liberating or conquering Iraq?


PDA






ksnecktieman
October 29, 2004, 01:35 AM
If we are liberating Iraq, why are we disarming the civilians?

If, as some say, the Iraqi people want us there, why do we not allow them to possess, or provide them with arms. I understand we are fighting terrorists there. I understand that if someone shoots at our soldiers, he is an enemy. If our soldiers are attacked, we have air and artillery support to devastate the area the attacker is in. If we announce that we value our soldiers lives more than the Iraqi civilians that are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and our response is going to be "Scorched Earth" devastation when attacked. And we allow civilian ownership of military weapons, where will the "insurgents" "terrorists", "religious jihadists" and suicide bombers hide from their fellow countrymen? EVEN the most manly of our supporters can not be expected to stand against the evil ones without arms.

If we can not arm the civil population and have them support us,,,,,, we are conquerors, not liberators. If we do not arm them, we can not ask them to support us.

We are fighting a war against people that will behead captives on camera, and we are allowing the press to call us evil because we shame some prisoners we have captured?

If you enjoyed reading about "liberating or conquering Iraq?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebar
October 29, 2004, 01:37 AM
If, as some say, the Iraqi people want us there, why do we not allow them to possess, or provide them with arms.
From what I understand, we are allowing Iraqi familys to keep one rifle for each adult male, for self protection.

Michigander
October 29, 2004, 03:06 AM
And we are arming and training police and military as well. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Ezekiel
October 29, 2004, 03:19 AM
If we are liberating Iraq, why are we disarming the civilians?

Likely because our main thrust in being there is not -- and never has been -- to "liberate Iraq". (Completely personal opinion, and noted as such.) To my knowledge, the stated Republican party line has something to do with a reduction in the risk of global terrorism. [Bah! As if!] My fear is what occurs when either party (it matters little who) determines that, for our own safety, it is time to investigate citizens en masse in the United States.

Oh wait...

Nevermind. :fire:

Still, your question stirs much thought within this carbon-based life form.

FeebMaster
October 29, 2004, 03:23 AM
Rebar: From what I understand, we are allowing Iraqi familys to keep one rifle for each adult male, for self protection.

Oh yeah, I can taste the freedom.


Michigander: And we are arming and training police and military as well. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Next you'll be arguing that the second amendment doesn't recognize a human right but merely grants a privelege to those fortunate enough to be citizens of the Homeland.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 09:51 AM
Oh yeah, I can taste the freedom.
You sarcasm is misplaced. It's up to the Iraqi people, who will vote for a new government, that will make the new laws concerning firearms ownership.

As is, the laws in Iraq are far better than here in Massachusetts, which still has the AWB in effect.

Firethorn
October 29, 2004, 12:26 PM
FeebMaster,

Note that they're letting them keep a full-auto weapon for Home Defense. They're going after things like mortars, RPGs, and explosives.

R.H. Lee
October 29, 2004, 12:35 PM
As is, the laws in Iraq are far better than here in Massachusetts, which still has the AWB in effect. Now that's funny, in a grim sort of way.

CannibalCrowley
October 29, 2004, 12:41 PM
Rebar You sarcasm is misplaced. It's up to the Iraqi people, who will vote for a new government, that will make the new laws concerning firearms ownership. But until then, our troops will be confiscating the rest of their weapons and enforcing a gun control policy that they never voted for in the first place. Face it, we're in another country an instituting measures of gun control which people would scream about if it was happening in our country.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 29, 2004, 12:57 PM
Disarm? Hell, I live in Texas and the Iraqis have better gunrights than I do.

RW_Reagan
October 29, 2004, 01:01 PM
liberate: to free from a dictator or other form of "repressive" (by our standards) government.

conquer: to subjugate the people and rule either directly or indirectly by a puppet government for long term economic gain.

I vote for the first. John Kerry would go for either depending on the prevailing poles.

moa
October 29, 2004, 01:21 PM
The last I saw on the subject, the constitution the interim Iraqi government drew up (with help of an UN official) only allows ownership of a firearm with a license.

We are going much further than that. We are allowing Iraqis to keep one firearm such as fully automatic AK47s at home for each adult male. I do think we have some restrictions about openly carrying the AKs and other firearms in public.

The Coalition knows the Iraqi people need the means to defend themselves against militias, insurgents and bandits.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 01:41 PM
But until then, our troops will be confiscating the rest of their weapons and enforcing a gun control policy that they never voted for in the first place. Face it, we're in another country an instituting measures of gun control which people would scream about if it was happening in our country.
You are incorrect sir. We are confiscating heavy weapons, mortars, RPGs, heavy machine guns, grenades, etc.

