Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on May 17, 2003, 12:14:05 PM
-
"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits."
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html)
-
"A well armed militia, being necesarry for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Iraq is not yet a secure, free state.
An armed populace is meant as a balance to a totalitarian regime, and the second amendment was written with the idea of a relatively law abiding populace in mind. It was not written amidst the chaos of anarchy.
Nice shallow argument though.
-
Now you're just being retarded, Pongo. But I appreciate that!
SOB
-
OK
there are two brainwashed idiots on record.
more?
We really should get everyone on record for when the US stops invading forign coutries for a while and these boards go back to thier usual fair of automons debating gun control.
The silly thing is...and even holding his head should get this.. most gun owners in the states insist they need guns because the goverment cant really protect them and if society crumbles they will need a gun to survive in the anarchy that follows.
Yet in Iraq. Where the US has gone in and created that very situation that is the fear of every member of the NRA the republican administration of the conquored state declares it an offence simply to own a gun.Where there is absolutly no protection of the individual by the state they are to arbitrarily make a criminal of a man who totaly needs a gun to defend his family and property.
Yet we all know..and have heard time and time again..all this will do is disarm the law abiding..yet where is the out cry against it by the brainwashed gun loving masses?
Line up o ye brainwashed masses. Be counted. Support your down troden breathern in your newly "liberated" colony of Iraq.
Many have been the american that has touted on this board that they were willing to die to bring the freedoms they enjoyed to the people of Iraq. Why then not this fundimental American freedom?This symbol of who is a free man and who is a subject.
Why deny the Iraqi shop keeper the means to defend his family from the very real and present threat they face and that the US Army admits they can do almost nothing about.
When you take your dead children to the police station in Baghdad they only give you a death certificate. There is no investigation at all.
The Iraqi people know better then any non Native and non slave American every has, what it is like to live under a despotic oppressive goverment. Yet you deny them the means to protect themselves against that very thing. And of course. the american "press" is quiet.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
OK
there are two brainwashed idiots on record.
more?
The silly thing is...and even holding his head should get this..
non Native and non slave American every has,
Excellent debating tactics. When eloquence escapes you, call people names.
And as I have Pima heritage, 'Non-native' does not apply to me, and I have not lived under an oppressive regime as a Native American.
Now: please list the historical precedant for a military operation not attempting to disarm the opposition, and when that opposition was hidden among the populace, disarming the populace.
I can list historical precedant for the US military leaving defeated countries better operating democracies than before the US military was involved, and those democracies choosing to deal with personal gun ownership for themselves.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
We really should get everyone on record for when the US stops invading forign coutries for a while and these boards go back to thier usual fair of automons debating gun control.
Pongo, normally, I wouldn't post anything that would be offensive to Canadians as a whole. And I still won't... In the past I've viewed you as somewhat intelligent.
But YOU are more brainwashed than you accuse others of being.
I suppose those people in Iraq would be happier being massacred by a brutal dictator than they would if they were "banned" from carrying weapons.
Your argument holds as much water as a seive, and your spewing forth of absolute nonesense has made me question your motives.
I see your post as nothing more than a ranting, aimed at your Anti-United States semtiments...
I'm disappointed :(
-
I'm a brainwashed idiot because I understand the folly of comparing apples to oranges?
Are you angry today Pongo? Perhaps you should take a stroll through the gardens or gaze out at the ocean for a while. It's really pretty relaxing.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I can list historical precedant for the US military leaving defeated countries better operating democracies than before the US military was involved, and those democracies choosing to deal with personal gun ownership for themselves.
None of these countries in the past reacted in the same way that the citizens of Iraq have done. There was no mass looting and lawlessness in Japan, for example.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
None of these countries in the past reacted in the same way that the citizens of Iraq have done. There was no mass looting and lawlessness in Japan, for example.
So what is your point? That because Iraqi's have rioted they should keep their guns????
-
The point is that one can't really compare Iraq to any other country where the U.S. successfully installed another form of government.
-
Possibly, time will tell.
-
I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that I own guns simply because I wanted to buy them.
I agree with you though Pongo, there's no reason to treat Iraq citizens like common Europeans.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
[B
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html) [/B]
According to Lazs more guns = less crime...So let them have their guns....
-
It's sad to see people so desperate to point out the difficulties in trying to overthrow a regime and install a new gov't that they liken the current state of affairs in the US to Iraq.
Completely different environments.
-
I disagree with this developement. All free iraqis should be able to defend themselves against lawlessness just as I can do here in the free state of Washington.
This is why I support the 2nd amendmant.
Bad developement. I hope the people restoring Iraq succeed.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I don't see what all that has to do with the fact that I own guns simply because I wanted to buy them.
I agree with you though Pongo, there's no reason to treat Iraq citizens like common Europeans.
nyuk nyuk nyuk :D
-
"""mass looting """... whats that ? when they rob churches?
