American Patriotism Terrifies me!!

reply to post by blueorder


query.nytimes.com...

There ya go...

Yes I agree 100%!!! I blame it all on the Media. I for one, was a FOX/CNN news junkie for years, and now have quit watching them all the time. I go to different sites on the Web to get a perspective on different news stories now. The Media says the same old crap! I think it has shaped the thinking of Americians. VERY scary!

reply to post by blueorder


Gun sales also went up 50% before the invasion. Sorry, Liberation.

Again, if the Iraqi people had guns to defend themselves from a despotic government like Americans supposedly have, ask yourself, why didn't they?

Edit - sorry amo, not gun sales went up 50%
[edit on 15-10-2008 by Thebudweiserstuntman]

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Thebudweiserstuntman]

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman

Gun sales also went up 50% before the invasion. Sorry, Liberation.

Again, if the Iraqi people had guns to defend themselves from a despotic government like Americans supposedly have, ask yourself, why didn't they?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Thebudweiserstuntman]

you seem to have missed what I said.

What were the legally held gun ownership levels like before Saddam came to power, ie before a tyrant came to power?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by blueorder]

reply to post by blueorder


Think he'd been in power for three decades at that point but I imagine it was still an AK per household.
If you have any other info on that please share.

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman

Think he'd been in power for three decades at that point but I imagine it was still an AK per household.
If you have any other info on that please share.

your imagination is not good enough, it is you that is using Iraq as an example, and in Iraq a tyrant came to power called Saddam, what was the legally held weaponry like amongst the citizenry?

*not that i think your point is relevant or even pertinent, but I am interested in how you evidence it*

reply to post by blueorder


Don't think you're quite grasping this one.

If weapons defend against tyranny.

And Saddam was a tyrant.

And every household in Iraq owns an AK47 query.nytimes.com...

Then what use was a weaponised populace like the gun crowd argue all through this thread?

Are you suggesting that a tyrant comes into power then arms the populace? Therefore it is a pretty valid assumption to argue that the level of gun ownership was around the same pre- tyranny?

No?

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman


Don't think you're quite grasping this one.

If weapons defend against tyranny.

And Saddam was a tyrant.

And every household in Iraq owns an AK47 query.nytimes.com...

Then what use was a weaponised populace like the gun crowd argue all through this thread?

Are you suggesting that a tyrant comes into power then arms the populace? Therefore it is a pretty valid assumption to argue that the level of gun ownership was around the same pre- tyranny?

No?

you are not getting it, Saddam came to power decades ago, what was the level of legally held weaponry at the time?!?!

The situation in 2003 is irrelevant to your point, as Saddam came to power decades before.

The real issue is the folly of your analogy, I mean there are nations where tyrants have come to power where gun ownership wasnt exactly "every household"- the biggest flaw in your example is equating Iraqis with Americans, this is what Bush did- they are not schooled in democracy and freedom like the US, it is not part of their tribal culture

You do know WHO put Saddam into a position to take Power don't you?

Do you know even know when the AK-47 was developed?

You must realize America has incurred over 4300 deaths and 70 000 casualties total, don't you?

Guns are causing these casualties. Guns and Bombs Killing the Occupier via the type of resistance you refuse to acknowledge could ever possibly occur....

Tell that to one of the 30 000 Soldiers who've lost a limb in Iraq or become permanently disabled by the non-exist resistance movement you say is not likely to ever happen.

I take it you have never been in the military.

If you are too apathetic to answer these questions, or if you don't know how - then please feel free to regard them as rhetorical.

Edit: As the other members have pointed out; Your logic that Gun-ownership is an ineffective defense against tyranny and occupation is severely flawed...


[edit on 15-10-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by TruthTellist


I though you vowed to ignore me after I pointed out that you'd went back and edited all your posts to undermine my argument?

reply to post by blueorder


I know Iraqis aren't Americans. I know its different cultures.
My point remains valid
Opression is opression, if it was that bad and people had the means to change it by having gun ownership, then they would have.
It goes against the pro gun argument of defence against tyranny.

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
I know Iraqis aren't Americans. I know its different cultures.
My point remains valid
Opression is opression, if it was that bad and people had the means to change it by having gun ownership, then they would have.
It goes against the pro gun argument of defence against tyranny.

your point contradicts itself, what someone in Iran or Iraq thinks is "bad" is not the same as someone in the US- they are of completely different cultures, religion and history.

Taking your example, if Saddam suddenly emerged out of no where, say by a magician's wand, and imposed his Baathist tyranny on the US are you saying the legally held weaponry would not be used in great numbers in that country by US citizens?

Never make the folly of Bush, unfortunately Iraq aint Kansas toto

reply to post by blueorder


That wasn't my point at all. Please re-read the thread Dorathy.

The US appeared out of nowhere. Full gun ownership doesn't seem to be working out too well for the Iraqis does it?

Your scratching around for stats 'pre-saddam' is irrelevant. That wasn't the point or the basis of my argument - it was;

before the invasion, Iraqis had an AK47 for every household.

Doesn't seem to be defending against the tyranny of the USA does it?