They are allowed to keep rifles, even select fire rifles, and pistols, without a licence. We as Americans don't have the right to hold select fire weapons, or in most of the country any firearms without licences. They are.

The only folks who would scream here if we instituted the same policy would be the Brady people and the other gun confiscation groups.

CannibalCrowley
October 29, 2004, 02:37 PM
They are allowed to keep rifles, even select fire rifles, and pistols, without a licence. We as Americans don't have the right to hold select fire weapons, or in most of the country any firearms without licences. They are. You are misinformed. Please read: Gun licenses a tough task in Iraq (http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5622.html)
The part most damning to your argument. Two weeks ago, Iraq's Interior Ministry began issuing licenses for Iraqis who want to carry or keep a weapon in their home.

The licenses replace permits issued by the U.S. civilian administration that handed over sovereignty in June. Citizens may own only handguns and hunting rifles. Special permission is needed to own military AK-47s. People who want these weapons, mainly for self-defense, take their case to the Interior Ministry.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 03:09 PM
You proved my point:
Two weeks ago, Iraq's Interior Ministry began issuing licenses for Iraqis who want to carry or keep a weapon in their home.
It's not coalition troops taking weapons from Iraqi civilians, it's the Iraqi government that's making people get licenses.

Big difference.

FeebMaster
October 29, 2004, 03:12 PM
Rebar: You sarcasm is misplaced. It's up to the Iraqi people, who will vote for a new government, that will make the new laws concerning firearms ownership.

As is, the laws in Iraq are far better than here in Massachusetts, which still has the AWB in effect.

I stand by my sarcasm. Laws that are passed in the future by a government in Iraq are irrelevant to what is being enforced today by the occupying army. Laws in Massachusetts are even less relevant to freedom in Iraq. Futhermore, the people of Iraq have the right to bear arms as much as any other human being does, any laws passed by a future Iraqi government can only infringe on that right just as regulations being enforced there now infringe on that right.



Firethorn: Note that they're letting them keep a full-auto weapon for Home Defense. They're going after things like mortars, RPGs, and explosives.

Yeah, I can still taste the freedom.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 03:15 PM
Laws that are passed in the future by a government in Iraq are irrelevant to what is being enforced today by the occupying army.
It's been shown that the liberating army is allowing people to keep their full-auto ak-47s and other small arms. I don't see why you're having a problem with that.

FeebMaster
October 29, 2004, 03:59 PM
Rebar: It's been shown that the liberating army is allowing people to keep their full-auto ak-47s and other small arms. I don't see why you're having a problem with that.

I have a problem with any infringement of rights.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 04:08 PM
The subject of the topic is if coalition forces are disarming the Iraqi people. It's shown that they are not.

If you think that confiscating heavy weapons like RPGs and grenades are an infringment, you're entitled to that opinion. However, I don't think that doing so makes them an "occupation force", unless you're willing to state that the United States and Europe are under occupation, since they don't allow civilians to own those weapon types either.

CannibalCrowley
October 29, 2004, 04:19 PM
It's not coalition troops taking weapons from Iraqi civilians, it's the Iraqi government that's making people get licenses. The Iraqi government is making people get licenses to replace the permits given by the US. Furthermore, their current government was not elected by the people, it was emplaced by the US. Also, coalition troops are being used to enforce the laws nad train Iraqis to do the same.

Slow down Rebar, you're disagreeing with yourself.The subject of the topic is if coalition forces are disarming the Iraqi people. It's shown that they are not. That doesn't quite mesh with what you stated earlier.From what I understand, we are allowing Iraqi familys to keep one rifle for each adult male, for self protection. If they were only allowing them to keep one rifle, then they must have taken the rest. Hence, they were disarming Iraqis.However, I don't think that doing so makes them an "occupation force", unless you're willing to state that the United States and Europe are under occupation, since they don't allow civilians to own those weapon types either.Apples and oranges. We're deprived of certain arms by our own government and the enforcement is by our own people as well.

FeebMaster
October 29, 2004, 04:28 PM
Rebar: The subject of the topic is if coalition forces are disarming the Iraqi people. It's shown that they are not.

Yes they are.

If you think that confiscating heavy weapons like RPGs and grenades are an infringment, you're entitled to that opinion.