-
Well holding. who insulted who. Shallow is an insult. As is retarded.
But make no mistake. You are brainwashed. Sorry if thats uncomortable for you.
No one denies that I accuratly represented the attitude of the gun lobby. No one denies that the worst fears of the gun lobby are what have been inflicted on the people of Iraq.
But to draw a parrallel between the two. ..that is crazy talk...
lol
your brain washed.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well holding. who insulted who. Shallow is an insult. As is retarded.
But make no mistake. You are brainwashed. Sorry if thats uncomortable for you.
No one denies that I accuratly represented the attitude of the gun lobby. No one denies that the worst fears of the gun lobby are what have been inflicted on the people of Iraq.
But to draw a parrallel between the two. ..that is crazy talk...
lol
your brain washed.
I said your argument was shallow. I made no reference to you. I said nothing about 'retarded'.
And it is 'You're', a conjunction of the two words 'you' and 'are', not 'your', a word with reference to possession.
And lastly, the name is Holden. (As the name is obviously a joke, it seems futile and redundant to try to make fun of it)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits."
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html)
Comedy Gold™
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well holding. who insulted who. Shallow is an insult. As is retarded.
But make no mistake. You are brainwashed. Sorry if thats uncomortable for you.
No one denies that I accuratly represented the attitude of the gun lobby. No one denies that the worst fears of the gun lobby are what have been inflicted on the people of Iraq.
But to draw a parrallel between the two. ..that is crazy talk...
lol
your brain washed.
Actually, I was praising your retarded diatribe, not trying to insult you. And there was really no need to pick apart the points in your post, as it pretty much fell apart on it's own accord. I still think the retardosity™ of it is outstanding and it still makes me smile. I am sorry if being associated with such a post makes you feel uneasy. Just pretend you were joking and we can all have a good laugh together. Maybe carry on with conspriacy theories about 9/11 or talk about how all Democrats or all Republicans are all idiots because of the party they belong to. We could make an evening of it!
SOB
-
The story I read was that each household could keep one rifle. But you could not carry them in the streets.
-
Nice work. about the quality of "men have a noodle, girls have a vagina".
poor idiots.
-
retardosity™
That'll be 5 bucks, Sorry Old Biyatch.
[SIZE=10]™[/SIZE]™
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"men have a noodle, girls have a vagina".
It's true!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
That'll be 5 bucks, Sorry Old Biyatch.
[SIZE=10]™[/SIZE]™
Can I pay ya in Canuck Bucks?
-
(http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/rofl.jpg)
:eek: :confused: :p :rolleyes: :D
-
And now the circle is complete!
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits."
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html)
Hey Pogo help me out with somthing.... If you hate America and Americans this much, why are you here? This game was created and is run by Americans. So why not take your protests to the next level. Why dont you quit the game and the BBs. That way you wouldnt be helping the ppl you hate so much.
ohh and btw I really wish our trees were as good as yours, then we would have somthing to bragg about too. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Where the US has gone in and created that very situation that is the fear of every member of the NRA ....
And that is the fallacy in your argument. The US did not create the situation, Saddam and the Baath party did.
While it is clear that the second amendment was written with the intent that a citizen militia would take the place of a standing army, the crux of the NRA's argument (and it may interest you that I am not a member) is that the second amendment protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. The theory is that a totalitarian regime cannot take a foothold in a society with an armed populace, which values its freedom. Because that cannot happen anarchy is prevented.
Iraq had a totalitarian regime based upon fear of the citizenry, already in power.
Please notice, Pongo, that I expressed my view without calling anyone an idiot or brainwashed, and as I am an optimist and have great hope that you can elucidate your argument coherently, without resort to sophomoric tactics….
Humbly submitted,
Holden
PS you're a stupid head:p
-
I am trying to keep up with this..
Then the second amendment is to protect the rights of someone who might be oppressed in the future.not the rights of someone who was oppressed in the recent past and is in danger of thier lives in the present from armed thugs..
Holden. Your being polite I suppose. But you are babbleing. What you are saying makes no sense vs the fact that the US goverment is denying the right of an Iraqi citizen in the new free Iraq to defend himself and his family.
It doesnt make any sence anyway. If society must be armed to guerrenty its other inalliable rights..how can they be established if the country isnt armed. Logically your own statements dont make sence. Even in the absence of the violence currently rampant in Iraq.
The two postitions are ireconcialable. Talk arround it all you like. It really does just make you sound brain washed.
Empty gun
count the lies..imagine he read this speach today instead of when he was begging for war. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
-
Iraq, at present, is an occupied country in an immediate post-war phase. It's a war they clearly lost.
Let's see what the rules are when they have their own government established and the occupation troops are withdrawn.
I'm willing to wager the US will not "make policy" on gun control for them after they have a government and our troops are out of the country.
-
Pongo makes about as much sense as a brain-washed idiot could hope to.
