One of the common theroies that I have heard lateley is that as a country, Iraq has a right to those weapons. This is a corollary to the argument that even if he did have them, he is not a threat and would not use. In summation, Saddam is so impotent that even WMD induced viagra could not make him a potent threat. This has then lead me to wonder, if those people consent to allowing Iraq to have Nukes and Plauge, why do they also insist that I can not own an assualt rifle?

It's a good point you make there, but it works even better the other way around:

Why are there so many Americans who believe in the 'right' to carry fire-arms also protest Saddam having WMD?

quote:

---

Originally posted by hp:
Why are there so many Americans who believe in the 'right' to carry fire-arms also protest Saddam having WMD?

---

Thank for asking an easy question.

The United States Constitution ALLOWS us to 'carry fire-arms'.

The surrender terms of the Gulf War FORBID Saddam WMD.

It don't get no plainer than that.

Nox

Not to mention as a signatory of the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty (we destroy as many missiles as possible, reduce our arsenal etc, non nuclear states promise not to persue them), chemical weapons treaty, and biological weapons treaty, America has respected those treaties (and dont give me that chem weapon BS since we are trying to destroy them but tree huggers wont let us). America and Russia has gone from 40,000 nuclear weapons in 1980 to 8000 by 2003. We have (along with Russia) destroyed all biological weapons, and are in the process of zapping our chemical bombs. Russia and America have also started to blow up old/useless silos, and sattelite images have confirmed they have done this and are abiding by their treaty. Kazakstan, Ukraine, and Belarus inherited nukes from the Soviets, and let the international community dismantle, destroy, account for, and render harmless all of them. No problems. South Africa voluntarily disarmed itself in a fully verifiable manner. Why is it that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea don't seem to want to do this? Part of the Iraqi peace treaty (and 15 resolutions against them) demanded that they disarm, but appearently they have something to hide. North Korea kicks out all inspectors, restarts a reactor, but its different because of course they have no oil (or 80% of the fields owned by French and Russians). Right? BS

----Forgot to mention that Iraq signed the nuclear non proliferation/development treaty, chemical weapons treaty, and biological weapons treaty. But whoops! We're being bullies. It's like being caught rehanded by a school teacher, but appearently your not accountable because the school teacher is in higher standing then you.----

[This message has been edited by LebaneseFighter (edited 01-31-2003).]

All agreed and all good points, but I with-held one corollary of my argument. Why are leftists, the ones who support Saddam, more afraid of weapons in the hands of individuals than weapons in the hands of insane leaders. A kook with a gun can only get so many people, ala Malvo, but an autocratic leader has the potential power to condem millions to death. Why are they more afraid of individuals with guns than governments with Nukes and VX? It makes no logical sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
One of the common theroies that I have heard lateley is that as a country, Iraq has a right to those weapons. This is a corollary to the argument that even if he did have them, he is not a threat and would not use. In summation, Saddam is so impotent that even WMD induced viagra could not make him a potent threat. This has then lead me to wonder, if those people consent to allowing Iraq to have Nukes and Plauge, why do they also insist that I can not own an assualt rifle?

---

To play Devils Advocate for a while. (I'm not sure if I believe all of the following, just how I would imagine a lefty responding)

You are supposed to be in a system governed by the rule of law, where as the international system (from a realists perspective) is an anarchy. In a system where justice and law is supposed to be the protector of your safety an automatic weapon should be unnesscary and to protect your safety and the safety of others from accidents an automatic weapon is prohibited. However in the anarchy of international relations there is no protection but your own, and therefore arming yourself can act as a detterance to conflict from others.

Lets say saddam did get nukes, what are the strategic points of using them? he cannot capitilise on any destruction because his ground force and conventional forces are so weak.

So he could use them for brinkmanship ala Korea. His regime would then probably be completely cut off from the arabic world, no one likes people who threaten to bring world war III, and I think Saddam wants to lead the arab world. But then what do I know.

"Lets say saddam did get nukes, what are the strategic points of using them? he cannot capitilise on any destruction because his ground force and conventional forces are so weak."

Lets see what he could do....

