Sending More Troops to Iraq

you do not invade a country due to the oppresion of others, like we always do, you negotiate, talk you your enemies if need be and use diplomatic efforts first, we have never even attempted to use diplomace in Iraq or any of it's neighbors, as they have said "There are times when you MUST talk to your enemies, we did with Russia years ago, we should have before we invaded, if all elese fails and every concievable effort has been made to rsolve the issue has failed, then and only then (unless you are attacked which Iraq has not done, they have neer attacked the USA) then you CONSIDER other options
if we did invade a country JUST for human rights oppersion the United States would have to invade virutaly every country on earth, not all but most
The US has to stop policing the world, Afghanistan is different Al Quida is based there, the Taliban is based there, they attacked on on 911, this has nothing to do with 911 and ever agency in the United States has said countless time that neither Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 911

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

you do not invade a country due to the oppresion of others, like we always do, you negotiate, talk you your enemies if need be and use diplomatic efforts first, we have never even attempted to use diplomace in Iraq or any of it's neighbors, as they have said "There are times when you MUST talk to your enemies, we did with Russia years ago, we should have before we invaded, if all elese fails and every concievable effort has been made to rsolve the issue has failed, then and only then (unless you are attacked which Iraq has not done, they have neer attacked the USA) then you CONSIDER other options
if we did invade a country JUST for human rights oppersion the United States would have to invade virutaly every country on earth, not all but most
The US has to stop policing the world, Afghanistan is different Al Quida is based there, the Taliban is based there, they attacked on on 911, this has nothing to do with 911 and ever agency in the United States has said countless time that neither Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 911

---

I'm sorry but there's a couple of holes in this post.

1) After the first Iraq war, about 10 years of negotiations followed where Saddam proved without a doubt that he just laughs at the suffering of his people. And since he made the people of Iraq suffer all the sanctions while his life-style was unimpaired I don't see how any more negotiations could have helped. 10 years of negotiations is a long time.

2) USA doesn't have to police the world on their own. The other democratic nations are more than willing to help out. The problem with Iraq was that USA wanted to dictate all the terms for how the post-war should be run. With France and Germany being as pompously blown up about their national pride as USA, (especially France) it wasn't hard to see where it would fail. This is all down to diplomacy and letting the sulky kid in the corner get their way for the good of the group. This is the realities of international diplomacy. Either you kiss everybodies ass, or you're on your own. With Germany and France out of the picture, getting the UN to come around is dead in the water. Having the UN on-board I think is vital for image reasons.

I think the democracies of the world should get together and police the world. It will make the world a better and safer place for one. I think it's very dangerous letting the dictatorships opress their people and invade others as they please. I also think it's very dangerous having one nation as a wild gun, (USA) just firing wildly at anything that they concieve is a problem. Negotiation and concensus between the democratic nations before taking action I believe is very important. The problem with USA's aproach is that it pisses everybody off. Not only do they waste enormous sums of money on their police actions. They aren't making any friends in the process, which should be a major goal, right?

3) How do you know Al Qaeda exists at all? As far as I know there's not been a shred of evidence that it's one organisation at all. I think it's more likely just something militant Islamists say they represent when they do their shit, in order to get more press and to give the impression of belonging to something larger.

The guy who blew up the bomb in London was Jamaican. I doubt you could find any ties to Saudi Arabia. He got no training or money from any external source. It was just one guy who was inspired to do it by one imam.

The guys who blew up the Madrid bombs where Maroccan, and the guy who suplied them with bombs was Spanish. It doesn't really give the impression of being very organised, does it?

As far as stoping Al Qaeda, I'm sure the Afghanistan invasion was a waste of money. But it did topple the Taleban, and that must be worth something. They where total cunts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Yes, but what right had Saddam to opress the Iraquis? That right has to be wayed against USA's, (or anyone elses) right to invade. It's not like Saddam was elected or anything. I've never understood the international worship of national soveriegnity. If people are being misstreated in other countries by their dictatorial rulers, I'd say that gives us the right, in the same way as inequalities within our countries make us upset. I am not a cultural relativist at all.