-
he is fightin several dogma zombies at once. and winning give credit where credit is due.
the fact that he has a point and is correct notwithstanding.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
It's difficult to understand how you can decide what "Democracy in Iraq means" when they haven't yet set up a post war government.
Since there is NO government or real law enforcement set up yet,thugs are basically looting, carjacking, etc at will.
Unless the US makes this a permanent ban(which it won't,it will let the new Iraq government decide)your argument has little,if any merit.
-
The US doesn't want free flowing guns because it is an occupying power, how is that irreconcilable? It would seem to underline the NRA's point that you need to at least partially disarm a country to occupy it, would it not? It certainly doesn't contradict it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And lastly, the name is Holden. (As the name is obviously a joke, it seems futile and redundant to try to make fun of it)
That's not your real name?
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits."
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html)
Anyone who would attempt to compare Iraq in it's current state to that of the United States should have their account closed permenantly.
Does feeling that critical of the US really feel that good?
-
What a joke.
Does it feel that good?
To what? to point out that the second ammedment was written at a time when the US was alot different that it is now and that it was intended to stand no matter what state the US is in and that in fact is the whole point of it?
What a desperate jab that was Rude. pathetic. Does it feel so bad to hear unrefutable evidence of hypocrosy by your country?
And the republican mantra that free men have guns and the the iraqis we just freed cannot have them.
Open your eyes slaves. The comparison is relevent irrefuteable and honest. How can you live in the land of the free and deny yourselves free discussion and interpretation of the actions of your regime? Why is it hatefull to do so? If you marginalize free discussion by calling it hatefull how can there be free discussion?
Quick lesson. Its not normally considered hatefull to despise war.
Its not normaly considered hateful to read the news and corralate events.
Its not normally considered hateful to demand an account of thier actions from military aggressors.
The only "hate" here is pooring back at me for bringing the actions of your goverment to your poor unseeing eyes.
-
Pongo really on a roll.
GO PONGO GO!!!!!!
-
I've added Pongo to my buddy list.
-
I hate to tell you, but the basis for your whole diatribe is false. The US is not forbiding Iraqis from keeping firearms.
From a Knight-Ridder Newspaper in Florida (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/special_packages/iraq/5849550.htm)
U.S. Army Col. Joe Anderson, the brigade commander in charge of U.S. forces in the city, said American control of Iraq has not ended the right to own weapons.
"We told them if you have them at home, you can keep them. It's a protection issue," he said.
However, Anderson said that the freedom to sell weapons extends only to licensed gun shops. He said American patrols bust one or two open-air gun markets a day, arresting sellers and confiscating their weapons.
Oh, and btw, you're knowledge of the 2nd Amendment, what it meant then and now is full of crap too.
Anti-gun slave.
-
oh no......pongo no roll now?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
None of these countries in the past reacted in the same way that the citizens of Iraq have done. There was no mass looting and lawlessness in Japan, for example.
Yep, we left the emperor in place in Japan, instead of targeting him with big nasty bombs. And, if memory serves me, Hitler did the dis-arming for us in Germany. Talk about apples and oranges!
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits."
LOL
Democrocy in Iraq evidently means a different thing than it means in America. Isnt a well armed populace a cornerstone of American Democracy?
story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956711,00.html)
Ya dang Cannuck, don't ya know we are there to give them their freedom! We freed a bunch from the day to day tasks of breathing and pumping blood and all. Now we're giving them the freedom to give up their arms (for their own good, don't ya know!) Soon we'll "let" them elect their own government! Well, other than not that party over there or that religious group down the block or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
You should wait until a guy is dead before you take his A2 Flight Jacket. Ya M'rons.
And just being Canadian doesnt give you an automatic pass on the idiot test. I know a few who are right down the line decent Americans.
-
we are letting the iraqis own and bear fully automatic (gasp) assault rifles in fact... I bet we let them keep rocket propelled grenades. we put less restrictions on them than I have to live under in California. Bet they don't even have a waiting period to buy a gun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we put less restrictions on them than I have to live under in California.
I spent some time in CA over the last few years (a client in Burbank who was clueless). Of all the people I met and associated with there none ever claimed to be forced to stay. They all stayed of their own free will. If no one's holding a gun to yer head, just leave. But don't come to Colorado. We been Californicated enough!!
-
Well, there goes the last shreds of Pongo's tattered argument.
U.S. Army Col. Joe Anderson, the brigade commander in charge of U.S. forces in the city, said American control of Iraq has not ended the right to own weapons.
"We told them if you have them at home, you can keep them. It's a protection issue," he said.
However, Anderson said that the freedom to sell weapons extends only to licensed gun shops. He said American patrols bust one or two open-air gun markets a day, arresting sellers and confiscating their weapons.
Looks like it's actually looser in Iraq than it is here in the USA under the 2nd. Fully auto weapons without a Class III license!