-demand
money
resources
diplomatic relations
end to hostilities

-threaten
america
neighbors
assets
oil fields
major populations centers
kurds

-destroy
saudi oil fields
iran
Azrael
major us bases in the middle east

-blackmail
america
france
russia
china
britain
turkey
saudi arabia
bahrain
qatar

-gain
unlimited power
more bombs
a foothold

-sell
money
technology
rockets

-trade them for
long range missiles

-which would lead to
BIG PROBLEMS.

More devils advocating

Most of those come under the brinkmanship manouver. Which if done publically would cause universal condemnation.

The destruction point, why destroy something if it doesn't gain you anything and will bring a whole ton of bricks down on your head?

He could sell stuff true. But then Pakistan is already selling missile tech and they are hardly in a world dominating position.

quote:

---

-gain
unlimited power

---

Damn why is it when the UK has WMD we don't have unlimited power.

quote:

---

Azrael

---

Do you use Azrael as in Angel of Death? If so nice play on words.

"Damn why is it when the UK has WMD we don't have unlimited power."

Because Britain isn't ruled by a dictator that shoots his own family members, gasses his own people, and doesn't use strong arm policies.

And yes, the Azrael thing was deliberate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Why are they more afraid of individuals with guns than governments with Nukes and VX?

---

Because many liberals/leftists don't always see the world in a realistic way. All to often they try to sugar-coat major threats and vilify minor problems. I don't understand them, you don't understand them - hell, anyone with common sense probably doesn't understand them. Maybe one day they'll wake up and join the rest of us in a little place called 'reality'.

LowLife

Yeah! Saddam isn't a brutal dictator, he is just 'acting out', and needs closure, and a xanax. [/stops soft liberal voice]

quote:

---

In a system where justice and law is supposed to be the protector of your safety an automatic weapon should be unnesscary and to protect your safety and the safety of others from accidents an automatic weapon is prohibited.

---

The key words are: "is supposed to." Obviously, reality does not work that way. The police can not protect you, but boy, they can punish you. Unless the crime happens in front of a police station or while while a cop is on patrol, it is unlikely that like Superman, they will come to your aid and protect you.

I am also reminded of a quote by Socrates(i beleive) in which he laments the fallacy of the law. "Virtuous men, by nature of their virtue need no laws. Evil men, by nature of their evil, do not follow the laws anyways. In an ideal society, characterized by virute, it would not matter if I had a gun, since, by order of my virtue, I would know how to operate the tool safely and their would be no accidents. In a fucked world, it is needed for protection, in an ideal world, their is no reason to not allow it.

Saddam could also capitalize on the power of nukes because the world is full of pussies. Look at the stink being raised over the war now, do you really think anything would get done if Saddam could just counter and say "Do it and I'll fuck the region and millions will die." Since the world is intolerant of innocent bloodshed, and since we would be criticized for turning his country to glass, he could just sit in a bunker somewhere and issue demands, knowing full well that we are too pusified to wipe him out and in doing so, kill innocent Iraqi's. As long as we continue to be moved by the plight of hostages, Saddam will continue to take them.


[This message has been edited by NukeChild (edited 02-01-2003).]

The world is full of pussies. I heard earlier today that the Navy is using sea lions to help spot enemy divers that might try to blow up ships. Thats funny...even the sea lions are on our side, but the frogs arent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
Thats funny

---

Speaking of funny ... that's funny:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
even the sea lions are on our side, but the frogs arent.

---

Nox

quote:

---

The United States Constitution ALLOWS us to 'carry fire-arms'.

The surrender terms of the Gulf War FORBID Saddam WMD.

---

Erm... that wasn't what I meant. Fine, let me rephrase that then:

Why are there so many Americans who support a law which grants them the 'right' to carry fire-arms but oppose similar laws which would let Saddam have WMDs?

Heh, it's funny watching this righteous attitude.

I hope you realize that the Leftists/Liberals have the exact same conversations when they condemn the Right/Conservatism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hp:
Why are there so many Americans who support a law which grants them the 'right' to carry fire-arms but oppose similar laws which would let Saddam have WMDs?