---

I have to agree with you Tom ---if we had done the right thing in the 1940s they may have been millions of Jews still alive ----the stick your head in the sand approch to world politics usually comes back and bites you on the ass ---Both of my son's have been to Iraq as I did in the first Gulf conflict ---and both of them said and I quote "we should have gone in sooner" they believe we should be there ---As does almost Every Marine I have talked to that has been there ---it is easy to sit here safe in your living room and second guess what should or should not be done---and the politicians that go for a visit to see first hand what is going on---What a Crock----they never get down and dirty with the people of the land ----Right or Wrong ---is no longer a question that should be asked ----We are there ---Lets do what it take to Win ---or all the soldiers and Marines will have gave their life in vain

Lets support the troops and quit fighting about if we should or should not be there ---both Democrats and Republicans --Supported the war when it began ---yes maybe on faulty intel but that is not unusual if you have ever been in the Military ---

just my opinion ---from a personal side ---one of my sons is back there now and I as so proud of both of them ---they volunteered -----and doing what needs to be done

But the war will never be won with politics-----or keeping things from our troops that could save lives just because it was not made in the US or fully tested by the US ----We should be taking notes from Israel they have been fighting terrorist for years we are the new kids on the block in this kind of war

I do suport our troops 100% i always have i always will, what i do not support is our having gone in to to Iraq start with, that's all and adding 20,000 troops at this point will make no difference only more body bags to come back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabbit1

We should be taking notes from Israel they have been fighting terrorist for years we are the new kids on the block in this kind of war

---

I'm not so sure that would be such a good idea. It's not like the Israelis are winning. They're still knee deep in suicide bombers.

You can't beat terror with guns. I'm not being a hippie here. It's the nature of it. There's nothing or nobody to attack. The Islamic militants are fighting with weapons that can be bought or built cheaply.

It's not like religion is going to go away in a hurry. People being motivated by imaginary future rewards has shown to be quite hard to combat. The people who fund these fighters are just ordinary people, (ordinary in the inconspicuous sense).

So basically taking away the means, money or manpower is a futile project. Which is pretty much what wars are all about.

I'm not going to pretend like I have a clue on how to solve the problems in Israel, but settling it with fighting doesn't seem to work. Maybe another tactic might be more useful, (Like making Israel/Palestein a secular state might perhaps be a start? hint hint)

When it comes to Saddam, I couldn't and still can't see any other strategy than an all out invasion that would have worked. But these two issues are completly unrelated. There's absolutely no link between them. I aplaud Bush and USA for carrying it through. I might have opinions on method, but it's always easier to bitch and whine from the back row than being the guy up-front actually getting his hands dirty.

no you can not beat terrorism by being reactive ---you have to hunt them down and destroy their very being ---Israel wanted to do that but again world opinion stopped them just like politics stop us ---in other words you can not just be there ----you have to declare war on terrorism and mean it ---go into any country that supports them ----or hide them ----you have to make it so terrorism does not pay ----and sponsoring or sheltering them does not pay ----

now we have a choice to make ---fight the terrorist in Iraq or let up and pull out and wait for them to regroup and come here ---our boarder are so vast that there is no way to guard them all ----

so instead of soldiers and Marines dying we can watch innocent women and children die here again ----yes I believe more troops should be send to Iraq ---but I think until the political bounds are let loose and let them do the job --it is a waste of time --except since we have been fighting terrorist over there ---there have been no major attacks here ----and it is not our increased security that has done it ---that is a joke ---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabbit1

no you can not beat terrorism by being reactive ---you have to hunt them down and destroy their very being ---Israel wanted to do that but again world opinion stopped them just like politics stop us ---in other words you can not just be there ----you have to declare war on terrorism and mean it ---go into any country that supports them ----or hide them ----you have to make it so terrorism does not pay ----and sponsoring or sheltering them does not pay ----

now we have a choice to make ---fight the terrorist in Iraq or let up and pull out and wait for them to regroup and come here ---our boarder are so vast that there is no way to guard them all ----

so instead of soldiers and Marines dying we can watch innocent women and children die here again ----yes I believe more troops should be send to Iraq ---but I think until the political bounds are let loose and let them do the job --it is a waste of time --except since we have been fighting terrorist over there ---there have been no major attacks here ----and it is not our increased security that has done it ---that is a joke ---

---

You can't hunt down something that doesn't exist? Terrorists are just ordinary people until the moment they strike. The guy who blew up the London bombs had no history with the police at all of doing anything violent ever. Anticipating that or declaring war on guys like that is impossible. Richard Read, (the shoebomber) was your typical neglected kid just looking for trouble. If it hadn't been this it would have been something else he went to jail for.

