[DerbyX]

Bart Simpson Bart Simpson:

Yes, I would. And I have voiced my opinion that we have to behave with the Iraqis the same as if we were at home. In the occasions where I had command and had to do searches we knocked on doors and in almost every case the people were cooperative and utterly dumbfounded that we were asking their permission to enter and search. Consequently, we had no trouble rooting out the bad guys. In Fallujah and etc. you can't do that because EVERYONE was a bad guy.

umm, what about the Iraqis who believe they have the right to kill all invaders?

You would kill invaders in your country. Thats the point.

You can't hold that you have the right to do things in your country that you deny others in theirs.

In this example every single Iraqi has the right (or obligation) to kill foreign invaders.

In other words the only bad guys are the soldiers who invaded their country no different then what you would consider foriegn soldiers who invaded yours.

Hell, not that much different from what you consider those who illegally enter your country.

$1:

To a degree, yes. My own SOP was to knock first. The times we did 'dynamic entries' were few. I would not want someone to do that to me so I could not stomach doing it to them.

What gives you the right to even be in their country to knock first?

Its less right then you consider your own gov't has to dictate laws to you that infringe upon your personal liberties.

$1:

I doubt it will become overheated.

Let me ask, would you disagree with my point of view here were I RCMP or, perhaps, Victoria ERT and saying that I felt I had an obligation to protect people?

The police are trained, citizens aren't. Its not just about helping people. Its the method that is choosen that I question. I am not saying that 3 or 4 guys shouldn't have stepped in and kicked their asses. I would have been first in line.

I question the need and wisdom to arbitrarily shoot people and risk innocent life to protect replacable items.

You may risk your life to protect a few goods but others may not. You are not only endangering your life but the life of everybodt around you and thats where your right diminishes.

If somebody hits my car and then drives away do I have the right to endanger everybodies life trying to chase him down?

You seem to assume that the other people not fighting back aren't for a reason other then fear.

What about the mother with 2 small children who would gladly give up her purse just to get them on their way? Think she should risk her life and the lives of her children to reach into her person, draw a gun and fire hoping to hit them all before they responded with deadly force?

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

(regarding Iraq)

I don't mean to shut you down on this part of the topic, but I was actually THERE, remember? There was a point where most of the Iraqis wanted us gone because our presence attracted the jihadis, not that they didn't like us. Now that the jihadis are less active because of us we're mostly welcomed, even in the Sunni areas. All I can say further is that the news you see on your TV about Iraq is not what you'd see if you were actually there.

DerbyX DerbyX:

The police are trained, citizens aren't.

So where were the police for two hours on the Toronto subway? Training be damned, the citizens were on their own.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Its not just about helping people. Its the method that is choosen that I question. I am not saying that 3 or 4 guys shouldn't have stepped in and kicked their asses. I would have been first in line.

I question the need and wisdom to arbitrarily shoot people and risk innocent life to protect replacable items.

You may risk your life to protect a few goods but others may not. You are not only endangering your life but the life of everybodt around you and thats where your right diminishes.

This is laughable as I am currently a reserve deputy sheriff and may well end up a cop in Victoria if everything works out. If I don't do this, then who will?

$1:

If somebody hits my car and then drives away do I have the right to endanger everybodies life trying to chase him down?

Nope. But if he hits your car and then gets out to steal yours then that would be a different matter, wouldn't it?

$1:

You seem to assume that the other people not fighting back aren't for a reason other then fear.

What about the mother with 2 small children who would gladly give up her purse just to get them on their way? Think she should risk her life and the lives of her children to reach into her (purse), draw a gun and fire hoping to hit them all before they responded with deadly force?

This same thing happens all the time in shall-carry states. The women are demonstrably safer because they can defend themselves.

The notion that if you just give the robbers what they want and you'll be safe has been disproved time and again when robbers murder their victims after getting what they want.

You say it's a risk to fight back and reality shows that it's a risk not to.

[ShepherdsDog]

As an interesting aside to the carjacking scenario. A south African co worker was telling me how most drivers now carry weapons, including his 65 yr old mother because car jacking has become so problematic. According to him, most of the jackers wouldn't think twice about shooting you even after they had your vehicle, just for kicks.

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

As an interesting aside to the carjacking scenario. A south African co worker was telling me how most drivers now carry weapons, including his 65 yr old mother because car jacking has become so problematic. According to him, most of the jackers wouldn't think twice about shooting you even after they had your vehicle, just for kicks.

As a matter of fact, Botha, a South African guy over on cybernations, had much the same discussion going on their forums about the same topic. White people in certain areas are expected to carry weapons now because they're all too often targeted for robberies and just plain hate crime murders.

[ShepherdsDog]

Most whites are now living in gated communities. I think I mentioned that while I was on Kinmen, the same SA brought his family over because his house had 4 B&Es in 6 months. This is even with armed security in their compounds. My wife wasn't familiar with the local terminology when he said his neighbour 'had capped some kafirs.' that tried to break in while he was home with his family.

