Are We Setting A Dangerous Precedent Here?


PDA






Hux
October 21, 2006, 01:53 PM
I know it's being done to combat the insurgency here in Iraq, but it seems to me like we're setting a dangerous precedent. Local civilians here (at least in Baghdad) are restricted to one AK47 w/ 2 mags per house. No other firearms of any kind or additional mags are allowed. And if the local decides to dispute the confiscation when we search their house (we do many random searches), they are detained. Are we headed down the wrong path here or is this an issolated event that will have no effect on the preservation of our 2A rights?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are We Setting A Dangerous Precedent Here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
xd9fan
October 21, 2006, 02:02 PM
wow just wow
Given world history, what do you think?
Would we as U.S. citizens put up with this crap? We already put up with to much crap like this here at home, and its not from a foreign country's military.
wow

Did the Bush administration even just show them OUR Bill of Rights? Wont doubt it if they did not.
Bush's talk about "speading democracy" makes me wonder what he is doing. I have heard alot of lip service on "freedom" even the word "liberty".......Is the Bush administration even educating the Iraq people on our Bill of Rights?? In the 3 years since we having been over there I have not heard one peep on printing mass copies of our Bill of Rights and even just showing it to "the people"

I think the public here at home implies that he is spreading our Individual liberty-based system....with a Bill ofRights.

I wonder if its just Govt-based democracy (were Rights come from Govt). That he is "spreading"
Your post, if its true would fall in line with this thinking.

(Even if Bush was showing them the Bof R and had mass education on it.......is this what we as a nation want to be doing....world cop and world educator??)

wow do the Swiss have it right....

Hux
October 21, 2006, 02:14 PM
It could be that the Iraqi gov wanted this and we're simply enforcing it, I don't know (not that thats much better).

crazed_ss
October 21, 2006, 02:21 PM
Iraq is a "unique" situation dont you think?

I think it's a great idea.

If they were allowed to have unlimited guns, they could simply have an armory full of AK-47's in one house. The insurgents wouldnt even have to worry about hiding their caches of arms.

Maybe after this "war" is resolved, they'll let Iraqis have as many guns as they want, but right now we need to deny the enemy easy access and storage of weapons while also allowing normal Iraqis some form of self defense.

At least they can have one AK a two mags. I cant have any AK's :rolleyes:

Outlaws
October 21, 2006, 02:24 PM
Two mags huh? Can they still have unlimited ammunition for those two mags or is 60 rounds all you get?

At least we are letting them have guns...and select fire to boot. Hopefully they get unrestricted access when we leave.

Hux
October 21, 2006, 02:37 PM
I haven't been told of any limit on ammo not in the mags, but we also have yet to come across anyone w/ more than the 60 rnds. most ppl just have one mag

TallPine
October 21, 2006, 03:43 PM
Are we headed down the wrong path here
Um, yeah ... :rolleyes: (but of course it is un-patriotic to say so :uhoh: )


Maybe you're just getting trained for operations after you get home :scrutiny:

Waitone
October 21, 2006, 03:51 PM
The US set the Iraqi govt up based on a european model.

redneck2
October 21, 2006, 04:18 PM
Did the Bush administration even just show them OUR Bill of Rights? Wont doubt it if they did not.
Bush's talk about "speading democracy" makes me wonder what he is doing. I have heard alot of lip service on "freedom" even the word "liberty".......Is the Bush administration even educating the Iraq people on our Bill of Rights?? In the 3 years since we having been over there I have not heard one peep on printing mass copies of our Bill of Rights and even just showing it to "the people"
Uhhhh....you forgot one small matter. Iraq isn't our country. They made up their own Constitution. Maybe they don't want our Bill of Rights. There are a lot of countries we deal with that don't have our form of government.

Fosbery
October 21, 2006, 04:21 PM
Wow, your pretty screwed if you upgraded to the AKM :p

SoCalShooter
October 21, 2006, 05:52 PM
2 mags? are those large banana clips or small ones are they drums?

Wesker
October 21, 2006, 06:00 PM
It's a seperate country that we don't control or own. Our BOR does not apply there. While their constitution will probably be glaringly different than ours because of the Islam religion it's pretty silly to think that the rights you're accostumed to back home should be applied over there.

I can sympathize with their reaction. Those guns are their property and they probably had it long before the infidels showed up and started ruining their lives with their policing action. No one expects Iraq to be America 2.0 because it won't be, no one is that stupid. A Democracy is a Democracy, and at it's heart it has a constitution written by its people. Hell, Iraq could take our Constitution and write it bass akwards, just as long as the people voted for it.

Doug14
October 21, 2006, 06:24 PM
What if they want a rifle in standard NATO? Or a parabellum pistol? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Why not just limit them to one magazine? Keeps it simple.

Otherguy Overby
October 21, 2006, 08:07 PM
Don't forget that the US military is virulently anti gun. One could easily assume Sarah Brady was in charge of issuing weapons, magazines and ammunition.

Only those way out on the pointy end are allowed weapons with magazines and ammunition. Just imagine the arguments at top brass level about allowing "civilians" any guns at all.

River Wraith
October 21, 2006, 08:24 PM
you sure about that? I can't imagine the real US military attacking US citizens and taking their guns. I can see the national guard doing it. Then again, think of the Bonus army...

Biker
October 21, 2006, 08:26 PM
I worry that Tallpine may be right.