The only thing for fighting terrorism is that the people who turn to terrorism is almost exclusively from the extreme working class and very poorest areas in the world. The extreme bottom scraping of losers in the world. These people don't have the education to do it with any stealth, and can therefor much easier be caught. But as we all know, it doesn't work every time. Most people who get caught for trying to do terrorist acts have no history at all.

Besides 9/11 has there ever in history been any terrorist act even comparable? Sponsoring and harboring terrorists isn't really a problem is it? Besides Taleban and Osama, Kadafi harboring Carlos the Jackal and Idi Amin harbouring the guys who took the Israeli cruise ship hostage. What else is there? All these countries have all changed since then anyway. It's done and if it happens again we can deal with it then. But what now?

I doubt Osama and his buddies can do so much more damage. They're wanted all over the globe and all their assets are siezed. They're completly castrated. Regroup? What do you mean with regroup? Who?

Never mind the US borders. I'm 100% sure USA is riddled with people willing to die for the cause allready. All it needs is one guy anywhere. How about the UNA bomber. One guy inside the borders did plenty of damage.

Terrorism never pays. It's not why people do it. I'm sure muslims become terrorists for the same reasons young white boys become nazi skinnheads. Losers desperate to matter in the world. Desperate for anybody giving a shit about their seemingly worthles existance. That's what we need to adress. How do we get young boys having trouble in school a chance to do something worthwhile in their lives instead of turning to this shit. That's how we combat terrorism.

Islam is intrinsically oposed to suicide bombings. It says in the Koran that people who commit suicide go to hell. These are just total fuck-ups confused in life.

Just nuking the shit out of any Palestinian doing anything naughty and driving the country deeper into poverty by blocking their ports, I'm not sure was such a bright move. My guess is that it breeds terrorists rather than combating it.

I think it's better to focus on preventing more people to become terrorists than to hunt down the known ones. The ones who are wanted for it can't do anything else but to stay in hiding anyway. They're not doing any damage doing that are they? And we save money. I'm sure all this focus on terrorism is just making it more attractive for the lost young souls in the world.

I truley believewhen it coe to Security and dealing with and handling terorism the wholeworld can take an example from Israel, i do not believe anyone does it better and lot of nations look to them for help and knowledge
Ben_Gurien Airport may be the safest in the world when it comes to dealing with Terrorists

For the record, in terms of whether the USA should be in Iraq or not is a very long since moot point: you're already there, and at this point it is really a debate with no purposeful outcome to be had. The only question is what to do now. I don't see pulling out any time soon as a realistic option. Your government chose to go in, how you've got to finish what you started. The fact that it turns out (as every new generation seems to forget) that war isn't as romantic as they make it in the movies, and that it happens to have got hard, is no excuse to pull out now. The job that was started now has to be finished. You want to breed a new generation of hate? Pull out, and watch the consequences.

There's still a very good chance that Iraq is going to degrade into a civil war. That could get very ugly if another foreign power decides to back one of the groups the Americans view as "extremists", and the Americans would almost certainly back the Shiites. Of course then the Americans will say "stay out of the war" to the new foreign power, which would look about as credible as Pee Wee Herman as the King of England.

However, an American millitary pull out at this point, and I'd mortgage my house and bet on that war. The factions in Iraq qould decend into chaos within 24 months. With them in, yes it will be long, it will be ugly, but at least there's a chance for a democracy. Some of America's big enemies like Iran and North Korea talk big but know they can't win if they actually get into a firefight. Whether it's a legitimate democracy or another puppet democracy in the South American vein, only time will tell.

