I hope our boys stay safe; however, I can't blame the Iraqi's for their response.  I hope this is a lesson to those here in the US that want to round up all the guns.

[b]Iraq Townsfolk Riot After U.S.-Led Weapons Search[/b]

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=4&u=/nm/20030529/wl_nm/iraq_riot_dc[/url]

HIT, Iraq (Reuters) - The police station in the tense Iraqi town of Hit smoldered on Thursday, a day after it was set alight in what residents said was a riot over intrusive weapons searches by Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers.

U.S. troops trying to quell lawlessness seven weeks after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s downfall have come under attack in several parts of central Iraq (news - web sites) in the past few days.


A farmer said he saw a U.S. helicopter go down near Hit, 90 miles northwest of Baghdad, on Wednesday, although the crash was unconfirmed.


Another resident, 24-year-old Amer Aziz, who said he represented the young men of Hit, told Reuters the trouble began when police and American troops began a house-to-house search for guns on Wednesday morning.


"The Iraqi police were very rough with our women," he said. "They forced their way into houses without knocking, sometimes when women were sleeping. This is a very conservative town."


Uproar ensued in the Sunni Muslim town of 155,000 as angry residents surged into the streets, burning police cars and throwing stones and handmade grenades at the Americans.


Aziz said a parley had taken place in the afternoon, when townsfolk told the Americans to leave or face suicide attacks.


"I convinced the young men to withdraw and then the Americans withdrew," he added.


Another young man, 26-year-old Ahmed al-Mashhadawi, said a hand grenade had been thrown at a U.S. tank as it left town. "We killed one soldier and wounded others," he said.


The U.S. military said on Wednesday it was checking what happened in Hit, but has not confirmed any casualties.


One resident, Adnan Mizdar, said U.S. troops had fired during the clashes, wounding a 10-year-old boy and two other people. Residents said they had already left hospital.


"We are not Saddam's men," said a man named Abu Qasim. "Saddam is gone, but we want the occupation to end. The Americans must know they can never come back to town."


He said the Iraqi police, who were all locals, had left with the U.S. troops. The Iraqi flag was still flying over the burned-out police station. Residents said they had taken its contents to a mosque for safekeeping.


U.S. soldiers wearing chemical suits and gas masks were deployed some five miles outside Hit on Thursday, with seven tanks and a score of military vehicles.


It was not clear why the troops had donned protective gear. No chemical or other banned weapons have been found in Iraq since the United States and Britain invaded on March 20.

I can.  They lost the war, they have to face the consequences.  They are lucky we are an open society and are allowing them to keep small arms for defense.  They have NO reason to expect that we will let them keep rocket launchers, grenades and machine guns: if they think that's reasonable under the circumstances, they are fools, as is anyone else who believes they should be allowed to have those things when we obviously don't know which of them are Ba'ath party thugs yet.

yea, what the hell is wrong with them?
we didn't liberate them so they could live in a free country (like us).  we are going to give them a government just like ours where the second amendment doesn't mean shit!    

maybe it is just for the oil.

The "regime" lost the war.  We're supposed to be freeing the general populace of Iraq...  

Scott

News flash for you: there are still bad guys over there trying to kill our guys.  Until such time as the Ba'ath party thugs are ferretted out, I don't see any reason to trust the Iraqis with rocket launchers and grenades.  I think you would have a more realistic attitude if you were over there.

And we are.  We're trying to free them from the tyranny of the Ba'ath party geurillas that are still trying to kill our guys.

Hey!!! Here's an idea!!!

Lets have our soldiers put on little yellow duck suits and march down the street single file. Every time some fucking sand flea manages to get one by the body armor the next guy in line can yell "HIT!"

5 hits and they get a stuffed dog.


-----------------------------------------------

I'm constantly amazed that some people actually manage to find the post button amidst all that mental clutter.

there are bad guys everywhere.  every time we kill a "innocent civilian" anywhere on the planet we possibly turn every member of that family into an American hating bad guy.  being a member of the Bath party doesn't make someone a bad guy.  Iraqis are as smart as you and me and they can see the situation is changing. most iriquis are moving to exploit the new rules and situation and they just want to be left alone.  most mid and low level Bath party govt employees are working in the new govt we are installing.  sure you got your sleepers but taking an RPG away from ma and pa kettle you are not making American service men any safer.

It sounds like everyone is saying it's perfectly acceptable to have a foreign entity come kick your door in, search your house, and remove any weapons they find.