Biker

longeyes
October 21, 2006, 09:02 PM
The US set the Iraqi govt up based on a european model.

It appears so. And the question--which should be asked publicly, if one could find a media type who cares--is why? I'd love to hear Bush shuffle around that one.

vynx
October 21, 2006, 09:12 PM
definetly a unique situation - what other army in the history of the world ever let the occupied country posses such firepower? It didn't happen in WWi or WWII thats for sure.

This is a unique situation because we are not fighting the Iraq army but terrorists and at the same time the sunni and shiite factions are having an uncivil-war (maybe kurds too)? Ther uncivil war is terrorism so the rules have to change.

I don't think this applies to homeland USA because it would have to be another coutries army making these demands on US citizens and that I don't foresee happening.

Aguila Blanca
October 21, 2006, 10:09 PM
The US set the Iraqi govt up based on a european model.
Correct.

The new Iraqi constitution (which I think the "allies" pretty much wrote and handed to them) does not include any RKBA provision. I was more than a little ... "upset" ... when I realized that.

definetly a unique situation - what other army in the history of the world ever let the occupied country posses such firepower? It didn't happen in WWi or WWII thats for sure.
That's where it gets interesting. Technically, we are no longer "occupiers," because (technically) we have formally handed over power to the newly-(re)constituted government of Iraq. At this point we are not (technically) "occupiers," but I suppose something more like "allies" who are (so the story line goes) "assisting" the fledgling government.

Yeah, that's it ... we're "assisting."

zoom6zoom
October 21, 2006, 11:03 PM
is this an issolated event that will have no effect on the preservation of our 2A rights?

All I have to say is... April 15, 1775. Lexington, MA. They were coming to take my forebears' guns, and it was another Molon Labe moment. The rest is history.

pcosmar
October 21, 2006, 11:19 PM
Interesting, Is this just your unit, or one neighborhood? I have been folowing several Milblogs and I can't find it. The one Irag blog that I read often does not mention it at all. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
I did a search on his site for Gun control and got nothing. I searched Weapons, and got some hits, but not as was described. In fact there are open Weapon Bazars that have every thing we don't have here.

2TransAms
October 21, 2006, 11:20 PM
It's a seperate country that we don't control or own. Our BOR does not apply there. While their constitution will probably be glaringly different than ours because of the Islam religion it's pretty silly to think that the rights you're accostumed to back home should be applied over there.

I can sympathize with their reaction. Those guns are their property and they probably had it long before the infidels showed up and started ruining their lives with their policing action. No one expects Iraq to be America 2.0 because it won't be, no one is that stupid. A Democracy is a Democracy, and at it's heart it has a constitution written by its people. Hell, Iraq could take our Constitution and write it bass akwards, just as long as the people voted for it.Very interesting. As long as the people vote for it. That's the Achilles of democracy,and it's why we have a Bill of Rights. But...aren't those rights supposed to be...human rights? If we believe in them so strongly why would Bush let Iraq set it up however they want? I don't have answers,the Forever War in Iraq and elsewhere is way too complicated for me to figure out.

progunner1957
October 21, 2006, 11:30 PM
Maybe you're just getting trained for operations after you get home
Like Biker, I too worry that TallPine may be right.

If so, this brings up several questions we should all consider, to wit:

1: Will "The Government" actually turn the guns of the U.S military on U.S. civilians?

2: If this happens, what ruse will "The Government" use to justify it?

3: Will U.S. soldiers actually take our guns by force?

4: What about the soldier's duty to refuse to carry out unlawful orders?

5: Would an order to confiscate the firearms of U.S. citizens spark a mutiny in the ranks of the U.S. military?

6: Would military officers - sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution" - actually issue orders to confiscate U.S. citizen's firearms?

7: Would U.S. soldiers actually kill U.S. citizens who refuse to submit to firearms confiscation?

8: Would a U.S. President actually issue such an order to the military?

9: If this were to happen, what response would we see from gun owners?

10: If this were to happen, what (if any) recourse would we have as far as court action?

11: If this were to happen, what would you do?

JohnBT
October 21, 2006, 11:35 PM
"Is the Bush administration even educating the Iraq people on our Bill of Rights??"

Why do they need to know about it, are they all moving here to become citizens?

John

pcosmar
October 21, 2006, 11:49 PM
Who's selling and who's buying?
Just found this disturbing report regarding some worrisomely big weapon bazaar in Qurna, the largest town at the center of the triangle formed by Basra, Nasiriya and Amara.
Qurna is located 6 kilometers from the Iranian border, population around 100,000 with a strong presence for Sadrists and there's a story running among thr locals that their town was the spot where Adam first landed at on earth after he was expelled from heaven.

Anyway...

I've been to Qurna many times during my internship in the northern suburbs of Bsara and I heard a lot from the locals about the huge weapon business in the area but it seems that with time, the quality of the business had grown wild; at that time, they mostly sold pistols, ak-47s and grenades. By the way the latter are a famous fishing tool in Iraq!
But now there are a few more exotic items on the menu:

Residents said the trade was not confined to small arms. They said smugglers openly put for sale mortars, rockets and landmines.

posted by Omar
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/02/whos-selling-and-whos-buying.html

This seems to be a diferent story.

MatthewVanitas
October 22, 2006, 12:01 AM
you sure about that? I can't imagine the real US military attacking US citizens and taking their guns. I can see the national guard doing it. Then again, think of the Bonus army...