:D
-
Pongo's argument was never valid in the first place...
Iraq is an occupied country right now with a foreign military presence. After a democratic government is set up, it will be none of our concern whether Iraqis are allowed to have guns or not. Nor will the "evil" United States attempt to regulate this matter. That will be a decision THEY will make for themselves. I am also certain that they will decide the general Iraqi public will be able to possess firearms.
Pongo just needs to search for yet another subject to spread his anti-United States sentiments. This one holds no water at all.
-
GrimCO: But YOU are more brainwashed than you accuse others of being.
I suppose those people in Iraq would be happier being massacred by a brutal dictator than they would if they were "banned" from carrying weapons.
Speaking of brainwashed, why don't you use your brains and explain to us, how that dictator could have been so brutal and oppressive and massacring everybody if his population was armed.
And what kind of oppression is that when the population is allowed to own full-auto weapons and be free to travel abroad. Pretty lousy oppression, or at least a half-hearted one.
I may not be getting my education and opinions from a talking head on the boob-tube like you but I do know a few things about the opression and the people of Iraq do not seem to have been living in that much fear of being massacred.
miko
-
Ever been to Iraq miko?
-
3,000 bodies exhumed at central Iraqi mass grave, officials say (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030514/w051416.html)
But Peter Bouckaert, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, criticized the U.S.-led administration in Iraq for not sending any forensic experts to Hillah and for allowing local people to excavate the graves.
"The way they're doing it is, they are destroying evidence," Bouckaert said at the scene Wednesday. "It's an absolutely shameful failure on the part of the U.S. government."
He said at least 200,000 people had disappeared in Iraq during the past decade, and that human rights groups knew the locations of many other mass grave sites throughout the country.
-
Do a search on Peter Bouckaert and see what he is all about.
He's the guy that said there was "growing evidence" of a masacre in Jenin.
The BBC seems to love the guy.
-
Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that if "people of Iraq do not seem to have been living in that much fear of being massacred"
it may well be because they've SEEN their countrymen massacred and learned how to avoid a mass death sentence from the regime.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I may not be getting my education and opinions from a talking head on the boob-tube like you but I do know a few things about the opression and the people of Iraq do not seem to have been living in that much fear of being massacred.
Now THIS comment is the most ridiculous I've seen so far...
Hands down.
-
arfan... I merely stated that I would like to have the same weapons restrictions as iraq here in California... It would be the same if I lived in colorado... I will stay in california untill I retire probly... real estate values will continue to increase because... well... it doesn't snow here and we have an ocean... I will retire and sell my house... I will probly then move to someplace warm or simply buy your town with the profit and level it. It would still be cold and useless but at least it wouldn't be touristy.
lazs
-
Yeager: Ever been to Iraq miko?
Were you?
Toad: 3,000 bodies exhumed at central Iraqi mass grave, officials say
Imagine that after Pearl Harbor in 1941 Japanese did manage to defeat US fleets, kick US out of "conquered" territories, like Hawaii and Philipinnes, bombed the heck out of US infrastructure and amassed huge armies at the borders.
What would happen if during that time of war tens of thousands of some "oppressed" group of US population - like blacks or southern confederates or communists - rose up in armed revolt in cooperation with Japanese against the US government?
GrimCO: Now THIS comment is the most ridiculous I've seen so far...
So it should be easy for you to address it, right?
Seriously, one of the ways government opresses people is preventing them from owning arms - in order to perpetrate further oppression with impunity.
Could it be Hussein's regime did not feel the need to disarm iraqis because it was not that much opposed by population as you believe? Could it be it did not have enough oppressive power to disarm the population even if it wanted to?
Or was Hussein such a genius as to discover a way to intolerably oppress and even massacre the armed population? That would be a first.
miko
-
Pongo,
Last time I checked the Iraqi government did not sign on to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, their citizens would not be protected by the amendements therein. If you would like legal cites which clarify this position (that foriegn citizens, like yourself, are not protected under the U.S. Constitution) please let me know I would be happy to post them.
I appreciate your point about letting the Iraqi's have the freedoms we (U.S. citizens) enjoy in the U.S., but right know they are technically a military protectorate of the U.S. (citations omitted) with a civillian administrator. When the time comes for the Iraqis to decide their own fate, than they shall have to determine if the right to bear arms is to be part of that. Until then, however the U.S. decides how best to administer Iraq, a fortiori, such administration does not have to conform to the rights and limitations imposed on the U.S. government when administering or governing its own citizens. See Supra.
jeezy
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So it should be easy for you to address it, right?
Seriously, one of the ways government opresses people is preventing them from owning arms - in order to perpetrate further oppression with impunity.
Could it be Hussein's regime did not feel the need to disarm iraqis because it was not that much opposed by population as you believe? Could it be it did not have enough oppressive power to disarm the population even if it wanted to?