So if the UN continues to press their small arms ban you will be perfectly fine with some UN soldier kicking in your door, harassing your family, searching your entire house, and taking any weapons they find?

It's one thing to hunt down arms dealers with RPGs and such.  It's another to harrass all the civilians while doing so.  But according to you guys that is perfectly acceptable.  I guess the next time an armed and dangerous felon is on the loose you won't mind if the police invade your house looking for him.

Of course you accept someone else's word that the people were "innocent civilians."



Yes, in fact, it does.  It means you were either a bad guy or someone who was a toady to the bad guys.



I sincerely hope you're not stupid enough to believe that.

That's the kind of shit that happens when you lose a war.  If they didn't want us to come in, they should have cleaned up the situation on their own.  Being conquered sucks, even if the conquerors are well-meaning and generally good people, as is the case here.  



Dude, grab a ride on the clue train.  There is no such thing as a "UN soldier."  Different nations contribute their troops to UN missions...and the only ones that have been halfway effective are ours and Britian's.  Which means if anyone enforces a UN weapons ban it would be OUR troops.  But given the fact that Bush has basically told the UN to stick it up their ass repeatedly, the idea that we would bow down to them and enforce their edicts in our country is totally ludicrous and laughable.



The arms dealers are civilians.  How do you know when you go in who is an arms dealer unless you "harass" them to find out?



I wouldn't mind if they knock on my door and ask me if I have seen him.  But your analogy is a horrible one anyway, as is your "point."

So the US soldier that was court marshalled for refusing to wear the UN uniform was just a figment of everyone's imagination?  Sure he was a US soldier but he was under order of the UN.  This happend around the same time that troops under UN orders were going through Serbia confiscating personal firearms.

I find it amazing at how many regulations you people want to through on others as long as it doesn't affect you.  If someone even mentions something like taking fingerprints everyone here goes nuts saying SHTF, "time to feed the hogs", and all the other macho BS you like to spout.

Obviously no one here thinks the right to keep an bear arms is an inalienable right guaranteed to everyone.  Instead it only applies to a small class of people that you trust and you find that acceptable.  For you that might be some fellow American's for the anti-gun politicians it's no American's...but then that must be acceptable to you to.

We're not there to "conquer"....

It isn't just about rocket launchers, is it?

Would it be smart for us to up and leave Iraq, right now?

Of course not.  Ask yourself why.

Patience.

That's what happens during war.  This is a war.  We invaded a sovereign nation and defeated their armed forces, many of whom were dressed as civilians.
During war, these things happen.  If you find "war" to be unacceptable, fine.  But if not, deal with it.
They are not covered under the Constitution.
We outlawed their political parties.
We "quartered troops" in their homes.
War.

In what possible scenario could this happen?

1) Show me actual UN resolutions, or planned resolutions, that would ban a US citizen from owning "small arms".

2) How would this UN soldier come to be kicking in the door of an American citizen's home?
Wouldn't we veto such a resolution?

Paranoia makes some of you seem stupid, at times.
Really.

So, what some of us think of as rights, you think of as government-granted privileges?

so riddle me this batman.
how does removing weapons from law abiding citizens prevent crime?  especially enemy govt agents.  your stupid if you think if we pick up a few weapons it will lessen the chance of a terrorist attack.

To come to that conclusion, demonstrates that you lack the ability to think critically.
It also shows a lack of historical perspective.
We are at war, remember?
Soldiers are dying every day.

There are many "rights" that WE have, that those in other countries do not.
Are you aware of this?
Women can't vote in some countries, because the people there don't believe in that "right".
Would you impose it upon them?

Some day, the Iraqis will decide what the structure of their government will be.
Right now, all that matters is that we create a secure environment for that to happen.
The war is still being fought.
Think Germany and Japan in 1946.
Be patient.

good one Cincinnatus
the problem with your rebuttal is that Germany and Japan NEVER GOT THEIR GUNS BACK!

By their own choice.  They created their own laws, and elected their own representatives.