During the initial invasion of Iraq, I commented on the confiscation of weapons from Iraqis whose cars we searched, and contrasted it with America.

One LCpl spoke up: "I don't think people in America should be allowed to have guns! What it we're fighting house to house in Kansas or something and all the civilians have guns? We'd get shot at."

No exaggeration, that's what the kid said.

Don't forget that the US military is virulently anti gun. One could easily assume Sarah Brady was in charge of issuing weapons, magazines and ammunition.


There are a decent scattering of gunfolk in the military, but even in Marine Corps combat units, there are plenty of antis, and the majority are fence-sitters.

Our Battalion Armorer firmly believed that civilians shouldn't own any guns, and was very displeased when I gave donated civilian gun catalogs and magazines to his section during our deployment.

His rationale: "I great up in the barrio in L.A. County, I've seen what guns can do."

Seeing as how we were in a combat unit in-country, that struck me as one of the more absurd (but by no means the most absurd) things I heard on that deployment.

-MV

River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 02:37 PM
There are a decent scattering of gunfolk in the military, but even in Marine Corps combat units, there are plenty of antis, and the majority are fence-sitters.

Our Battalion Armorer firmly believed that civilians shouldn't own any guns, and was very displeased when I gave donated civilian gun catalogs and magazines to his section during our deployment.

His rationale: "I great up in the barrio in L.A. County, I've seen what guns can do."

Seeing as how we were in a combat unit in-country, that struck me as one of the more absurd (but by no means the most absurd) things I heard on that deployment.


If that's the case, we may be extremely screwed. :uhoh:

Werewolf
October 22, 2006, 03:32 PM
Local civilians here (at least in Baghdad) are restricted to one AK47 w/ 2 mags per house. No other firearms of any kind or additional mags are allowed. And if the local decides to dispute the confiscation when we search their house (we do many random searches), they are detained.Well - that explains a lot...

RE: Tallpine's comment probably made tongue in cheek - there's more truth in his statement than most would like to believe.

spartacus2002
October 22, 2006, 04:06 PM
If US troops are sent house-to-house to confiscate guns in America, you can be sure they will do it because they will be told they are fighting domestic terrorists.

My greatest concern over the war in Iraq/Afghanistan is that it is training our armed forces to be an army of doorkickers and guntakers.

Thin Black Line
October 22, 2006, 04:16 PM
3: Will U.S. soldiers actually take our guns by force?

Mixed/unknown. A local disaster situation would garner a different reaction
among soldiers than something ordered for the entire country.

4: What about the soldier's duty to refuse to carry out unlawful orders?


Are you talking about soldiers raised from childhood over the last 20 years
who were told "guns are bad", "only the government should have guns", and
"the militia is the National Guard"? The one good thing is that the average
age of soldiers today is 28. There are quite a few of us over 30, almost
40, too. We remember American History prior to the first round of globalist
revisionism. There would be dissention over this order.

5: Would an order to confiscate the firearms of U.S. citizens spark a mutiny in the ranks of the U.S. military?


See the above answer. I suspect in such a scenario there would be more
to worry about than a mutiny among .1% of the population when it came to
the country as a whole.

6: Would military officers - sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution" - actually issue orders to confiscate U.S. citizen's firearms?


I suppose those who feel they are acting under competent civilian authority
would. I'm not sure who would be left among the captains to actually carry
this out in the field since many of them are already voting with their feet right now.
Whether a 44 year old 1SG carries out this order from a 24 year old LT who
just had it emailed to him from a COL neither have ever met would be an
interesting table-top exercise wouldn't it?

7: Would U.S. soldiers actually kill U.S. citizens who refuse to submit to firearms confiscation?


You are not the first to ask this questions. It has been asked before:

45. I would swear to the following code: "I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.


Scary, huh? Have a :) day!

TallPine
October 22, 2006, 06:00 PM
Would U.S. soldiers actually kill U.S. citizens [...] ?

Well, let's see - there was:

* the War Against Southern Independence

* the war against the American Indians (I suppose the technically weren't citizens until they lost :rolleyes: )

* the military was used to break up strikes at mines in Southern Colorado (I don't remember the details, should look it up sometime)


Anyrate, plenty of precedent already :(

Fosbery
October 22, 2006, 06:39 PM
Just adding my 2p here:

Insurgents do not wear uniforms. They are not soldiers, this is not a war, though it may look like it. They are criminals, plain and simple. They should not be glorified and given the title of soldier.

Confiscating arms from anyone is always wrong unless:

that person is being arrested (or put into a mental institution, though that is not at issue here)
that person is an enemy soldier who is surrendering (even then, they should lay down their own weapons)

In either case, their arms should be returned upon their release.

Arresting a civillian without charge and holding them without a fair trial is just as bad as confiscating arms.

You do not need to give soldiers trials before making them POWs since they are in uniform. Insurgents in Iraq are not soldiers so trials are required to avoid punishing the innocent.

MatthewVanitas
October 22, 2006, 06:55 PM
Confiscating arms from anyone is always wrong unless:

that person is being arrested (or put into a mental institution, though that is not at issue here)
that person is an enemy soldier who is surrendering (even then, they should lay down their own weapons)

In either case, their arms should be returned upon their release.


Pretty good points.