Tom says:
"Terrorism never pays. It's not why people do it. I'm sure muslims become terrorists for the same reasons young white boys become nazi skinnheads. Losers desperate to matter in the world. Desperate for anybody giving a shit about their seemingly worthles existance. That's what we need to adress. How do we get young boys having trouble in school a chance to do something worthwhile in their lives instead of turning to this shit. That's how we combat terrorism.

Islam is intrinsically oposed to suicide bombings. It says in the Koran that people who commit suicide go to hell. These are just total fuck-ups confused in life.

Just nuking the shit out of any Palestinian doing anything naughty and driving the country deeper into poverty by blocking their ports, I'm not sure was such a bright move. My guess is that it breeds terrorists rather than combating it.

I think it's better to focus on preventing more people to become terrorists than to hunt down the known ones. The ones who are wanted for it can't do anything else but to stay in hiding anyway. They're not doing any damage doing that are they? And we save money. I'm sure all this focus on terrorism is just making it more attractive for the lost young souls in the world."

There's more sense in these paragraphs than I care to restate so I'll just nod and leave it at that. I do disagree partially with the last point he makes though. Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden does remain a criminal mastermind who has more than his share of crimes to answer for. No reason to give up the hunt for justice because it happens to be difficult. Aside from that though, a lot of stuff I agree with.

"Ben_Gurien Airport may be the safest in the world when it comes to dealing with Terrorists"

Nice safe airport (well if you consider a legion of armed officers pointing guns at your head for putting a bag down "safe"), but I doubt very much you'd voluntarily ride a public bus in downtown Tel Aviv if you could avoid doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

There's more sense in these paragraphs than I care to restate so I'll just nod and leave it at that. I do disagree partially with the last point he makes though. Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden does remain a criminal mastermind who has more than his share of crimes to answer for. No reason to give up the hunt for justice because it happens to be difficult. Aside from that though, a lot of stuff I agree with.

---

Mastermind? I'm guessing you have watched one too many James Bond movies. If Osama was smart, he wouldn't be into this shit. Gearing your whole life toward being against anything is what stupid losers do. The smart ones build stuff and make the world better. He's educated for christ sakes. He doesn't have the excuse that a poor uneducated street urchin, rejected by life has. He should definitely know better.

9/11 didn't need any intelligence behind it. All it needed was the will to carry it out and a couple of guys willing to die for the cause. What makes Osama different is that he had access to vast sums of money. But they're all gone now. He's disinherited by his family and all his assets are siezed. The little money he has left I'm sure has run out by now. He's probably just living off his super star-dom in the militant Islamic scene and smootching off his pals. People like that turn pathetic pretty quick.

Anybody who comes close to him get labeled as terrorists in an instant, basically ruining their whole lives. How many resourceful and smart people do you think is likely to hang out with him now? I'm sure he can live a pretty comfortable life in some cave in Afghanistan and evade the US watchdogs for all eternity.

Terrorist-strikes needs very little money and very little intelligence behind it. The only thing that is crucial is to not be wanted by the cops. Osama is totaly worthless to his own cause now. He might boost his ego by releasing some more videotapes calling for a Jihad, but I think we've seen the last of him being part of any future acts of terrorism. But that's just my own humble theory.

Timberwolf,

I appreciate you rpoint, all I was tryint osay is from the stand point of Security at Airports to my knowledge nobody doesi t better the Israel, i have no issuewith armed soldiers walking aroundwith guns, I wouls rather have them in the termenals were they can be seen, the on a plane after ittakes off
Look at what happened ajust afewdays ago, with that child from I believe TExs, he was a sstoaway on an airplane and made 3 diferent flights undectected and Southwest Air says "We are looking into it" Suppose he had been a terrorsit and not a child
I do not believe any airport in the USA is 100% safe, however ifi had a choice do to security in place between taking off on a flihht in the United States or Ben_Gurien, I would likely choose Ben_Gurie, Armed security is VRY intimidating but i would rather be imtimated and secure before boarding then after, as I would know at Ben_Gurien that there is virtual no chanceo f a security breach there, other US airports can not make that claim, that security is 100% guaranteed, Israels may not bee 100% but i can assure you it is much closer to 100% then any airport inthe USA

Rabbit, I certainly share your relief that one of your sons returned safely from Iraq and I pray the other one does as well. I had a son-in-law stationed in Afganistan for a year, who has also returned unscathed.