It is regrettable that they do not share OUR views on this issue.
I can assure you, though, that allowing them to remain armed, in the days immediately following VE Day and VJ Day would not have been a smart thing to do.
And that is exactly what some here are suggesting in regards to Iraq.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what freedoms the Iraqis end up with.  My only concern is that they do not end up as a haven or sponsor for terrorists, or an ally to our enemies.

the iraqis can have whatever kind of guns they want [b]after[/b] our troops are out of country, until then the safety of our troops has to come first, even before whatever 'rights' we think they should have

Never give up your guns no matter what.

we're not talking about the US here, we are talking about a foreign country we were just at war with, where a large portion of the population is hostile to Americans, and American soldiers are getting shot at on a daily basis

I agree.
Also, never let a foreign nation invade your country -no matter what.
Never let foreign tanks roll through your streets -no matter what.

What would any of us do if some foreign power invaded our country?
The answer's obvious, but irrelavent.

WE are the invaders.

You guys seem to have ignored this part.
Sunni Muslim=Saddam Loyalists
They are not going around raiding Shiia villages, much less KURDISH villages for guns.

Who here supports the Iraqis in their fight against being disarmed?

Does this mean you'll be celebrating any of their victories, if they manage to kill Americans soldiers?

It's one thing to take away an RPG which is not good for home defense, it's another  to start raiding random houses and taking AKs.

CRC

Tell that to the Branch Davidians.

A few RPG's were just what they need for home defense.

Christ on a crutch!

WTF is wrong with some of you!?!

Click on the link and read the whole friggen' article!

These turds are hiding RPG's, grenades, explosives, ammo, machine guns, small arms, etc. in their houses.

They lost the friggen' war.

Coalition forces are killed every day by these weapons.

Until shit gets sorted out over there, they lose their weapons.

Period.

And why should they have more rights than me?

Personally, I don't give a flying f**k if that whole nation was to disappear in a blinding flash!

I don't give a rats ass what so called "indignities" that the general populace of Iraq has to suffer at the hands of U.S. troops!

I am sure that it is better than the crap that they had to endure under the Hussein regime.

During WWII is a German town behaved like this we would withdraw from the town and shell it with about 2,000 white phosphorous shells. It happened all the time.

GunLvr

She was courtmartialed for refusing to obey the lawful order of a superior officer.  If you don't understand how that works, I can't help you.



Site please?  



Yeah, it's a damn shame they can't have RPGs when I can...oh wait, I can't have them either.



You don't see me spouting it.  I gave fingerprints for my CCW permit and thought nothing of it.  Course I was in the Army, so "they" had my prinsts already.



What SENSIBLE people think is that when your country is CONQUERED, if those who conquered you say you can't have anti-armor weapons but you can keep small arms for defense, you should bend over and kiss the ground thanking GOD you were conquered by a generous nation.

Says you.

Yes, it is.

Topics like these always make me glad I've never been silly enough to call myself a libertarian. I've always found much of their ideology appealing but then I run into the "anti-globalization" socialists and the "Tom Jefferson said " people and I want to vomit.
.
.
.
.
.
To the "Tom Jefferson said" people taking a mental holiday in this thread:

Please look into the War of 1812, the Aroostook War   and other "post-revolutionary" wars. There are many examples in history where the framers themselves demonstrated how profoundly brain damaged you are. I'm not kidding. Please take a day or two to really inform yourselves before blathering on.

Hell, take a gander at the Whiskey Rebellion.

I have to wonder how many people are out there saying that people in this country are dying every day, and that we shouldn't have "machine guns" (AR-15s) until the killing stops. Why would anyone need a "machine gun" for home defense?

To all of those who say that the conquering army can take away rights, you're right, they can. And when that happens, they're no longer the liberation force, they're the enemy. If we're taking away the rights of the Iraqis, then we're no longer there to liberate them, as was claimed. Contrary to what the POTUS said, the Iraqi [i]people[/i] are now the enemy.

What will you say when this country is conquered by the liberals, and the democracy that's they have in place decides that they no longer recognize the "right" to keep and bear arms. If the rights are not recognized as unalienable, then what gives us the right to fight for them? I guess you'll gladly give up your guns to the conquering liberals. Some here wont, IMO.

The "Ba'ath party thugs" are the same Iraqi police our troops are working with, side by side to round up the guns.


(edited for spelling and grammar)

ah yes the semi-informed "unalienable" argument - Whereby I am faced with the false dilemma of losing my guns or putting our troops in peril.

Definition:
un•al•ien•a•ble (ùn-âl¹ye-ne-bel, -â¹lê-e-) adjective
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: “All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as induaviduals” (Garrison Keillor).