We had issues at some points with overzealous Marines confiscating single-shot 12ga shotguns from shepherds and the like. The next time the mayor visited our base he'd bring in a few receipts saying "SGT JOHANSEN CONFISCATED SHOTGUN FROM ABDALRAHMAN 8/15/2005", and we'd hand the mayor the shotgun to be returned.

After a few weeks of this, the local CO defined our policy as "if it's not worth bringing the Iraqi in, it's not worth taking his stuff". So either arrest him and confiscate, or leave him be. Possession of scoped rifle, Dragunov, or explosive devices meant arrest, anything less was okay at 1 per adult male.

And we still had Marines confiscating 12ga single shots and a bandolier of buckshot "just to be on the safe side". One inadvertently confiscated a Browning Highpower at a roadblock: the Iraqis voluntarily declared it, he meant to unload it and pantomime to them to wait until they passed out of the Marine cordon to reload, but he didn't know how to clear it (left the safety on which blocks the slide). The Iraqis got so agitated watching him fiddle with it that they just made "keep it! keep it!" hand motions and drove off as soon as the Marines stepped out of their way. He as an 2d Lt, so I do believe him that he honestly wasn't trying to steal it, and he seemed pretty embarassed about it.

-MV

-MV

crunker
October 22, 2006, 09:05 PM
You know, if I was in a varitable war-zone like Iraq, I would not really care if anyone said that I could own only one gun and two mags for it. I'd stash some grenades and some PDWs.

You never hear anyone telling soldiers to not obtain available weapons while out in the field, and Iraqi citizens never know what's about to happen since they constantly live in a war-zone.

MatthewVanitas
October 22, 2006, 09:32 PM
You never hear anyone telling soldiers to not obtain available weapons while out in the field,

You're kidding, right? They get told that all the dang time.

I understand that it happened to some small degree in 2003 (though I never saw it personally, but I was w/ an infantry unit that had plenty of its own gear). In all of 2004, I saw maybe eight people that had non-issue firearms. Six of them were on an EOD team run by a GySgt that was a massive gunlover, and let his men carry G3s, Sterlings, and basically whatever they could steal out of the burn-pile. Also saw one SeaBee carrying an AK47, and one Marine Captain who had a FAMAS that he'd picked up who-knows-where.

From what I've heard, in 2005-2006 it's been pretty expressly forbidden to pick up personal weapons from the enemy, and it was certainly pretty rare even before that.

-MV

Fosbery
October 22, 2006, 09:35 PM
Please oh please tell me you got a picture of the US Marine with a FAMAS :D

MatthewVanitas
October 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
Better yet, I have a pic of YHN w/ the FAMAS. I'll try to upload it tonight or tomorrow, if I can blank out my nametapes. Not that I'm hard to track down or anything, but just in case someone jacks the pic for their personal collection.

Before anyone asks, I never got to shoot it. But I did get to shoot some other fun stuff...

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=19729&d=1103849580

MatthewVanitas
October 23, 2006, 01:34 AM
w/ a FAMAS in Al-Anbar, 2004

ceetee
October 23, 2006, 08:54 AM
The precedent has already been set.

While we were watching the Katrina firearms confiscations, I mentioned to my wife how wrong I thought it was to leave people defenseless before armed thugs. She responded that issues like "wrong" and "right" were nicities that were made unimportant in an emergency situation like that. She also made a comment that, if ordered to take self-defense weapons from people, she would carry out her orders, right or wrong. In her opinion, the police and National Guardsmen had every right to confiscate weapons from non-criminal citizens "in the interest of officer safety".

A rough poll of officers I know showed that while a few would voice their displeasure at being given such cocked-up orders, none would outright disobey. The most that could be expected would be those officers in disagreement with the confiscation orders could be expected to try to get out of the actual confiscation duties by finding somewhere else to be...

junyo
October 23, 2006, 12:57 PM
Iraqi's aren't American citizens and aren't protected by the American BOR. Is the RKBA a human right? Yep, sure is, but so the right to keep breathing. I'm perfectly prepared to violate the heck out of that right of I legitimately believe that you constitute a threat to me, and in the interest of my country's safety/interests I'm prepared to have that done at a national level. Omelettes/eggshells; the world's not libertarian lab exercise. Despite the fact that Iraqi is a sovereign country, a decent number of the people in that country are actively engaged in criminal acts, up to and including organized mass murder and working for the overthrow of the lawful government. Until the situation is stable, limiting the armament that individuals have is a function of the same logic that has the police disarming everyone in the house during a raid until they ascertain who's who.

Would it be nice if if the individual right to self defense, with all that that entails, were enshrined in the country's constitution? Yep. It would've been nicer if the Iraqis were forced to accept a purely secular representative democracy, and the Kurds had gotten their own state, but the extant political reality prohibited that. The assumption is that the Iraqis can eventually figure stuff like that out for themselves and amend accordingly. But that's what makes the argument over precedent somewhat curious. The situation in the US is nothing like Iraq. We don't have a foreign nation patroling our streets, we don't have armed sectarian and ethnic strife, we don't have wide and easy availability of medium and heavy weapons (unfortunately), and most importantly we do have a constitution that clearly promises the right to bear arms. Any soldier/police officer kicking in a door here, without due process of law, is clearly violating their sworn duty against the citizens of their country and probably their community. Do violations occur? Again, yep. And it's something that we have to be vigilant about. But at the end of the day, I think it's ungenerous to soldiers, real soldiers, to assume that the bulk of them don't grasp the difference between doing what needs to be done in a foreign country, and doing the same to American citizens. And frankly there's enough militarized police in the US that are learning it as a matter of course, that soldier's training/practices are probably irrelevant.