Let's get something straight here. Saddam Hussein was a loathsome person who did terrible things to his own people. So I was not sorry that he was toppled and ended up swinging at the end of a rope.

But, what he did do, was keep Al Qaeda( Yes Tom they do exist) out of Iraq. And he controlled an enormous oil operation. And yes, at one time I believe he did have wmd's, but the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find any when they went in, so evidently Saddam did comply with the order to destroy them.

But Bush was so determined to attack Iraq that he ignored their report, attacked and stood on an Aircraft Carrier declaring a swift victory.

But, he we are four years later still struggling in this quagmire with over 3 thousand American troops killed with no end in sight. Is sending in more troops the answer? The military brass didn't think so. The Iraq commission didn't think so. But this warmongering president thinks so.

Down deep, I do want us to win and if sending 21,500 more troops will accomplish that, I'd say go for it! But considering what has oocurred since our invasion, I have my doubts.

I have trouble seeing the news ---while the cameras capture pictures of hundreds of armed people not in the military or police force carring around automatic weapons ---and you know what ---our military are not allowed to disarm them ----

how can you win a war when there are rules that allow anyone to carry weapos like that in the streets ----

Who is the enemy? when a us soldier or marine shoots a bystander by mistake ---it is on the news for weeks ----when terrorist kill hundreds of their own people with bombs and rifle attacks --it gets maybe 10 minutes of coverage on the news ----

Terrorism is very old --much like the form of the KKK here in the past ---used to keep people in line ---it was used in Vietnam --by the north to keep the southern people in line ---it can be stopped ---but you have to hunt down the sponsors ---

We have taking alot of funds ---but what we took is a drop in the bucket ---when you have countries like Iran and others ---oil rich counties supporting Terrorism ---yes we singled out Iraq and Afganastan ----but the words of the President at the time have not been followed ----if you sponsor or harbor terrorist then you are against US ---when we cut off all aid and trade with those counties and if that does not do it ---go farther ---

What do you think would have happened if we had not stopped Isreal during the first Gulf war? do you think they would have left Saddam in power?

Were did we have the right to interfer and ask them not to defend their country from rocket attacks? Politics have made the war a mess ---just like it did in Vietnam --and one sided news reporting ----

God help us if we show weakness and pull the troops out this time ----the Vietcong did not come after us ---but terrorist will

To me, it just seems like another Vietnam (obviously with a lot of other aspects). I don't think there is any "win" there for us. As much as losing a war hurts an ego, it really looks like the best route is to pull out. Perhaps I am wrong...

Just my two (other) cents...

I have a question if anyone knows the answer
I heard a few weeks back maybe a month ago that Bush had said that when his father was in office, that Saddam had ordered an assiination attepted on his father and that the invasion aside from everything else was also to serve as payback for what the current Bush said was thelleged plot or attempt to kill his father while George Sr. was in office, has anyone hear this or know anything about it
Nt making an issue out of this, just wondering if anyone heard this or knows about it

Rabbit, I think one reason we left him in power after the first war, is that the CIA told every one we can take him out, but who will replace him, his sons? chemiacl ali? etc... So we new of his dealings however we also could, did and contiuned to keep him in check.

MR

mkemse,
I have heard of this. it goes way back to went gw took office. But thata s lame excuse also LOL, hell what presdient hasnt had some one who wanted him dead.

well like I said ---god help us if we pull out ---as the USA will become another Target as soon as they can regroup ---think of car bombs going off in the local mall parking lots ---and being afraid to ride the bus here ---911 was bad but just a small taste of what terrorism can be ---if they are busy using their resourses in Iraq --not much left for here ---we may not have stoped them but we sure slowed them down

Iraq, it’s just a training ground for them now since we went in and made it a great school on how to do it. Bombs going off is a scary thing but OK city, and mail bombs have been raining on us for years, its just was easy to over look as disgruntle people, went it was a form of terrorism so we been facing it for a long time.
So being some one who was places were we never were, we cannot cut and run but we can also train and release control of major areas we occupier now, and start to leave a smaller foot hold there, we should be talking to Iran as we could gain some help as we know Iran is hurting or will be in 8 years went there out of Oil. Hell I’ve said it they are getting the country anyways might as well see if we cannot at lease get a smile before they say fuck you, just a though .