Got to hand it to the person that pulled that smack out of his ass, he was either a total stooge or a brilliant troll.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, right now the Iraqis are MORE free than you and I, in respects to bearing arms, and are fighting so that they are "not to be separated" from their guns, RPGs, etc, and are not going to "give away" or allow anyone else to "take away" their guns.

Heh [:D], to the "More free than me" drooler

Careful, your anarchist is showing.


Tell you what…

Why don't we just take your assumption to its absurd limits and extend the entire constitution to the whole universe.

Are Zulus subject to EEOC hiring practices?
In this world without borders, Columbians don't need visas right?
When we are fighting a war, do we read POWs their rights?

Hey, for that matter our soldiers are subject to the UMJ... That would be teh wrong, right?

Yeah, I guess you're right. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." And as we ALL know, "all MEN" really means "all Americans." The Creator endowed all the foreigners with "alienable" rights, as opposed to our unalienable rights. Man...I was so naive to think that there's such a thing as universal principles that men would be willing to fight and die to defend. My bad.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[rolleyes]

No, they aren't.  We are constantly weeding out Ba'ath party officials that have tried to pass themselves off as harmless beaurocrats that just want to help.  

Doesn't matter what they say if we can keep electing the right people to represent us.



No, contrary to what YOU say, most Iraqi people don't WANT to keep RPGs and grenades.  You won't find too many hobbyists in Iraq that want to shoot RPGs at abandoned tanks.  If someone has an RPG in Iraq, you can be pretty sure they want to use it on someone else.



The liberals won't be conquering us.  If they take over it will be because they managed to convince enough voters they were right and were elected in free and open elections.  And it will be our fault if we let it happen.  And you know a good way to let it happen?  By alienating sensible people from our side by advocating idiotic stances like "We should let the Iraqis keep their RPGs and grenades."

And some still slip through the cracks. You don't get 100%.

CRC

Oh, no? Says who? The newz, the .gov?

The SAME police/security forces who worked for Sadaam, who arrested, murdered, tortured, and raped the Iraqi people are now getting their orders from us. To the Iraqi people it's the "same shit, different asshole."

So, our rights can be taken away by the will of a free and open election?

I reckon it won't matter how many people are alienated by idiotic stances, as long as our rights are not able to be alienated...

Well, apparently "All men" at the time didn't include blacks, Indians and women, so saying that it meant "all Americans" is hardly a stretch.  
But back to the subject: the fact is, the Iraqis now are freer than they were, but they are not independent.  They CAN'T be independent AND free at this point because if we left them to their own devices right now, they would fall into a brief anarchy followed by a fundamentalist Shi'ite rule organized from Iran.  Once they have some semblance of a government in place to keep that from happening, they will be both free AND independent.  Until that time, they may have to live with some temporary controls they don't like.

LOL... Ok, well thanks for proving the stupidity of your argument. Thinking that "all men" means "all Americans" is just as stupid as those who thought that "all men" didn't include blacks, Indians, and women.



"Freer"? Is "freer" like being half-free; sorta like being half-pregnant?

If they choose to have the easter bunny as their leader, that's their business, NOT your's or mine. Or are they only "free" to choose their own government IF it's agreeable to us?

Either we "liberated" them or "conquered" them... You tell me. And if you think we "conquered" them, you should let President Bush's speech writers know.



We can go half way around the world for regime change, but how dare them damn EYE-Ronians try to meddle in a country they share a border with?

(edited to correct verb tense)

What do you think, Cincinnatus?  Will having our troops conduct house-to-house searches [b]increase[/b] or [b]decrease[/b] the level of hostility felt for Americans???

If you have trouble answering that question, re-read the original article.  Note the mention of riots.  That's a hint.

Now, as a collorary, will a hostile country be [b]more[/b] or [b]less[/b] likely to produce people who wish to harm the United States?  That means terrorists, or underground groups that would abet the terrorists.

I dare you to answer those questions and then tell me how we should just crush the Iraqis under our bootheels if that's what it takes to "bring them peace."  I'm really curious about the logical contortions one would have to go through to reconsile those apparently conflicting beliefs.

Some of you people act like we can do whatever the fuck we want no matter what the Iraqis have to say about it.  Newsflash!  If we keep antagonizing them and royally pissing them off, we're going to have a country filled to the brim with people who want to take down the United States.

-Nick Viejo.

You mean like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, or Libya? Too late; all of them already hate us, and ya know what? There isn't a damn thing that will EVER change that. No matter what the US tries to do, they'll find a reason to hate us. Fuck them.