Or was Hussein such a genius as to discover a way to intolerably oppress and even massacre the armed population? That would be a first.
It doesn't take a genius to control a populace armed with rifles. All it takes is a strong military and a ruthless dispensing of it's superior power.
Ask the armed Kurds and Shiites who decided to "rise up" against an oppressive regime in Iraq. You'll have a tough time asking them because the majority are now dead, and yet they were armed. The ability of citizens to possess guns in no way prevents a totalitarian dictatorship from controlling the populace with it's military.
Saying a bunch of people carrying rifles can intimidate, much less overwhelm a military with chemical weapons, artillery and tanks and the will to use them is ridiculous.
Do you have some kind of mysterious plan that could accomplish this feat? If so, tell the Palestinians about it. Perhaps they'll quit strapping bombs to their chests in desperation and defeat the Isreali army with their rifles.
-
not saying you can't opress or even control an armed population but.... it is a pain in the butt. The sadman ended up out of power over it. The very people he left armed rose up and helped the invaders. OTOH... the "militia" caused us "invaders" more grief than his own army. Not exactly a country with a common cause or even... 2 or 3 common causes. So now we effectively want to dissarm any "militia"...
lazs
-
GrimCO: It doesn't take a genius to control a populace armed with rifles. All it takes is a strong military and a ruthless dispensing of it's superior power.
So Hussein's military - mostly consisting of shi'ites, by the way - was strong enough to control them but our army is not?
Ask the armed Kurds and Shiites who decided to "rise up" against an oppressive regime in Iraq.
Ask southern confederates who's revolt was bloodily defeated or indian tribes that were exterminated. Or the slaves in america pre-1865. They were all oppressed, right?
Neither oppression was possible without support of the majority of the population for the government. And if the majority of the population supports the government enough to fight for it or keep otehr groups in check, that majority could not feel that much oppressed.
The ability of citizens to possess guns in no way prevents a totalitarian dictatorship from controlling the populace with it's military.
Not true. USA won its freedom with guns. Afghanistan held off russians. If the population cares to fight - when it feels oppressed enough and has arms, it does.
Saying a bunch of people carrying rifles can intimidate, much less overwhelm a military with chemical weapons, artillery and tanks and the will to use them is ridiculous.
Who do you think served in the iraqi army? Foreign mercenaries? most of the army were actually shia - the supposedely oppressed majority.
And as I've said before - which you've ignored - how would you deal with people who rose in armed revolt against the US government during the time of war in cooperation with the enemy?
If so, tell the Palestinians about it. Perhaps they'll quit strapping bombs to their chests in desperation and defeat the Isreali army with their rifles.
First, they are doing quite well.
Second, they are not that well armed and most of them do not feel that much oppressed as to risk their lives fighting israelis. If they were well-armed, they might have chosen to throw out Arafat and the rest of the militants who provoke the violence, which is one reason that PA is in no particular hurry to arm them and the militants can execute unarmed people accused in collaboration with Israelis - often rightly so. Being unarmed, they can not fight and can only collaborate with israelis to put an end to the violence.
Palestinians have things to live for - in fact their population grows faster than israelis and they will have won without any fight in a generation or two. They realise that. It's only some political groups that want to achieve their private goals now and are not interested in prosperity, let alone democracy for all palestinians, who provoke the violence. But who said the militants were acting in the palestinian interests?
BTW, israelis with rifles did very well in 1947 against several arab armies. So did jews in Warsaw ghetto and desperate armed people in other places. Shamil kept off the russian empire from Chechya for decades 150 years ago.
Anyway, I can give you many reasons why people who are oppressed would choose not to fight.
It's you who made an assertion that armed population that was being "massacred" would choose not to fight. Why not? What did they get to lose?
Oppression is exibited in specific things - like limiting the right to bear arms, to own property, to travel abroad, to vote, to work, to run businesses. If you ignore them and state that you can have oppression despite them, you could as well accuse USA of oppression greater than Hussein's.
Sure, we have (limited) right to bear arms, free press, (limited) free market and voting BUT if some kurds or shia muslims - we certainly have them here - or russian immigrants or blacks or chinese were to rise with arms against the government - or just passively oppose it (like Branch Davidians) - they would have certainly got slaughtered. Does it mean that we are intolerably oppressed?
If oppression is not based on actual acts, what the heck is it? Just a label?
Sure, Hussein jailed and killed some people in iraq that did not mind their own business and dared to interfere in areas of politics that were out of limits.
Every country has such boundaries. Try to grow a certain plant on your back yard and you will quickly join 25% of world's prison inmates that are currently spend time in our jails. Owning gold after 1933 and before 1975 would have landed you in jail too.
How many people jailed for such offences died in prison from various causes over the course of last 20 years? Maybe more than were killed in Iraq's prisons by Hussein's political machine.
Is that oppression that we have here? Many people think so. Is it bad enough that they are ready to raise in arms? Not really.