Later
Master_Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6

But, what he did do, was keep Al Qaeda( Yes Tom they do exist) out of Iraq. And he controlled an enormous oil operation. And yes, at one time I believe he did have wmd's, but the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find any when they went in, so evidently Saddam did comply with the order to destroy them.

---

Ok, Al Qaeda have existed. But what's your evidence for them still existing and being the part of or controlling any international terrorist organisation. Is there any hard evidence for it? I'm guessing it's just a media myth to sell more papers.

yes they still exit, the have a web site and pepole in Pakistan and Afghanstan have seem member but turn nobody in out of fear of their lives,
Bin Laden is alive and al Qaeda will laways exist it may loos power overthe years but it is like cancer it willl always exist in 1 form or another, the Talaban still exisits they are talking about send a surge of 15,000 there to figth them now and then ews reported tonight nbe it right or wrong that if Iran does not stop its Nuclear program the US hasa plan to invade them as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

yes they still exit, the have a web site and pepole in Pakistan and Afghanstan have seem member but turn nobody in out of fear of their lives,
Bin Laden is alive and al Qaeda will laways exist it may loos power overthe years but it is like cancer it willl always exist in 1 form or another, the Talaban still exisits they are talking about send a surge of 15,000 there to figth them now and then ews reported tonight nbe it right or wrong that if Iran does not stop its Nuclear program the US hasa plan to invade them as well

---

I can make an Al Qaeda web site tomorrow. That doesn't prove a thing. There was a Dutch guy last year accused by the CIA for making a reqruitment video for Al Qaeda. When he was interogated he said it was just a joke, (which should have been obvious to anybody since it was really very silly). But it was still head-line news all over the world, (that a Al Qaeda operative had been siezed by CIA). The fact that Al Qaeda sells so much newspapers should make you a hell of a lot more critical of what you read. Unsurprisingly, him not being a part of Al Qaeda didn't make the head-lines.

I'm still going with my theory that it's just something militant muslims say they're a part of to seem more menacing. Even though there's no network connecting anybody.

Just compare them to real intelligence organisations of the world. They suck at keeping secrets. Watergate!!! Considering the nature of Al Qaeda, it should be super easy to lean on somebody who wants out. But they off-course haven't found anybody who talks, because there's off-course nothing to say. If the mafia can't keep infiltrators out. What makes you think a bunch of religous loons can? It just doesn't make sense.

The Taleban is on the upsurge in Afghanistan because they can provide security. In a way the govornement today can't. In politics it always comes down to the real basic practical issues and never ideology. Am I more safe/rich/healthy/educated now than I was during the last regime? It's the same reason the Islamic courts are taking power in Somalia. I doubt any of this has a basis in Aghanis or Somalis being any more religious than anybody else.

I doubt USA will invade Iran. There's no political will, money or troops to do it. I'm assuming Bush has spent USA's terrorist-fighting carte blanche. We'll see, because I doubt Iran will stop enriching uranium.

edit: How about this for good news on Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6283975.stm
It seems the Sunnis are realising it's better to be in than out from parliment.

"I have trouble seeing the news ---while the cameras capture pictures of hundreds of armed people not in the military or police force carring around automatic weapons ---and you know what ---our military are not allowed to disarm them ----"

Funny, I seem to remember the membership on this site was quite happy with the right to bear arms when it came to places like Detroit, Portland Maine, or Portland Oregon.

Timberwolf,
Please correct me if i am wrong, but my understnading is our troops are not alowed to disarm anyone as they do not want use involved. Or to create additoin issues
As Robert Ripley (The Robert Ripley Of Ripley's Believe It Or Not Fame)once said "Strange But True" if in factths is correct, if so it is amazing that wecan fight in a War but not be allowed to Disarm the enemy, as i said i am not sure if this si corect it is my understanding

The mere fact an Iraqi citizen owns a firearm doesn't make them your enemy. And anyone who doesn't see that needs to take a very hard look in the mirror.

