The right to bear arms - In Irag.

[Technosoul]

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?

[Praxius]

Are you missing your "Q" button? lol.

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?

Because not every democratic country needs it.

If they all have firearms, don't you think that would make things even more difficult for your troops? Then you'd have an even harder time filtering out who's bad and who's good.

Then you also have the majority of the population who want your troops out of there..... give them weapons and see what they decide to do?

I don't think it would improve the situation, that's for sure.

[Osborn F Enready]

The reason Saddam wasn't overthrown by his own people, is because the majority supported him.

They had access to cheap arms long before we came there in the 90's, or in this war. Now gun prices have skyrocketed, as the "liberators" disarmed the populace. Now crime is on the rise right along with it, since people can't protect themselves, and soldiers, police and government are no where to be found when needed.

Techno, your intro post shows a clear sign of "superiority" complex.

To think that people are not entitled an equal defense, is to equate them to slaves, inferior, and dependent. It is thinking like this from superpowers that has muddled third world politics since the division of 1st and 3rd world.

Prax, its clear that there is more violence now with a largely "disarmed" Iraq.

The reason there is violence is because people don't support the government, or the insurgents in any majority, and until one side is genocided away by the other, or a common ground is reached for which diplomacy (or the intrest in it) can make a difference, there really isn't much hope for change.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The reason Saddam wasn't overthrown by his own people, is because the majority supported him. They had access to cheap arms long before we came there in the 90's, or in this war. Now gun prices have skyrocketed, as the "liberators" disarmed the populace. Now crime is on the rise right along with it, since people can't protect themselves, and soldiers, police and government are no where to be found when needed. Techno, your intro post shows a clear sign of "superiority" complex. To think that people are not entitled an equal defense, is to equate them to slaves, inferior, and dependent. It is thinking like this from superpowers that has muddled third world politics since the division of 1st and 3rd world. Prax, its clear that there is more violence now with a largely "disarmed" Iraq. The reason there is violence is because people don't support the government, or the insurgents in any majority, and until one side is genocided away by the other, or a common ground is reached for which diplomacy (or the intrest in it) can make a difference, there really isn't much hope for change.

It is true that the population of Irag (and Afganistan for that matter) were well armed under Saddam and when he was President they all had the right to bear arms. But as we occupied the country we attempted to take away arms from people due to the unrest happening in the cities, along with the looting and raping incidents. Before the war Saddam warned President Bush that when our troops come to Bagdad that they would be fired at from behind every door and rooftop. In places like Afganistan and even thoughout Africa it is not uncommon to see people walking around with automatic weapons and they do not need "permits" to carry them in public.

See also my news story about gang conflicts in the L.A. area.

The post I presented was mostly me asking questions and to seek comments on some "what ifs". Not sure how you came up with the idea that I have a superiority complex? You need to let me know which remark I made gave you that impression.

You have contrasted two identity groups in a decomracy (country).

On one had you have everyday people who have many occupations and who are not in the business of defending our country or local areas from the crooks and "what have you".

Then you have those who our taxes have paid to be trained in proper use of arms and crime control. We pay our police and military to protect us and to bear our arms for us. I do not see how that made us the slaves (etc.) of those who serve us and our defense needs. Of course the police must act with authority as would our Coast Guard. But that does not mean that they are above us in status, as we got lawyers and many resources that can act for us if those powers of authority are abused.

We do not have to beat up a cop just because we wish to defend our self from getting a parking violation. And bearing a weapon would get us in deep water if the cop felt it was a threat.

However other threads are dealing with the topic of gun control so we should not make this "another one" of those debates.

Democarcy works if people trust and/or have confidence in how our leaders are managing things, and it the system offers a fair chance for most everyone to live above the poverty level.

Money is the main weapon that can enslave people, the worker at a fast food joint might feel he is a slave of his boss, but only because he knows he needs that next paycheck to pay the Landlord who also has the authority to make rules that restrict and enslave the behavor limitations of tenants.

Only in a socialistic system are superiority complexes eliminated because they do not have the ranking orders found in other idealologies. At least in theory if not in reality.

But in America if the police direct you to something you will react like a slave, it would not be a matter of taking a vote or open to debate. Even if you happen to have a garage full of guns you will follow orders ( or go to jail). That's Democracy as it now stands.

[Krazyjuice]

Quote by: Technosoul It is true that the population of Irag (and Afganistan for that matter) were well armed under Saddam and when he was President they all had the right to bear arms.

Did the Kurds have the right to bear arms?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Krazyjuice Did the Kurds have the right to bear arms?

Yes they did, no one had ever attempted to round up all the weapons owned by the Kruds and that is why they attempted to overpower Saddam and his government by shooting at his car. And why he put forth orders to stop that revolution spearheaded by the Kruds who were no doubt supplied with arms by Russia (USSR). The northen part of Irag has some good oil wells and Russia has sites on those resources and were willing to trade guns for oil.
A Kruds also had to defend their self from Turkey who wanted to "move in" on that area of Iraq, which did not get a lot of supervision from Saddam until they attempted to attack him personally. England who provided Irag with those biochemical weapons feared that the Kruds would give Russia an advantage in Iraq relative to the oil supply potentials.