I am not saying that Hussein was not oppressive. Just that he was not nearly oppressive enough for the population to dispose of him, despite having means of doing so. In fact, many iraqis said - including to me personally - that SH was a cruel SOB, but that such qualities were necessary to keep the country from civil war or from fall into religious totalitarism.
If Hussein did not supress some kurds, they would have been slaughtered by turks that would never permit independent Kurdistan. How many kurds did SH kill? Few thousand? Turks killed almost 2 million armenians and plenty of kurds over the last 100 years.
If SH allowed shia to take power in Iraq or even to form a separate state, instead of killing the most radical and militant religious fundamentalists of them (who do you think they were, those people in mass graves, pro-american free-market democrats?), they would have established a pro-Iranian sharia-based theocracy.
Are you so sure that majority of shia or kurds or iraqi sunni wanted that outcome? Could there have beem many kurds and shia that though "good riddance" to those dead religious zealots?
miko
-
arrgg.. go fishing and everything falls appart.
I linked to the story guys. if its incorrect. Its incorrect.
I was going to go to Iraq to investigate like you guys do but I went fly fishing instead.
But If the story is true..I stand behind my point. If you have to pull out constitutional law to make a counter point then you have lost the point. Free men have guns. Thats not my opinion that is the oft declared opionion of lots of gun nuts on this board. Well you freed em..but the first law enacted in the new free Iraq denied guns to the population. Or so the article said.
On a side note. Lots of press today about SH being free in iraq and renaming the bath party(shower party?) and using riots and anarchy to strike at the US. Guess we will have to really crack down on that rioting.
Anyway. Guess Ill have to go else where for my dose of america hating..lol
-
Originally posted by miko2d
GrimCO: It doesn't take a genius to control a populace armed with rifles. All it takes is a strong military and a ruthless dispensing of it's superior power.
So Hussein's military - mostly consisting of shi'ites, by the way - was strong enough to control them but our army is not?
miko
You fail to realize the difference in our control and Hussein's.Here you go anyways,although I suspect I am wasting my time.
We are supposed to be a liberating force-not one that "controls them" by killing them off.
I guess we could "control them" by gassing them though like Hussein did though,right?
The U.S. is using restraint,where as the Hussein regime would not.
Can't you see that the populace that is looting and worse realizes this and is taking advantage??That we(the U.S.) do not want to kill them?
You made a comparison to the U.S. revolutionary war which has no basis here.
England didn't want to kill us off-they simply wanted to keep us as a colony that paid taxes,etc.At the same time,we had NO DESIRE to overthrow their government-we just wanted independance.
Hussein showed a ruthlessness to any who opposed him that England would never have done to us.
And the general populace had the means to overthrow Hussein?Then why did he make available all the weapons caches he did to the Iraqi people(hoping they would fight the U.S. with them)if they already possessed these weapons?
I'm not saying no one in the general public had weapons,but I'll bet many more did after the weapon cache's were opened than before.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
If you have to pull out constitutional law to make a counter point then you have lost the point. Free men have guns. Thats not my opinion that is the oft declared opionion of lots of gun nuts on this board. Well you freed em..but the first law enacted in the new free Iraq denied guns to the population. Or so the article said.
In response, the question you framed is one of the nexus between international law and U.S. Constitutional law. Now, it seems, you have switched your point to one of natural rights of free men. Two seperate issues with completely different answers. I believe I answered the Constitutional law question adequetly--seeing that you do not dispute my point. Now for the natural rights question. The fredom to bear arms in the U.S. is not based on natural rights; rather it is a codification of the common law which has its roots in early anglo-american traditions. This is displayed by the common law limitations to the right itslef, e.g. the fact that a convicted felon is precluded from owning a firearm. If it were a natural right than all free men would have that right; regardless of their status (felon or non-felon). It is very difficult to find a "natural right" within our system of laws (arguably due process is a natural right we enjoy). Thus, if a "gun nut" claims that they have a natural right to keep and bear arms as a free man, than they are ignorant of the exogenisis of their right. Therefore, again, if the Iraqi's want to codify a right to bear arms within their system they will have that right. But, before that they have to have a means by which to write and excecute the law, a structure that does not exist in Iraq today.
It is mis-nomber to say the U.S. has "passed a law" to deny the population weapons, because an administrator of a military protectorate cannot pass laws (citations ommited). What they do instead is to direct the military to stabilize and hold the land that was taken--if that means disarming the population than so be it. However if the military or the administrator did begin to violate the natural rights, whatever they may be, than you would have an issue to critize the U.S. and its administrator. A better argument would be that the Iraqi's were not given due process of law before their property was taken--be it oil or guns.
jEEZY
-
My point was merely that a person's ability to own a firearm or not in Iraq was not an indicator of whether he was oppressed or not.
