Lazs and guns

[Dowding]

Shops and private houses were/are being looted. As were the hospitals - in fact, one US marine was killed at one of the hospitals by attacking looters, IIRC.

[Stringer]

Dowding,
Might be a different incident, but I read the report about a Marine who was killed at  a Hospital checkpoint by 2 persons dressed as landscapers.  One of the persons was shot and killed and found to have a Syrian passport...the other got away.

Also, from one of the reporters on the ground in Baghdad.  He reported the majority of the looting was government offices and agencies, with a small minority of private businesses being hit.  Now this report was about 4-5 days ago, so the situation might have detoriated since then.

[lazs2]

note the past tense in your post dowding..   it is all working out.  

 People are defending home and hearth with guns.   Those incidents happened during a transitional time of anarchy and shortages of the most basic needs such as food and water... no one knew who was in charge and what the intentions of the 'invaders" was...  small wonder that a percentage of the population went a little crazy...  

I see iraq as a conformation of my belief in an armed citizenry.    
lazs

[Dowding]

It still happened. How about the hospitals that were ransacked? They were full of wounded already and were short of supplies, before the looters got there.

The Coalition dropped a bollock. They should have had troops at every hospital, power-station, water-treatment plant and museum in the city. Afterall, they've since claimed that it is all part and parcel of regime change - they therefore should have expected it.

[lazs2]

I am not surprised that there would be armed groups looting in the transitional period between victory and order... we agree on that but... I still hold that, as a law abiding or.. moral, iraqi citizen you are better off armed than not.   I agree that we should defend areas until such a time as a police force can be recruited from the locals...  I don't know about  "bollock"  it all up... I Think that we have done an outstanding job considering...  The amount of suffering that has been generated by a war of this scale ... well ... it's allmost beyond belief that things have went so well.   What is the population of Iraq?  25-30 million?   Amazing ... 25-35 million people thrown into anarchy allmost instantly and things still going this well?    Amazing.
lazs

[Wlfgng]

yeah.. America should have had millions of people there to keep the country running WHILE we also fought a war... lol

yeah and the citizens, engineers, etc of Iraq should just sit home or get on with the looting... lol

when does Iraq stand up for itself instead of tearing itself apart?
oh.. wait.. the US marines MADE them loot, pillage and plunder..
ok, whatever.

to Iraq:
take responsibility for your own damned country!
we got rid of the opressor, you wanted to have things YOUR way and for us to leave..
I keep hearing "go home yankee"... but then you want us to help you police yourselves.. cripes.

lose - lose proposition.. time to move on (ungrateful tards)

[Frogm4n]

those guns sure helped them to liberate themselves from saddam, wait no. no they didnt.

[Wlfgng]

yes, .. yes they did.
they just needed a little help from US armor first is all

[john9001]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
those guns sure helped them to liberate themselves from saddam, wait no. no they didnt.

iraq people were not armed until right before the US/UK troops "invaded" .
 at the last minute, saddam removed restrictions on gun sales and even passed out military weapons to the people hopeing they would do what the "battle-hardend republican guard" and the fedayeen thugs could not do, protect him.
 saddam,of course was wrong to think the iraqis would protect him. he really really thought the people he opressed, tortured and killed for 30 years loved him. After all, 100% of the iraqis voted for him last election.

[Dune]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
those guns sure helped them to liberate themselves from saddam, wait no. no they didnt.

The mere possession of a gun does not create a mindset.  It does not make one strive for freedom when every other person is willing to turn you over to the secret police.  Just as it doesn't make you a crazed killer.

I often wonder why guns are given credit for being able to control people's minds?  

[Frogm4n]

because they are an easy scapegoat. im a crazy liberal but i think people should be able to own a gun and if they are stupid enough to let their children play with them. NATURAL SELECTION!!!

[miko2d]

Hortlund: I would like to hear your analysis on how guns for everyone prevent crime

 How about just "reduces considerably" instead of "prevents".

 and how guns for everyone helps scare tyrants and invaders away.
...in light of the recent war in Iraq I mean...where something like 80% of the population had their own private AK-47.

 That's a great thing about owning a gun - you can choose whether to use it or not in defence of yourself.

 If you, Hortlund,  think that iraqi government was worth defending by population against mpossible odds, you brains must be addled.

 As for "scaring the tyrants", one man's tyrant is another one's inconvenience or lesser of few evils, etc. Apparently Hussein was pissing us off more than he was iraqis, if they did not use their guns to oust him.


Wlfgng: when does Iraq stand up for itself instead of tearing itself apart?
oh.. wait.. the US marines MADE them loot, pillage and plunder..

 Actually, it was SH regime that kept civil order". We broke it down, allowed the criminals to abuse the population while we watched - and now you are blaming the victims.

 miko

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Dowding
It still happened. How about the hospitals that were ransacked? They were full of wounded already and were short of supplies, before the looters got there.

The Coalition dropped a bollock. They should have had troops at every hospital, power-station, water-treatment plant and museum in the city. Afterall, they've since claimed that it is all part and parcel of regime change - they therefore should have expected it.

coalition set up own large hospitals and moved most severely wounded to these hospitals. easier to move hurt iraqi to hospital in easily defendable area you control than to try and secure prime target in not yet secured urban area. also some hospitals are being defended just not every hospital. why defend ten when you can use three for total coverage of wounded and defend those three? level of rioting and such is insanely low for population. also joint patrols beginning.

[lazs2]

as miko says... guns lower crime rates.. you will allways have crime.   The people of iraq are a perfect example of gun control just as hitlers regime was... both regimes kept guns out of the hands of the populace until the very last minute in desperate last ditch efforts to stay in power...  both regimes feared an armed populace.

lazs

[Wlfgng]

and now you are blaming the victims.

I'm not blaming the victims.. I'm blaming the perpetrators!

when does this country stand up and become responsible for itself?  soon I hope.

blaming the Americans is a joke and is unrealistic as hell.
who goes to war with the additional task of 'governing' the country while they are in battle?  gimme a break.

now that the major fighting is over yeah, the Americans have a respnosibility to get things in order, but during the heated battles while trying not to get killed they should also act as policemen?
uh  ok.. that's realistic      NOT