Lonestar
October 23, 2006, 01:39 PM
Are we as Americas allowed to keep a FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47 with 2 magazines? Umm Nope. There is no restrictions on handgun ownership in Iraq. Problem is when we won against the "Military" of Iraq, most of the soldier just went home, and brought their weapons with them.

The America Military and the Iraqi government had nothing to do with this. It was the CPA and Bremer who screwed up. Most Iraqis were ok with the US after the fall of Baghdad. The problem was the CPA and Bremer went against the Bush adminstration and all Military advisors with the idea to disbanded the Iraqi Military, making 300,000 armed and military trained Iraqis unemployed. On top of that they PO all the Sunnis thru De-Ba'athification, making all Ba'ath party members who worked in government unemployed. That is why they moved to restrict weapons and this is why we are still in this Iraq mess.

PBS Frontline did a fantastic piece on this, and you can watch it online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/ . If you want to know how thing turned from US troop convoys being cheered in the streets of Baghdad, to being hit with IEDs, it is a MUST watch.

I brought this subject up before but it was considered political but not gun-related and was shut down in less than 15 minutes. I should have wrote my thread more like this one.

Sindawe
October 23, 2006, 01:52 PM
While we were watching the Katrina firearms confiscations, I mentioned to my wife how wrong I thought it was to leave people defenseless before armed thugs. She responded that issues like "wrong" and "right" were nicities that were made unimportant in an emergency situation like that. She also made a comment that, if ordered to take self-defense weapons from people, she would carry out her orders, right or wrong. In her opinion, the police and National Guardsmen had every right to confiscate weapons from non-criminal citizens "in the interest of officer safety".EEEKKKK!!! Harsh though it may be, I hope you're mentally prepared for the internal conflict you're gonna have should the evil day of confiscation orders come to pass. There is a chance that your wife will not be coming home that day, nor any of the following days."wrong" and "right" were nicities that were made unimportant in an emergency situation like that.That is when such niceties are MOST important, else we are just base animals only looking out for #1, to Hezmana with everybody else.

Hux
October 23, 2006, 04:17 PM
Thank you all for your input. Many of you have raised valid points. As to how widespread these restrictions are, all I know is that at least this portion of Baghdad (south and SW) is this way. But at least I don't have to deal w/ it much longer as we're outta here soon.:D

xd9fan
October 23, 2006, 07:06 PM
While we were watching the Katrina firearms confiscations, I mentioned to my wife how wrong I thought it was to leave people defenseless before armed thugs. She responded that issues like "wrong" and "right" were nicities that were made unimportant in an emergency situation like that. She also made a comment that, if ordered to take self-defense weapons from people, she would carry out her orders, right or wrong. In her opinion, the police and National Guardsmen had every right to confiscate weapons from non-criminal citizens "in the interest of officer safety".

This is such crap I dont know where to begin. Is she a mindless robot or a thinking intelligent american versed in the Bill of Rights that each LEGAL citizen has?? Does she understand her role? God a lawyer would have a field day with her!!

Emergency situations are NOT an excuse for LACK of judgement.....if anything they are situations where clear judgement is needed the MOST.

As a ICU nurse do I get to respond/perform like that in emergency situations (weapons or not).....HELL NO....nor should I....

more education is needed....


this "in the interest of officer safety" is a joke. Until we see LEO's do the perp walk for things like New Orleans nothing will change the uneducated minds out there. Maybe Lawsuits that drain the Police dept. budget may wake somebody up.

vmfrantz
October 23, 2006, 07:26 PM
I cant belive that the u.s. troops are against any part of the bill of right. i know when I was in the U.S.M.C. we took a survey that included a lot of questions, one was would you help disarm the U.S. citizen of firearms. Something around the mid 80% said no. This was during the clinton admn.

Thin Black Line
October 24, 2006, 08:07 AM
The problem was the CPA and Bremer went against the Bush adminstration and all Military advisors
....
If you want to know how thing turned from US troop convoys being cheered in the streets of Baghdad, to being hit with IEDs, it is a MUST watch.


Ah, yes, I can remember that smiling waving good will turning into the middle
finger and the wireless detonator trigger finger while I was there. I think
there's a lot of blame to go around --first and foremost goes sqaurely on the
shoulders of the Iraqi people. There's still plenty left to go around here on
both sides of the poltical aisle.

However, the "Bremer went against the Bush Admin" statement is utter
nonesense. Bremer reported directly to Rumsefeld and was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush himself in Dec 2004. But maybe I'm
wrong, maybe he disobeyed the President and still deserved a medal?

This is such crap I dont know where to begin. Is she a mindless robot or a thinking intelligent american versed in the Bill of Rights that each LEGAL citizen has?? Does she understand her role? God a lawyer would have a field day with her!!


Just to be fair, only about 1% of our population is in the military. I think the
other 99% has more responsibility for keeping our government on the right
path.

i know when I was in the U.S.M.C. we took a survey that included a lot of questions, one was would you help disarm the U.S. citizen of firearms. Something around the mid 80% said no. This was during the clinton admn.

Detail:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this p eriod, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.


( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
No opinion Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

The Responses

Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.