Just because someone is allowed to own a rifle does not free him from an oppressive government. And Hussein was definitely oppressive.
-
Sox62: You fail to realize the difference in our control and Hussein's.
No. I fail to see much difference so far. Military control, no democracy, considerable number of people are excluded from political process, etc.
We are supposed to be a liberating force-not one that "controls them" by killing them off.
I guess we could "control them" by gassing them though like Hussein did though,right?
There is a whole range of options between gassing the whole area and ignoring armed criminals committing crimes.
How about if we do not gass the whole area and do not ignore but try to arrest the armed criminals?
Restraint is nice and the population must appreciate that we stopped bombing them indiscriminately but why should we exercise restraint regarding the criminals?
Also, I do not see much restraint in attempting to disarm the population. It's not as bad an oppression as gassing them but most things are not as bad as gassing, so I would hesitate to use your excuse of gratiously not gassing them to justify any action of our government.
And the general populace had the means to overthrow Hussein? Then why did he make available all the weapons caches he did to the Iraqi people(hoping they would fight the U.S. with them) if they already possessed these weapons?
Exactly - they had the means or the ability to aquire those means, which meant they did not intend to overthrow Hussein.
The iraqi general population had the ability to aquire those weapons. A aparently not all of them felt the need to actually posess them - since they apparently did not feel the urge to overthrow the regime or defend themselves from the regime or from criminals.
Despite having right to bear arms, only 80 million of americans are actually armed and even fewer own combat rifles. In case of an invasion quite a few people may need to be armed from government caches. That does not mean we are oppressed in that respect or would want to overthrow the government if we had more weapons on hands.
That $800 in your pocket is as good as the brand-new AR-15 or M1A in the store's window - provided there is a store that can sell you the weapons and you have a right to buy it. Same with iraqis.
GrimCO: My point was merely that a person's ability to own a firearm or not in Iraq was not an indicator of whether he was oppressed or not.
Just because someone is allowed to own a rifle does not free him from an oppressive government. And Hussein was definitely oppressive.
True. But any government is oppressive. Majority votes, you disagree - and uniformed people with guns will show up on your door to explain how wrong your were. We are talking about how oppressive Hussein was. Apparenlty not so oppressive that population able to arm itself cared to topple him.
miko
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arfan... I merely stated that I would like to have the same weapons restrictions as iraq here in California... It would be the same if I lived in colorado... I will stay in california untill I retire probly... real estate values will continue to increase because... well... it doesn't snow here and we have an ocean... I will retire and sell my house... I will probly then move to someplace warm or simply buy your town with the profit and level it. It would still be cold and useless but at least it wouldn't be touristy.
lazs
Oh please don't level my little town! Oh well, go ahead. May as well start with my backyard. That would be Cheyenne Mountain and Pike's Peak. Tell Norad I said it was ok.
-
Miko: True. But any government is oppressive. Majority votes, you disagree - and uniformed people with guns will show up on your door to explain how wrong your were. We are talking about how oppressive Hussein was. Apparenlty not so oppressive that population able to arm itself cared to topple him.
In Iraq, uniformed people with guns will show up on your doorstep, put a pistol to the back of your head, and pull the trigger with little or no explaining at all. Or perhaps make an example of a family member by doing the same thing to them.
Oppression is accomplished not only with force, but through fear and intimidation as well. In Hussein's first week after taking over leadership of Iraq, he called a meeting of all the government's higher ups. An "informant" named 11 people who did not agree with his being in power, and they were taken out of the meeting and executed while Hussein was sitting there smiling and smoking a cigar. How many people in the Iraqi government do you think said they disagreed with his being in power after that?
That is oppression. And the list goes on.
We can argue this point till we're both blue in the face, but trying to draw a comparision between how we're oppressed in the United States due to a majority vote making the rules, and a dictator who's word is the law is stretching it beyond the bounds of good taste.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will stay in california untill I retire probly... real estate values will continue to increase because... well... it doesn't snow here and we have an ocean... I will retire and sell my house... I will probly then move to someplace warm or simply buy your town with the profit and level it. lazs
LOL! :D
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
In response, the question you framed is one of the nexus between international law and U.S. Constitutional law. Now, it seems, you have switched your point to one of natural rights of free men. Two seperate issues with completely different answers. I believe I answered the Constitutional law question adequetly--seeing that you do not dispute my point. Now for the natural rights question. The fredom to bear arms in the U.S. is not based on natural rights; rather it is a codification of the common law which has its roots in early anglo-american traditions. This is displayed by the common law limitations to the right itslef, e.g. the fact that a convicted felon is precluded from owning a firearm. If it were a natural right than all free men would have that right; regardless of their status (felon or non-felon). It is very difficult to find a "natural right" within our system of laws (arguably due process is a natural right we enjoy). Thus, if a "gun nut" claims that they have a natural right to keep and bear arms as a free man, than they are ignorant of the exogenisis of their right. Therefore, again, if the Iraqi's want to codify a right to bear arms within their system they will have that right. But, before that they have to have a means by which to write and excecute the law, a structure that does not exist in Iraq today.