[BartSimpson]

"Kafirs"....haven't heard that one for a loooong time. Takes me back to the early 80's when the SA guys were still welcome to train with the US.

[DerbyX]

$1:

I don't mean to shut you down on this part of the topic, but I was actually THERE, remember? There was a point where most of the Iraqis wanted us gone because our presence attracted the jihadis, not that they didn't like us. Now that the jihadis are less active because of us we're mostly welcomed, even in the Sunni areas. All I can say further is that the news you see on your TV about Iraq is not what you'd see if you were actually there.

You said you were there for gulf 1. You never said you were for the current war. (I'm not interested in debating this because its not relevant).

Reagrdless, as long as there are a significant portion of iraqis who want you gone you are the enemy just as much as you would regard foreign troops in your country.

You had no right to invade especially since your own reason to support it was based entirely on UN resolutions, the same UN that neither of us support.

You should not be there. Period.

I'm sure after 50 years of (hell, chinese) occupation they will get loads of Americans to accept them also.

Its wrong period.

$1:

So where were the police for two hours on the Toronto subway? Training be damned, the citizens were on their own.

Did anybody die? Would you feel beter if the papers had read "3 teenage hoodlums gunned down, 2 innocent bystanders, 1 women and 1 child killed in shootout"

Good guys +1?

$1:

This is laughable as I am currently a reserve deputy sheriff and may well end up a cop in Victoria if everything works out. If I don't do this, then who will?

In other words you would be a trained cop. So?

$1:

Nope. But if he hits your car and then gets out to steal yours then that would be a different matter, wouldn't it?

If I kill 3 innocent people stopping him? Would that be better then him getting my car?

$1:

This same thing happens all the time in shall-carry states. The women are demonstrably safer because they can defend themselves.

I have already proven that Canada is safer then the US in virtually every category with less per capita stats despite our 'Liberal laws" and gun restrictions.

No matter how many times you present faulty data to support that belief its still wrong. Everybody has a gun in Iraq yet safety is pretty much nonexistant. Police states are always almost crime free (rights free too).

We can each throw out stats but it will get us nowhere.

$1:

The notion that if you just give the robbers what they want and you'll be safe has been disproved time and again when robbers murder their victims after getting what they want.

No it has not. Just yesterday a man lost his life trying to stop 2 teens from stealing a tip jar. What a waste. Were any lives at risk?

Your point is to complex to sum up easily. For women being abducted they should kick and scream even if threatened with death for silence. Their chance for survior drops drastically the moment they surrender control.

For any robbery the odds for survivial drop drastically when you put up a fight. The robbers want the money and could care less about you.

Of course every situation is different. Its too complex to sum up easily.

$1:

You say it's a risk to fight back and reality shows that it's a risk not to.

1) Wrong.

2) I'm not saying don't fight back. I am saying that people shouldn't be pulling guns and blasting away over every possible situation.

On a side note, I believe that if you were an Iraqi you would not only be an insurgent but probably running the whole damn thing.

[ShepherdsDog]

It merely means nonbeliever in arabic. However, it carries the same stimga as the American eupemism there.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

On a side note, I believe that if you were an Iraqi you would not only be an insurgent but probably running the whole damn thing.

You're probably right.

And, yes, I was in country several times from Jan 2006 when I passed my PT with my new knee to July of last year. Mostly up north and out west with the Kurds but a few other fun places, too. I've not kept this a secret except when I've actually been there and I'd been checking the forum on my off time. I don't care to advertise when and where I am when it's business.

For the record, I was in Khafji and stayed there when it was overrun by the Iraqis in January 1991. I was then one of the first Coalition troopers to enter Kuwait City while it was still occupied by the Iraqis. I did a few other things, too.

With the current fracas I had a little to do in 2003 and then my old knee went kablooey on me and I got sent home. My eeevil HMO paid for replacing the knee when they didn't have to and after physical therapy I was back in the game for Jan 2006. The new knee is pretty bitchin' really.

[ShepherdsDog]

the grease nipple itches like a bitch though doesn't it (HMOs got a deal on that one).

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

the grease nipple itches like a bitch though doesn't it (HMOs got a deal on that one).

!!!!!

[kal]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, in every war there are two choices:

1. Do nothing and innocent people will definitely get hurt.

2. Do something and innocent people might get hurt.

I'm sorry, but the conents of my wallet are not worth the risk of another persons life. And who the hell am I to ever think it would be? What if that innocent person who got hit was a child? Are you telling me your right to defend yourself from punks who only want your wallet is worth the life of a child? I don't think so.

Any way you cut it Bart, armed citizens opening fire in a crowded subway is a fucking stupid idea.

If you want to defend yourself in that situation, learn how to do it in a way that has almost no risk of collateral damage. There's more ways to defend one's self than with firearms.