The outcome of the survey was as follows:


Strongly disagree 127 42.33%

Disagree 58 19.33%

Agree 56 18.67%

Strongly agree 23 07.67%

No opinion 36 12.00%

Total: 300 100.00%

Summary of the responses to question 46.

The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire.

So you were among that group of 300 Marines?

TallPine
October 24, 2006, 11:22 AM
Iraqi is a sovereign country, a decent number of the people in that country are actively engaged in criminal acts, up to and including organized mass murder and working for the overthrow of the lawful government.
Seems like Iraq already had a lawful (if brutal) government before we went in and overthrew it :rolleyes:

RNB65
October 24, 2006, 11:27 AM
So what you're saying is that the bad guys can have all the guns, mags and ammo they want, but the good guys are limited to one gun and two mags per house?

Brilliant!!! Mission Accomplished! :mad: :banghead: :mad:

.45Guy
October 24, 2006, 11:54 AM
the military was used to break up strikes at mines in Southern Colorado (I don't remember the details, should look it up sometime)

That was the Colorado state militia at Ludlow you were thinking of. (Had family there.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/military/bb/ludlow.htm

HiWayMan
October 24, 2006, 12:00 PM
Just a thought on current soldier's views vs. old soldier's views.

I've been told on more than one occasion that those M1s sitting in the American Legion Hall are for more than just the final sendoff of a fallen comrade.

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 12:02 PM
It still amazes me to this day that after Sept 11 people still find a way to stray from what needs to be done and complain about it. The war in Iraq is not a republican vs democrat issue. When it comes down to it people on both sides of the fence voted for that invasion.

Terrorism aside, we needed to go into Iraq and kick saddam's a@@ long before 2003. I would expect better of the people on this board with all their talk of "Freedom". Whether they had WMD or not the iraqi people were severely oppressed under a DICTATORSHIP, not a lawful government. I am proud to be over here helping these people get a better life. Everyone expects these things to happen overnite. We have been a country for over 200 years and I'm not impressed with how we conduct our business. In my opinion, we have an obligation to help out in these situations whenever possible.

The American people have grown oversensitive when it comes to war. It has become bad politics to lose young men and women on your watch. We seen it in Vietnam and numerous occasions after that. The american people need to accept the fact that sometimes that sacrifice needs to be made.

Everybody talks about the Bush and the crappy things he's done. Nobody gives him credit for problably the ballsiest move in the last 20-30 Years of presidencies. He basically told the UN to go **** themselves. For that he will have my eternal respect.

The UN has no power. Resolution after resolution goes unheeded and what do they do? They pass another resolution and set another deadline.

Biker
October 24, 2006, 12:27 PM
The world is full of dictators. We gonna root 'em all out?
Not on my dime...
Iraq was better off under Hussein and we were better off before we got involved in Iraq's business, this time around.

Biker

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 12:34 PM
Are you gonna say that to the people that walked 20 miles under the threat of death to vote in their first democratic election in years? Especially when it is asking too much of the average american to stop off on their way to work to vote.

I am not saying that we are the world police. I just think we should lend a hand when we are capable of it. We left them hanging in the wind back in the early nineties and they suffered horribly for it. Because of that reason alone we were obligated to help them out.

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 12:44 PM
The Iraqi people have embraced freedom in ways that are incomprehensible to the average american. There may be a few of us that actually enjoy our freedom, but I think that we all can agree on the fact that the large majority of the american population are just cattle. Going about their daily lives drinking their starbucks and remaining completely clueless on the day to day activities in their own country.

Biker
October 24, 2006, 12:46 PM
We owe them nothing. Cold as it is, Bush 41 sold them out and Bush 43 is finishing the job - notice how this administration is starting to change its tune as in abandoning the "stay the course" mantra?

Not one grain of sand over there is worth a drop of American blood whether that sand be in Iraq, Iran or Israel.

It ain't worth it.

Biker

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 01:03 PM
I don't know, I guess I'm an idealist. We are a dying breed.

Biker
October 24, 2006, 01:10 PM
I too, am an idealist, but over the years, my idealism has been tempered by realism and pragmatism.
I won't sacrifice my family for someone else's.

Biker:)

.45Guy
October 24, 2006, 01:13 PM
Eh, my idealism died with the actions of the ROK docs at Tallil.

Thin Black Line
October 24, 2006, 02:00 PM
Nobody gives him credit for problably the ballsiest move in the last 20-30 Years of presidencies. He basically told the UN to go **** themselves.

I guess you're not old enough to remember Reagan.

Is this your first 4 month AF tour in OIF? Some AF use to do 50 cal on some
supply convoys and work EOD in my old AO last year. If you do runs outside
the wire, I pray you stay safe. Really. After you've done your third AF tour,
which equals one Army tour, let's talk and see how things have changed.

I'm all for National Defense. But, you have to ask yourself with the borders
being left open here at home, when is the CiC going to put the national back
in National Defense again? A ballsy move would be to tell the next door
neighbor to quit letting his dog cr@p in my yard rather than worring what
someone is doing in the next town with their dog.

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 03:58 PM
Not everyone in the air force does 4 month tours. I have never done one. We are also in the AOR doing many of the same missions that the Army is doing. Supply convoys is only one example of the many joint missions. Remember that just because you may not see us out there, does NOT mean we aren't. The only reason you tend to see alot more army, is because the AF hasn't needed to activate every reserve unit we have to meet the demands that are placed on us, and we also don't need to ask for other branches to help in completing our missions.