It is mis-nomber to say the U.S. has "passed a law" to deny the population weapons, because an administrator of a military protectorate cannot pass laws (citations ommited). What they do instead is to direct the military to stabilize and hold the land that was taken--if that means disarming the population than so be it. However if the military or the administrator did begin to violate the natural rights, whatever they may be, than you would have an issue to critize the U.S. and its administrator. A better argument would be that the Iraqi's were not given due process of law before their property was taken--be it oil or guns.
jEEZY
I make no such anything. If the same US people did what I said and they insist on the right to bare arms in a free society they are hypocites. As to the rest of your bable. i didnt read it.
I am sure it is very good. Nothing like having a lawyer or a lawyer wanabe here to make himself look stupid denying the obvios.
-
Interesting that those who disagree with you are babbling brainwashed individuals with no valid points whatsoever and your views are unassailable.
-
You just learn to spot the people on crack after a while. Its not worth discussing it with them. Technicalities are worthless in this instance.
I wanted to see toads take on this one. As he has always been the only guy that could explain this gun love thing to me in a way that I could aggree with or value. Most of the rest of you just believe it like you believe in god and George Bush Jr..no use discussing it with you.
-
Especially when the basis for the thread is an article that has no foundation in fact.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You just learn to spot the people on crack after a while. Its not worth discussing it with them. Technicalities are worthless in this instance.
I wanted to see toads take on this one. As he has always been the only guy that could explain this gun love thing to me in a way that I could aggree with or value. Most of the rest of you just believe it like you believe in god and George Bush Jr..no use discussing it with you.
lol Pongo, you "learn to spot" people on crack as well as those that "believe" in Bush or God, yet you post trying to make a point based on your faith in an untrue article posted on the internet.
Who's on crack again?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Especially when the basis for the thread is an article that has no foundation in fact.
Don't confuse him with facts...
Many good arguments to the Pongo contrary have been made with no avail.
-
Ok... so who here thinks they can wander around downtown (anycity USA) with an AK-47 ... or an RPG and not get arrested?
Ok.. now who here doesn't think hundreds of foks wandering around most towns, usually belonging to one "tribe" or another and willing to blow away anyone from the "other tribe" wouldn't lead to complete banning of weapons in the U.S. at some point?
.... good grief Pongo.
-
let them have there guns, its not like the un has done them any favors. why should they start now
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You just learn to spot the people on crack after a while. Its not worth discussing it with them. Technicalities are worthless in this instance.
Heh, funny you should mention that...
SOB
-
one visual clue to who is on crack is that they tend to be leaning way over to the left. If you bother to listen to em you will note also that they have a tendency to find "proof" of their paranoia from dusty little corners of the internet... if they use legit sources they will most likely be misquoting or taking out of context... they can't follow anything past "proof" they are right.
They will also be gun nuts... they will be nuts when it comes to guns.. they will know nothing about guns but still have a neurotic obsession with anything gun related.. an unreasonable fear based on.... nothing that they can put their finger on... they just "feel", they are....... nutty... gun nuts.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Especially when the basis for the thread is an article that has no foundation in fact.
You mean like the weapons of mass destuction charge the war was based on?
But no matter.
How is that relevent for the detection of brainwashing? They believed it true and still made thier silly "not a valid comparison" arguments.
-
not a valid comparisson is relevant... as is.... not a factual article. You can't compare iraq with the U.S. it is even less like us than say canada. I certainly wouldn't want the french speakers to have guns if we liberated canada.
lazs
-
C'mon Pongo. You've always been one of the more intelligent and well grounded posters in the O-Club. What the heck happened.
There's no discussing the link you posted because it isn't true.
Shall we discuss the abberant sex habits of Canadians if I can find an article somewhere that says every single male Canadian keeps a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig in a dog crate in his bedroom for use as a nightly sex slave?
BS is BS and your "source" was pure BS. There's no discussing that rationally.
The facts are that Iraq has just been militarily vanquished, there is an occupying army in place that has to provide security for it's own troops as well as the local populace. After WW2, the allied powers didn't allow the common citizens of the occupied countries to roam around openly with smg's and panzerfausts.
Further, the citizenry HAS been allowed to keep fully automatic weapons like AK-47's in their possession. They've just been told to keep them at home. Think on this.. occupying army, citizenry walking around in bands with AK's after Saddam Fedayeen dressed in civilian clothes have recently been in combat with Coalition troops.
Surely you can see the reason to keep the guns at home.
And, overall, the point is THEY STILL HAVE THEIR AK'S!
Even in the US, you can't have fully auto weapons without special background checks and investigations.
So what is there to discuss here? They have more rights than we do under the 2nd.