark913.livejournal.com]

The point is that it's hypocritical fr us to fighting in other countries to give them freedoms, that we can't even give all of our own people. And besides that, it's not America's job to galumph all over the world as policemen.

Re: Hypocrisy

[midnightpyro.livejournal.com]

Then if some sort of insane dictator suddenly sprung up and wanted to conquer half of Europe, we'd just do nothing and leave him alone? Been there, done that.

Re: Hypocrisy

[(Anonymous)]

Obviously missed the point YET AGAIN, the point isn't to let things go around the world, the point is of course to take action where necessary, but also Not to ignore the problems at home. It really wouldn't be difficult to hold an election in D.C. military occupation would not be necessary, you just say "hey we're having an election" and it happens, no reason why we can't give basic rights to US citizens and force our ideas on other countries.

Re: Hypocrisy

[midnightpyro.livejournal.com]

There's no need to be rude about it. I didn't miss the point, but I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I just don't think comparing Iraq to D.C. is a just comparsion to make.

"we can compare Iraq to DC because we thought it was so necessary to send soldiers into a foreign country to fight and die to give them freedoms like voting. We can send people to fight and die for a foreign nation's rights but we can't give our own citizens those rights?"

Taking out a tyranical dictator obviously should take some priority. If it's that easy to give D.C. voting rights, why don't you suggest that to your congressmen? You don't have anything to gain by arguing with me that it's a good idea. And I don't think the United States is "forcing" any ideas on any countries.