Yes I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are entitled to your opinion that confiscating the weapons that are being confiscated isn't an infringement. Of course, while we're sitting here discussing whose opinion is correct, the rights of the Iraqi people to keep and bear arms are still being infringed.


However, I don't think that doing so makes them an "occupation force", unless you're willing to state that the United States and Europe are under occupation, since they don't allow civilians to own those weapon types either.

The governments of Europe and the US infringing on the rights of their citizens are irrelevant to the occupiers of Iraq being an occupation force. They are an occupation force because they are occupying the country. The confiscation of weapons has nothing to do with calling the occupiers an occupation force. Even if they weren't confiscating weapons, they'd still be an occupation force.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 04:53 PM
I think we're working from different definitions. If you take all of someone's guns, I consider them disarmed. If someone has a gun, they are armed in my opinion. It doesn't matter if someone has 100 ak47s or just one, they are still armed. And I've read several accounts of coalition troops on patrol, who didn't take guns away from familys, and didn't ask for permits either.

I also consider the coalation forces as liberators, not occupiers. We are setting up Iraq to be self governing, and are defending it from terrorists, most of whom are from Syria and Iran. Like when allied forces liberated France in WWII.

Ian
October 29, 2004, 05:23 PM
The point of being armed is to be able to resist both freelance individual criminals and to resist coercive governments or invaders. While a pistol or rifle is sufficient for the former, the latter requires exactly those "heavy" weapons that you say are being confiscated, Rebar. The simple fact that US forces need to confiscate those weapons should cast immense doubt on any claims that we're there to liberate the folks.

FeebMaster
October 29, 2004, 05:25 PM
Rebar: I think we're working from different definitions. If you take all of someone's guns, I consider them disarmed. If someone has a gun, they are armed in my opinion. It doesn't matter if someone has 100 ak47s or just one, they are still armed. And I've read several accounts of coalition troops on patrol, who didn't take guns away from familys, and didn't ask for permits either.

That's interesting. Would you support legislation in the US limiting citizens to one firearm? After all, that wouldn't be disarming anyone. It doesn't matter if someone has 100 guns or just one, they are still armed. How about legislation limiting citizens of the homeland to one single-shot .22 rifle? Citizens of the Homeland would still be armed.

CannibalCrowley
October 29, 2004, 05:32 PM
Rebar I think we're working from different definitions. If you take all of someone's guns, I consider them disarmed. If someone has a gun, they are armed in my opinion. It doesn't matter if someone has 100 ak47s or just one, they are still armed. Sorry, you can't change the definition of a word just to suit your argument. Disarm means to take a weapon or weapons from someone. If the UN came to your door, took your guns and said that you'd be able to keep a .22 rifle, would you say they disarmed you? After all, they didn't take all your guns.

Rebar
October 29, 2004, 06:30 PM
If we wanted to disarm them, wouldn't we take all their weapons? Are we taking all their weapons? The answer is no, we're not.

We've made a reasonable decision to let them defend themselves, while taking precautions to saveguard the troops. If you want to lecture on pure libertarian philosophy weither we're "disarming" them or "occupying" them, feel free.

The fact is, they are allowed to keep weapons that are denyed to the vast majority of American citizens. After the elections, if the new Iraqi government want to confiscate all weapons, then you all will have a point. Right now, considering the situation, I think it's a reasonable policy.

Silent-Snail
October 31, 2004, 10:09 AM
TIME OUT!
Not to interupt an interesting battle of words, but Of course, while we're sitting here discussing whose opinion is correct, the rights of the Iraqi people to keep and bear arms are still being infringed.. as far as I know the United States is the only country in the world with that right.
So for the Iraqis to have the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't Iraq have to be at least an official US territory. Sorry but that line I quoted really annoyed me. Let the hissing and spitting recommence. :neener:

publius
October 31, 2004, 12:37 PM
Maybe the reference was to an inherent human right, not a legal right.

FeebMaster
October 31, 2004, 03:05 PM
Silent-Snail: TIME OUT!
Not to interupt an interesting battle of words, but

. as far as I know the United States is the only country in the world with that right.
So for the Iraqis to have the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't Iraq have to be at least an official US territory. Sorry but that line I quoted really annoyed me. Let the hissing and spitting recommence.


Are you saying that the second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms to people in the US and its territories? Here I was thinking the right to bear arms was a human right and the second amendment just kind of recognized it on account of it being pretty important.

If you enjoyed reading about "liberating or conquering Iraq?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!