[jsalcedo]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030625/ts_nm/iraq_blair_dc

Blair: Troops Faced Problems Disarming Iraqis

LONDON (Reuters) - Six British troops killed in Iraq (news - web
sites) may have run into trouble as they tried to disarm the local
population, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said on
Wednesday.

"There is a background to do with the attempts by British forces to
make sure the local population, who regularly carry machine guns and
small firearms, were disarmed of those weapons," Blair told
parliament.

"There had been problems in relation to that. That may form part of
the background to it but at the moment it's simply too early to say."

Local residents have said Iraqi civilians shot dead the six soldiers
and wounded eight others during clashes on Tuesday over intrusive arms
searches.

But a British military spokesman, Ronnie McCourt, said the killing of
the military police officers in the southern town of Majjar was
unprovoked murder. Witnesses and residents said four Iraqis were
killed and 14 wounded in the clashes with the British soldiers in
Majjar, 18 miles south of the city of al Amarah.

The clashes followed resentment over weapons searches by British
soldiers and erupted after troops fired plastic bullets to try to
control thousands of protesters, they said.

Blair said that within 24 hours, he expected to be able to say more
about the group that attacked the forces. Earlier, his spokesman said
he did not recognize such a portrayal of British forces' actions or
"rumors being bandied around."

Blair said there was no question of Britain turning its back on Iraq,
despite the losses.

More British troops would be sent to Iraq if needed, he added but said
local commanders believed they had enough forces.

[Sam Adams]

The clashes followed resentment over weapons searches by British
soldiers and erupted after troops fired plastic bullets to try to
control thousands of protesters, they said.

I heard on the radio that the Brits killed 4 people while putting down the riot/protest, and that this was the direct cause of the 6 Brits getting killed.

While I like the Brits, and while we and they were and are over there to defang part of the worldwide Islamonazi power base, I don't think that this was a case of murder. It is combat, even though those on the Iraqi side (almost certainly) weren't wearing uniforms. Taking this story at face value (admittedly a risky thing to do with ANY media story), it appears that arms seizures have aroused the ire of the Iraqi populace, and that some of them are actually fighting for what they believe to be their RKBA.

It is an article of faith on this and like-minded boards that every human being has a natural law RKBA. Defense of self, family and liberty is the most basic possible human right, since it is the defense of life itself. This group of rights doesn't cease to exist simply because a person doesn't reside within the US - hence, Iraqi citizens have the same right (at least in theory, and that IS what I'm addressing here). Mind you, I AM NOT talking about members of the Baath Party, Saddam's inner circle, or other violators of basic human rights - these people don't have such a right, and should be disarmed. But the average, ordinary Adbul in the street over there has a RKBA, just as we do. In other words, I question the morality of such a policy - and the higher the casualties, the more I question its wisdom.

While I hope that nothing of this sort would ever occur here, if an armed force of ANY nationality did attempt to disarm the American public, I would hope that rivers of their blood would flow.

[TheeBadOne]

waiting to hear more...

[No4Mk1]

I think Sam Adams said it well. While there is clearly more to be learned of the details in this story, it has bothered me from the outset that our military (along side the Brits) is undertaking the task of disarming civilians.

[moa]

I understand that in the "American" sector of Iraq, the military is generally allowing the Iraqi's to keep such weapons as AK47s and handguns. In the American sector it is recognized that the citizens require some arms for protection due to the shabby security situation.

I think it is generally frowned upon for Iraqi citizens to be openly carrying firearms in public.

However, anything heavier or more destructive is forbidden. Machine guns, RPGs, mortars and heavy weapons are suppose to be turned over to the coalition.

I wonder if the Brits are pursuing a zero tolerance policy like they pretty much do back home? Maybe that is the reason for the upsurge in violence in their sector.

[jsalcedo]

Imagine if a bunch of one world government limey Brits came into your neighborhood uninvited and decided to hold you and your family at gunpoint as they carted all of your guns away.

Thats what I thought....

[DontShootMe]

Aren't we liberating these people?

[agricola]

US troops killed by Iraqis: heroes liberating people from islamofascist tyrants

UK troops killed by Iraqis: one world government limey Brits

what a ludicrous state of affairs. we should leave your mess to you if thats the way you lot feel about it.

[Byron Quick]

agricola,

So you should...if that was truly the way we felt about it.

I must admit to ambivalence about disarming the Iraqi populace...no matter if it were done by American troops or British troops.

But, never doubt the esteem felt by Americans for the British troops.

