Keevan_Colton wrote:
I mean after all....its not like, taking guns away helps to prevent people getting shot or anything....
I know for sure, I'd love to patrol an area where everyone and thier grandmother has more firepower than rambo....
No, no, I meant looking at it from the Iraqis standpoint.
After having resisted Saddam for a long time, suddenly being told to give up all their weapons would be some cause for anger on the Iraqi's part.
You can just march into an area and start stripping people of their rights. This is the sort of thing that leads to conflict. As tragic as the scenario played out (and it does seem like the British policemen were the innocent victims here) I think the blame largely lies on the British policy that apparently gave troops permission to enter anybody's house in search of weapons. It seems like imperialism of that sort wasn't tolerated by people recently freed from the clutches of an oppressive dictator. An armed response seems like the only logical conclusion to that ugly scenario.
Can you imagine if the British started clamping down and sending in troops to allegedly "pacify" the area? Call it an utter disaster. It's the sort of scenario extremist muslims would love to see happen. This ball is squarely in British control. Time will tell whether they play nice or drop it entirely.
Keevan_Colton wrote:
Well do remember we live in a country where everyone doesnt have a right to own a gun/rocket launcher/flamethrower.....
The United States has also not suffered from a brutal dictator for two decades who attempting to wipe out large portions of the population reputedly.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