I agree, Tinberwolf as here in the USA I would say there are 2 firearms per person avg. thinking some people don’t understand that carrying a weapon is a right of passage for most. many places in the world.
We need really to just back out of Baghdad and turn over the city to the Iraqis and pull back into biap and camp victory. With that move we will stop most of the violence. There still be some but most part with us out of the way both sides, will lose there main focus on why they are fighting each other.

The right to bear arm in the Unites States is guranteed by our Consitution, the only issue I have with this is that I see NOT REASON for any private citizen to own a fully autmatic assult rife, these are used only to kill notto hunt, i have ener seem as duck or deer fire back at a hunter so a standard rigfe should do just fine
I strongly disagree with those who say we also be alowed to own and bear fully or semi automtic assult riles, i know some will disagree but as most people tell you, unless you are a gun collector their is no reason to own a uzi, AK47 ect. I donot believe in guns, i do believe intheright o own one if one chooses to do so i do have a HUGE issue withhosewho own the othertype fire arm the full automtic assult rifle kind, no reason for private owner ship expect as a collection and not for actual use

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

The right to bear arm in the Unites States is guranteed by our Consitution, the only issue I have with this is that I see NOT REASON for any private citizen to own a fully autmatic assult rife, these are used only to kill notto hunt, i have ener seem as duck or deer fire back at a hunter so a standard rigfe should do just fine
I strongly disagree with those who say we also be alowed to own and bear fully or semi automtic assult riles, i know some will disagree but as most people tell you, unless you are a gun collector their is no reason to own a uzi, AK47 ect. I donot believe in guns, i do believe intheright o own one if one chooses to do so i do have a HUGE issue withhosewho own the othertype fire arm the full automtic assult rifle kind, no reason for private owner ship expect as a collection and not for actual use

---

Interpreting the US constitution as suporting AK47's and handguns is pretty stupid. When that was writen, the weapon refered to was a musket. That is off-course what the constitution suports, nothing else. The method of fighting with a musket is radically different than modern weapons. There's just no comparison.

I may not live in the US, but the constitution isn't very hard to read and is pretty clear.

TomOf Sweden,

I know that and you know that, but the NRA (National Rifle Association) contends that the Comstituions allows ANY type fire ARMS, they said they will not support a ban of semi or fully automatic because the right to carry them is in the Unted State Contitution, that was the reason i said what I did, sory i was not complete

If the contentions are were applied to everything else that is governed by the constitution then progress would be halted in many areas so the idea of handguns and automatics not being applicable fails in my eyes.
Also, the 2nd goes along with a militia. the revolution was fought by those we had the technology of their time.. not past time.. so put that into todays technology is not much difference and very hard to argue.
two flawed postings imo.

Constitution of the United States

Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787;
Ratification completed, June 21, 17881
(Current through 1995)
Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Article I: The Legislative Branch
Article II: The Executive Branch
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Article IV: Relations between the States
Article V: The Amendment Process
Article VI: General Provisions, Supremacy of the Constitution
Article VII: Ratification Process

Amendments to the Constitution:
The Bill of Rights

Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just a quick look at the constitution, what is said, and the second Amendment of the bill or rights, No where is a certain kind of weapon is mention, so to simple say musket, and mean you have not full though it out as our fore fathers, was smart enough to leave that kind of short comings out of the constitution.
Thank you if you like to learn more, I will be happy to send you a copy of the whole constitution.

I would also add, for those who want limit the established 2nd amendment rights (like so many of our rights have been limited in the past 70 or so years,) a simple notion; if you disarm the populace, the only groups that would be armed would the government agents and criminals. I can think of no two groups that I would be more vigilant against than the aforementioned groups. If that means owning and training "assault" rifles than so be it. Also, could those who are opposed to the ownership of "assault" rifles define what an "assault" rifle is?