Thin Black Line
October 24, 2006, 04:18 PM
Wasn't meant to be insulting considering the typcal Airman does 4 mos
inside the wire. When you're done with your year, let's see what you have
to say then since it will be tempered by some experience regarding the
current situation.

BTW, the only soldiers I knew who spent 4 months or less in country
were AD O5+ and the ones who were hit by IEDs......

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 04:26 PM
If you go back and read my edited post, I changed it because I thought I was being a little bit to confrontational. I was a little quick to jump the gun because of the many misconceptions about the AF in theater. I do apologize if I offended anybody. I have been here for about eight months now and I think that I have a good base of knowledge to work from. I do understand how some people can become jaded. I have seen it in my own unit. But, as I said in my previous post, I am an idealist. I just think that we are the big dogs so we should help out the small guys whenever we get the chance. If we didn't have outside help when we split off from England than we problably wouldn't be here today.

CombatArmsUSAF
October 24, 2006, 04:40 PM
Also, those airmen that do stay inside the wire are sometimes in a good position to actually see some of the difference we are making in these peoples lives. Like the Security Forces airmen that work the ECP's where thousands of Iraqis come through everyday, they actually get a little bit of an oppurtunity to talk with them. I will also acknowledge the fact that many of our airmen do pull 4 month tours. Admin and the like do just that. But unfortunately they started doing 1 year tours for many specialties last year. I want this war to end just as bad as the next guy, I just want to do it right.

Thin Black Line
October 24, 2006, 05:31 PM
Again, I am for National Defense. There's only so much the big dog can
do outside his own yard when it comes to the entire world.

I'm an idealist, too: We can certainly still project power abroad, defend
our borders, and maintain the rights of our citizens here without new levels
of intrusion or further changes or infringements to the Bill of Rights.

Projecting power abroad would be a great AF mission: Bombing. People
criticised Nixon/Kissinger for it at the time, but when you look back on it,
it risked far fewer US soldiers than putting their boots into it would have.

We certainly live in a strange time when although the the public is rightly
concerned about casualties, they would rather send a tank into a town to
blast the cr@p out of buildings instead of dropping bombs on the same
building.

My experiences with the Iraqis were not the same as yours. I went from
people waving at us to middle fingers, moons, and :cuss: --and that was
just from the kids! Ah, yes, then there were the little tikes playing "lets
bury the IED" along our convoy route.....sigh......

Lonestar
October 25, 2006, 02:36 PM
However, the "Bremer went against the Bush Admin" statement is utter
nonsense. Bremer reported directly to Rumsefeld and was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush himself in Dec 2004. But maybe I'm
wrong, maybe he disobeyed the President and still deserved a medal?

Thin Black Line...Watch the show...there was insane mismanagement all around. I'm remembering things that happened back then that I totally forgot about, until I watched the show. There was no communication between the military and the CPA. Powell and Rice HATED Rumsfeld. Rice actually was sent in to deal with Bremer. We won the war in Baghdad and with the exception of some hard core loyalist everyone wanted us there, to kick out Saddam. The transition was suppose to go over with 6 months, and we were outta there. Military advisors were already cutting deals with what was left of the Iraqi Military and Government. Just a quick leadership change and things were supposed to be back to normal. Bush stood behind the banner saying "Mission Accomplished" and then EVERYONE involved with the invasion retired. Everyone thought it was over. Then Bremer came in and the temporary vacation for the Military and Ba'athist government workers became permanent. The insurgent attacks started 2 weeks later. No one remembers that the insurgent groups did not get along in the early days, there were Ba'athist loyal to Saddam and Al Qaeda and outside forces, with different methods and agendas?

At the end of the day the lesson learned is you do not PO the armed warrior class of a country post invasion.

Prepare for takeover by a new Iraqi government within 60 days and a U.S. troop withdrawal by September. A division (about 30,000 troops) would be left to occupy Iraq.

Tommy Franks addressing troops in Iraq April 16 2003

xd9fan
October 26, 2006, 12:19 PM
I am not saying that we are the world police. I just think we should lend a hand when we are capable of it.

With 800+ military bases loaded for hell and back across the globe.......we are well beyond "lending a hand".

We didnt go to Iraq to "lend a hand". We are nation building/shaping. All to make us "safe".....and I hope we learn that this approach doesnt work.
We piss more people off. Because we are in thier business. We would never allow that here. (and you neocons know it)
The military is not designed to "lend a hand".....its design to kill people and break things..
and our military foriegn entanglements in the last 60 years have not been worth the price paid by american blood.

I'm an idealist too. The armed neutrality, free market, less Govt, pro Bill of Rights kind. Just wish we would get back to some basics here.....

Master Blaster
October 26, 2006, 02:45 PM
Iraqi's aren't American citizens and aren't protected by the American BOR. Is the RKBA a human right? Yep, sure is, but so the right to keep breathing. I'm perfectly prepared to violate the heck out of that right of I legitimately believe that you constitute a threat to me, and in the interest of my country's safety/interests I'm prepared to have that done at a national level. Omelettes/eggshells; the world's not libertarian lab exercise

And if you were them and American soldiers were kicking in your door and taking the weapons you needed to defend your family, when the govt and army wouldnt...

What would you do if you were an Iraqi??

With the above attitude and policy how long will it be before American troops can't walk down any street without taking fire.