---

Again I view this as an easy question and I hope it covers what you mean: There is a massive difference between the WMD and firearms. I understand that you are trying to make a philosophical point, but your analogy is so far off base that your point gets lost.

I don't see this country or its people being opposed to the Iraqi's having guns. It's the NBC WMD that are the problem. I, for one, see no hypocracy in that position because of the very nature of the items involved.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
The key words are: "is supposed to." Obviously, reality does not work that way.

---

No but it seems to work that way in Britain enough so that the majority of British people feel no need for guns. You would have to do comprehensive study to see how many lives are lost from not being able to protect themselves from criminals with guns, To accidental deaths and those such as people going postal with legal guns, or crimes of passion. I haven't read the literature, so I am not in a position to judge, gun control is not something I am interested in.

However your first post said automatic weapons and how they will help you compared to the standard pistol, I don't know.

Nox, you don't think WMD are necescary for a country in order to protects its interests and border?

Just as the pro-gun people argue guns are nesescary for their own protection.

You could argue that Iraq is a 'criminal' state. But then you would have to acknowledge an international law that would bind you. Which as a realist world we seem to be in wouldn't be in your interests. For the reasons stated in Nukechilds post above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
All agreed and all good points, but I with-held one corollary of my argument. Why are leftists, the ones who support Saddam, more afraid of weapons in the hands of individuals than weapons in the hands of insane leaders. A kook with a gun can only get so many people, ala Malvo, but an autocratic leader has the potential power to condem millions to death. Why are they more afraid of individuals with guns than governments with Nukes and VX? It makes no logical sense.

---

i am a leftist, who is in support of personal weapon ownership, and saddam's right to have wmd. although nox does make a good point.

SJ

EDIT: food for thought: so if saddam was able to make wmd, he would be able to bomb someplace and then get the shit bombed out of his country. ok, bomb hits southern california, THE most populated place on the planet. were all dead. bush mad. iraq dead.

although, of course, if i was an insane leader, i would build 3 or 4 and send them to all my enemies, bombing their capitals, or just bombing DC, LA, SF, and maybe NY.

Did i contradict myself or what?

SJ

[This message has been edited by SenorJesucristo (edited 02-01-2003).]

If Iraq had any real WMD's (come on, poison gas isn't incredibly dangerous if you can afford an NBC suit, I'm betting the US can, and biological weapons are also kept out by the suits) the US wouldn't attack him.

If he could actually threaten the US, the US administration wouldn't be so keen to go to war.

quote:

---

There is a massive difference between the WMD and firearms. I understand that you are trying to make a philosophical point, but your analogy is so far off base that your point gets lost.

I don't see this country or its people being opposed to the Iraqi's having guns. It's the NBC WMD that are the problem. I, for one, see no hypocracy in that position because of the very nature of the items involved.

---

You're right when you say that WMD and fire-arms are very different in many ways, however, there is one point where they ressemble each other perfectly - both are offensive weapons.

In fact, the purpose of a gun is not to physicaly defend yourself - unfortunatly, carrying a gun will not make you invincible - but to give yourself a possibility to strike at those whom you consider your foes. People can pretend that they carry this weapon for "self defense" all they want, but truth is, this weapon serves offensive purposes. It is meant to scare the offenders away and to give yourself the chance to to attack before it's too late.

In that aspect, the WMDs are the same. Saddam knows that having a huge nuclear arsenal will not save his people - then again, he probably wouldn't care too much about saving his people anyways - but it will prevent others from fucking with him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hp:

the purpose of a gun is not to physicaly defend yourself

---

Sometimes it is, home defense, defense of a place of business, guarding a port or border, etc.

quote:

---

It is meant to scare the offenders away and to give yourself the chance to attack before it's too late.

---

Yes, deterrent, and advantage. If you find the act of "scaring away" to be offensive, you should probably re-think your position.

quote:

---

Yes, deterrent, and advantage.

---

Exactly. Both the WMDs and the fire-warms create a deterrent and give you an advantage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whazat:
Nox, you don't think WMD are necescary for a country in order to protects its interests and border?

---

Yes ... as a deterrent ... not as an offensive weapon.

Nox