[mattd]

We should let them keep all their military weapons like rpgs, aaa guns, ak-47s and their handguns. Not searching every ones houses and pissing people off and taking their property is not a bad thing. There will never be another Saddam as long as they are armed to the teeth and have a little taste of freedom.

Im sure most of the ambushes was from foreigners or Baath party members but that could change for the worst. Adopt the Bill of Rights have them vote some people and get the hell out of there.

[jsalcedo]

_________________________________________________
US troops killed by Iraqis: heroes liberating people from islamofascist tyrants
____________________________________________________

Nope the US shouldn't be doing door to door weapon confiscation either.


I have no respect for the person who is giving the command to
disarm the iraqis.


The question still is:

Are the brits pursuing total forced disarmament of the populace under their control as opposed to the US which allow AK's and handguns?

[Mk VII]

not only would there never be another Saddam there would never be another government of any kind. Is that what we really want, another Somalia or Afghanistan where warring gangs squabble over the ruins?
The danger right now is that people will start saying "My God, even Saddam was better than this, at least the street lights and the sanitation worked and the garbage was collected. Now we can't even get a glass of potable water." And let us have no more of this nonsense about 'liberating' Iraq, we didn't liberate it, any more than we 'liberated' Germany in 1945.

[SADshooter]

We pontificate here regularly about a fundamental human right to self-protection. I'm not in Iraq, and I wouldn't want to be. But, in my comfortable position as armchair QB, I'll assert the hypocrisy of saying Iraqi citizens forfeit this right because of our (US/UK) military occupation. The situation doesn't present an easy answer, and I shudder hearing reports of coalition casualties. This seems to me a chance to prove we mean what we say in terms of "freeing" the Iraqi people.

[brownie0486]

I believe everyone should be disarmed in Iraq except the forces who entered Iraq to oust Saddam and that regime and police officers/others charged with establishing a new order within the country.

Reasoning behind that statement.

1. The enemy of our troops killing us and the brits there look like/pose as civilians.

2. We do not need another scenario where the civilian population is fully armed and fighting each other over the spoils of war after we are out of there.

A bill of rights in Iraq? Maybe once a democracy is established, until then disarm them all [ for our servicemens safety ] and after the gov't has been set up by their own people, let them then decide through their electing their representatives what will be lawful and what won't be.

Until such time as they are running their own country and make their own rules and laws under some form of "democracy" and have established forces/police to enforce their new lawful laws, they don't need to have them, we are there and handling their security needs through our presence.

As long as one terrorist exists in civilian clothes and we are there, none should be allowed to have weapons. That will come later after we have gone and they have made their voice heard through an elective process.

We run too many risks opf death or injury to the GI's there by allowing the populace to openly carry weapons. They don't need them right now and it will reduce the baaths from being able to hide as civilians.

Whatever it takes to secure of soldiers safety is the order of the day for me. To that means, anything applies that will reduce the risks while we remain there.

Brownie

[jsalcedo]

______________________________________________________________________________________________
As long as one terrorist exists in civilian clothes and we are there, none should be allowed to have weapons. That will come later after we have gone and they have made their voice heard through an elective process.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Sheesh that mirrors what VPC and brady have been saying for years.

The folks that are being disarmed are no threat. Just like gun control does not work in the US its not going to work in Iraq.

Whatever happened to winning the hearts and minds?

Go after the cells of Bat'thists, shoot to kill anyone who poses a threat, but going door to door rounding up weapons is folly and sets a dangerous precedent.

[Oleg Volk]

I am still waiting for the report of arms cached at a particular location...designed to lead enemy troops to a remotely detonated mine. I expect that method would catch on pretty fast.

[AZRickD]

And speaking of VPC, those anti-gun folks who look forward to the day when SWAT teams will be busting down doors in American looking for guns are studying this failed attempt at Iraqi disarmament and are saying to themselves, "Daaaaayammm!! Not as easy as we thought it would be."

So, for our sake, I hope that the disarmament program continues to fail. Because if it does work there....it will more likely be tried here.

Rick

[mattd]

Disarming the Iraqis means going door to door which the Iraqis hate, and only increase the dislike for Americans in Iraq.

If letting them keeps their weapons and if that means total f**king chaos in which all hell breaks loose and the moon crashes on top of Iraq(anti-gun point of view), then so be it. If guns means alot of killing, then people need more guns for protecting, if there is no killings then that is proof people can be trusted.

It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide." -Abraham Lincoln