Quote: The military is not designed to "lend a hand".....its design to kill people and break things.. End Quote.

+1

Its pretty hard to pacify a country when the locals figure they are the ones you want to kill and their homes are the things getting broken.

c_yeager
October 26, 2006, 02:57 PM
Our lesson here is that if our government had the opportunity to start over, this is how they would do it. Clearly they dont believe in our form of government, or they would actually be trying to use *that* system in Iraq. Clearly freedom is a little too dangerous of a concept for our administration.

MatthewVanitas
October 26, 2006, 03:19 PM
The original topic was actually pretty interesting, but this quickly broke down to a pro-War vs. anti-War argument.

Anyone have a good post to bring us back on track? I've already said my bit on the matter.

-MV

Waitone
October 26, 2006, 03:21 PM
Our lesson here is that if our government had the opportunity to start over, this is how they would do it. Clearly they dont believe in our form of government, or they would actually be trying to use *that* system in Iraq. Clearly freedom is a little too dangerous of a concept for our administration.Or maybe they clearly understood the unique nature of our creation, or the unique historical circumstances which allowed our fight for independence to succeed. Maybe they clearly understood a two party system had no chance to work in a highly fragmented society. Maybe they understood federalism to be viable only when there is a common worldview. Lots of reasons for what they did other than contempt for our form of government.

Thin Black Line
October 26, 2006, 06:04 PM
Thin Black Line...Watch the show...there was insane mismanagement all around.

"Mismanagement" is a failure of leadership. Who appointed who, who was
working under who, and ultimiately who was responsible to who? In the
town of Who-ville there was only one administration responsible for the
actions of everyone you named. Leadership is making sure people and plans
"stay the course." The captain of the ship sets the course. It's always
great to have a captain come up from below deck while the ship is in the
eye of the storm and make a course correction. In the meantime, the
officers under him are responsible for the operations of the ship, but the
captain is where the buck stops when it comes to final purpose of the
voyage, ie the mission. That's leadership.

At the end of the day the lesson learned is you do not PO the armed warrior class of a country post invasion.


Quote:
Prepare for takeover by a new Iraqi government within 60 days and a U.S. troop withdrawal by September. A division (about 30,000 troops) would be left to occupy Iraq.

Tommy Franks addressing troops in Iraq April 16 2003

Kind of makes you wonder who had the authority to countermand his
statement, doesn't it? I seem to recall a lot of complaints regarding the
micromanagement of Iraq from inside the DC beltway. The civilian (political)
leadership has done what it has wanted to despite assessments from the
soldiers on the ground and how it affects the Army as a whole.

As a result, the "warrior class" are voting with their feet.....this means
leaving the service. As it relates to the topic of this thread, one will have
to wonder what kind of military we will have in 10 or 20 years and what
kind of orders they would be willing to carry out issued by whatever partiya
happens to be sitting in DC at that moment.

That is the kind of thing that should be keeping you up at night with
worry.

TallPine
October 27, 2006, 12:07 PM
The original topic was actually pretty interesting, but this quickly broke down to a pro-War vs. anti-War argument.

Anyone have a good post to bring us back on track? I've already said my bit on the matter.

Yes, but it is sorta problematic to discuss the right or wrong way to do a thing, when there is much debate over whether the thing is right or wrong to do in the first place.

Like ... should you steal your mother's car, or should you just steal her silverware?

xd9fan
October 27, 2006, 02:32 PM
The original topic was actually pretty interesting, but this quickly broke down to a pro-War vs. anti-War argument.


The actions discribed in the original post are just syptoms of the larger problem....the war and why we are there.


I'm all for National Defense. But, you have to ask yourself with the borders
being left open here at home, when is the CiC going to put the national back
in National Defense again? A ballsy move would be to tell the next door
neighbor to quit letting his dog cr@p in my yard rather than worring what
someone is doing in the next town with their dog.

This is the massive disconnect.
Btwn Bush and Conservatives, btwn washington and flyoverland, btwn all of this wannabe WWII-like talk of the neocons and REAL Homeland security, btwn big GOVT looking the otherway and citizen Minutemen on the border.

by the way, its not "ballsy" telling the papertiger to stop being a papertiger.

Zoogster
October 27, 2006, 10:43 PM
Maybe you're just getting trained for operations after you get home
Eventualy, but they have to let the current children growing up now in a society where playing "cowboys and Indians(oops PC Native americans)" "cops and robbers" or even hinting of the existence of guns is taboo. A society where gun rights promoters are radicals, and hinting of enjoying pastimes involving firearms in daily life or at work (unless a LEO) gets on uneasy stares and potential ostricising. A society where most peoples recreational experience with guns is based on video games slaughtering many and not memorable outings in the outdoors or at ranges.
A society where the second amendment has magicly become the protection of some very worthless slow firing peashooters and not firearms in general. AND where the entire contextual meaning of the founding fathers in making the right to bear arms (to be capable of physicaly resisting tyrany, domestic and foriegn) so absurd because the military hardware employed by commando style 'SWAT' teams vs the stil legal peashooters that cant even penetrate body armor that it is laughable. A society where everyone they feel could be 'disobedient' has been found guilty of any 1 of the numerous rapidly increasing crimes that constitute a 'felony' and should not legaly be armed anyways......huh? you messed up on your taxes sir you cant own a weapon as a felon now...

If you enjoyed reading about "Are We Setting A Dangerous Precedent Here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!