Regards,
Princi

I would define an assult rifle as a rife such as a AK47, Uzi,like rifle these 2 specific model are dated as rapid fire multiload gun who when the trigger is pressed it continue to shoot rounds til it runs out (genenral 30 rounds or more) continuos firing, unlike a hunting rifle which requires reload after 1-2 rouds, I see no partical reason to own an uzi, AK47 or any rapid 30 + round gun for huntining the deer, rabbit ect are not going to fire back at you
for hunting unless you are hunting human prey, a standard 1-2 round rifle should do fine for a deer, rabbit, ect, and not a 30+ roundcllip
please ocrrectm e if thisdefinition is not correct
I have no issue with gun ownership neevr had never will, i do have an issue with guns that fire a 30+ round clip for home or leasure ownership, collector yes no, hunting no, why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

---

In advance, forgive the long post.

I think this comes down to a misinterpretation of what the 2nd amendment (and indeed in a broader sense much of the constitution) was intended to do. Hunting is not the primary reason why this amendment was constituted. Those who insisted that the 2nd amendment be part of the bill of rights were principally concerned with the ability for citizens to protect themselves. The colonies were basically agrarian economies and did not require hunting to feed themselves (that hunting was part of these societies is incidental to this specific debate.) The most critical concern was the recent experience that the founding generation had with the British and there aggressive attempts to confiscate weapons. There was also the reality of western expansion and the new, perceived, "enemy" which was the native population. To add to this was the foreign threat to the new nation of the British (the former rulers who were aggressively looking for a way regain control), the Spanish (who were looking for a way to reassert the quickly fading dominance), and increasingly the French (who were act less and less like an ally.) Defense, individual liberty, and a deep distrust of government power (whether local or foreign) was the driving force behind the articulation and constitution of the right to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd amendment does not grant this right, it simply recognizes the rights that had naturally accrued (and deemed universal) during the period of "Salutary Neglect" (the period of non-intervention in the colonies by the English crown.) This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the rights enumerated by the constitution; these are not rights granted, but rights that pre-existed the American state and fully articulated by the constitution.

Regards,
Princi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

If the contentions are were applied to everything else that is governed by the constitution then progress would be halted in many areas so the idea of handguns and automatics not being applicable fails in my eyes.

---

A very good point. This is hard to argue with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

Also, the 2nd goes along with a militia. the revolution was fought by those we had the technology of their time.. not past time.. so put that into todays technology is not much difference and very hard to argue.
two flawed postings imo.

---

And now we're down to the basic philosophy of gun control. Which is basically waying the effectivity of a future needed revolution against increased murder rates. Which is equally hard to argue either for or against and is derailing the subject so I'll just leave it.

I know hunting was not a thought with th ammedment, all in am saying is in 2007, i see no logical real for rapid fire assult weapons with 30+ round clips to be legal to own and used, what purpose do they sreve beyond killng, my intention was simpy to say if you want to own a handgun (registered) or a rifle(registered) fine, but why a assault rifle?? that was my omly question, i am not didsabreeing withtheright obeararms, i am doing so with 30 round clip gun,s if you go back to the days of prohibition, it would be similar to say "Let's all everyone who wants to bear arm the right to own and use "Tommy Gun" why??

The only reason I even brough this up is that the NRA and most gun enthusiast always use the this ammendment the 2nd to justify owning and using assult rifles with a 30 round clip saying "The constitution guarantees us the right now bear arms" no disagreement here, the disagreement is the TYPE of arms you bear hope this clear this up

I do not own a gun, i probably will never own a gun, i have no need to BUT i will defend with my life the right for someone who wants to and believes in it their right to own a gun or rifle (registered with knowlege how to use it) just not rapid fire guns with clips
If my neigbor wants to own a gun or a rifle fine with me no issue here, if he wants to own an assault rapid fire gun with clips, then YES i have a BIG ISSUE with that

so if we limit the civilian we should limit the military as then they are not equally armed?
do you see how this goes against one versus the other.
That is why we can't disarm in other countries.

And there really is no such thing as assault rifle .. this was born out in congress and is why the assault weapons ban died. smiles so that should have ended that type discussion. as for automatics if one wishes to go through ATF and seek the required documentation and license for a Class III that lets you own autos and machine guns then i have no problem with it. I have an application going through the process now.