Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - The right to bear arms

Technosoul · Jan 17, 2007, 11:37 pm

With all the insurgents and combatants running around it has become self evident that Irag is not ready to have the right to bear arms, but that is a core belief in our democarcy (Republic?). And many get their arms from Iran according to Bush's sources of factual information.

To become a true Democratic country should the people there not have the right to bear arms? If it is good enough for us why not them? And so what is wrong with them getting them from Iran if they cannot buy them from us or England? And what would prevent a greedy arms dealer from crossing in from Kuwait with his wears to meed the demand? Why just from a country Bush does not like? Arms dealers are not motivated by politics, but seek out locations where business might be good. Selling arms is a capitalistic adventure not a politcal one.

But blaming Iran for maintaining the supply of arms for insurrents or terrorists does move the weight of not winning the war off of Bush's back.

The President is trying hard to link Iran with the problems being confronted in Irag. That brings up a bigger question. If the Democrats cause us to pull out of Irag with our troops and IF Iran offered to help Irag relative to reconstruction and IF they helped them to manage the massive oil resources, then what? Would we be forced to got to war with Iran so they would not become a economically rich monster that has merged with Irag as a international marketeer?

Together Irag with it resources and Iran with it's nuclear knowledge could team up as a superpower and that means they would have a big say so at the United Nations and elsewhere.

And if those merged countries wanted to give welfare aid to the Palistinians then Isreal would be in "hot water" and that would upset Washington also.

We could see a sweeping new landscape of power and influence in the middle east that could turn the tides of dominance. An unexpected "new world order" being effected by Iran.

Have the Democrats really looked far enough into the future to account for all the potentials that our current crossroads suggest?

Jan 17, 2007, 11:37 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	The right to bear arms - In Irag. With all the insurgents and combatants running around it has become self evident that Irag is not ready to have the right to bear arms, but that is a core belief in our democarcy (Republic?). And many get their arms from Iran according to Bush's sources of factual information. To become a true Democratic country should the people there not have the right to bear arms? If it is good enough for us why not them? And so what is wrong with them getting them from Iran if they cannot buy them from us or England? And what would prevent a greedy arms dealer from crossing in from Kuwait with his wears to meed the demand? Why just from a country Bush does not like? Arms dealers are not motivated by politics, but seek out locations where business might be good. Selling arms is a capitalistic adventure not a politcal one. But blaming Iran for maintaining the supply of arms for insurrents or terrorists does move the weight of not winning the war off of Bush's back. The President is trying hard to link Iran with the problems being confronted in Irag. That brings up a bigger question. If the Democrats cause us to pull out of Irag with our troops and IF Iran offered to help Irag relative to reconstruction and IF they helped them to manage the massive oil resources, then what? Would we be forced to got to war with Iran so they would not become a economically rich monster that has merged with Irag as a international marketeer? Together Irag with it resources and Iran with it's nuclear knowledge could team up as a superpower and that means they would have a big say so at the United Nations and elsewhere. And if those merged countries wanted to give welfare aid to the Palistinians then Isreal would be in "hot water" and that would upset Washington also. We could see a sweeping new landscape of power and influence in the middle east that could turn the tides of dominance. An unexpected "new world order" being effected by Iran. Have the Democrats really looked far enough into the future to account for all the potentials that our current crossroads suggest?