Therefore gun ownership in the USA on the basis that it is a defence against tyranny is flawwed.

reply to post by TruthTellist


If you'd read the thread under your post you will see why I ignored your question, however you again decided to re-edit your post to change what you had originally said. Other posters have also alerted me to this therfore I will not enter into a debate with you.
As you had previously decided to ignore me after losing an earlier debate and added me as a foe, please, feel free to continue ignoring me!

regimes

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by blueorder

 

I know Iraqis aren't Americans. I know its different cultures.
My point remains valid
Opression is opression, if it was that bad and people had the means to change it by having gun ownership, then they would have.
It goes against the pro gun argument of defence against tyranny.

Your logic IS flawed, as the above poster stated, I can see that just be reading your post.


You haven't answered any of his questions, why?

The American Government and the CIA put Saddam in there decades ago, gave him all the weapons he ever needed in the deal that Saddam would do what they assigned him to do. Trade weapons for oil, and keep Iraq an ally in the ME for America's interest's. keep countries such as Russia out of the oil and arms business etc.

It suited American interest's for Saddam to be a tranny and be an needed ally in the ME for that purpose, as I've clearly explained above to you. There were many other reasons, but I'm afraid, your going to have to stop talking nonsense and go find out reality, that is. The real world, and find out who is the real sinister is.


Tranny's, dictator's and terrorist's organisations are in fact created by the US Government all over the world. So can youplease explain to me your logic about Iraq been bad and America been good? And why the US government behave with such trechery and you can't seem to point it out? I would like you to answer this please, I'm lost on this.

The CIA make millions on selling arms, to many countries where there is no democracy in place such as Iraq. It has huge revenue to the American economy.

The US governmnet invade's countries and set up these regimes for them to break out decades later, "USA declares war on the tranny NEWFLASH" snd basically act and "play I'm the good guy" save the day overthrow the dictatorship which they actually asigned and put the tranny there years before. Can you understand now?

Goal objective Take over the nation and its recources, but still having the all important image"I was been the good guy anyway" USA look's to be the nation that solved a conflict and unstable government. The people of America will then see it as a "good deed" But it's obviously not the case at all.


So we have people like you posting more BS and to keep posting of such, for this virtual reality that your sucked into about who is bad and who is good.

And have people like you praising the BS.



Wake up and smell the coffee. WAKE UP

There I bolded a few lines for you to understand a bit more.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by mind is the universe]



[edit on 15-10-2008 by mind is the universe]

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman

That wasn't my point at all. Please re-read the thread Dorathy.

oh but it was Toto!

The US appeared out of nowhere. Full gun ownership doesn't seem to be working out too well for the Iraqis does it?

sure does, Saddam has been removed, didnt you get up to speed, the Yanks were not there to impose tyranny hence the "Insurgence" was mainly disaffected baathists and foreign islamists- again your analogy fails

Your scratching around for stats 'pre-saddam' is irrelevant. That wasn't the point or the basis of my argument - it was;

see above

before the invasion, Iraqis had an AK47 for every household.

Doesn't seem to be defending against the tyranny of the USA does it?

see above- a TYRANT was in power, he was removed, the US is not imposing tyranny, hence joe bloggs, john doe or Muhammad Akhbar on the street is not taking up arms- disaffected ex baathists and foreign (as well as localised Islamic militants) were, and tbh, there were quite a lot of murders, killings etc, perhaps you missed that

Therefore gun ownership in the USA on the basis that it is a defence against tyranny is flawwed.

Your analysis failed because it compared the people of the USA to Iraq and also because it implied that the US came to impose a tyranny (when in fact the tyrant Saddam was removed)

Such a silly analogy

reply to post by blueorder


Right -

so there was a tyranny before the US invaded. Full gun ownership but the citizens didn't use their guns to remove the tyrannical leader.

US invades to remove the tyrant because the Iraqi people were so upset.[sarcasm] Iraqis use their guns to fight off the invading US forces but fail.

There's my point - Analagy works perfectly. The invading force couldn't be fought off with full gun ownership in Iraq. Highlighting the flawwed belief that gun ownership in the US is needed to fight off any potential tyrants.

reply to post by blueorder


Regardless of comparing US / Iraqi citizens, the point is, full gun ownership failled to down a tyrannical regime and failed to stop an invading force.

Negating the nonsense shouted all through this thread that its every americans duty to own one incase of despotism!

Simple as that!

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
Right -

so there was a tyranny before the US invaded. Full gun ownership but the citizens didn't use their guns to remove the tyrannical leader.

we have no figures for LEGALLY held weaponry when Saddam came to power- so stop saying that as if it was fact, or else produce figures from the Iraqi administration of the time showing gun permit holders

US invades to remove the tyrant because the Iraqi people were so upset.[sarcasm] Iraqis use their guns to fight off the invading US forces but fail.

"Iraqis" didnt, ex baathists and Islamic insurgents (often foreign) did, as they wished to REIMPOSE tyranny, happy to help you out there

There's my point - Analagy works perfectly. The invading force couldn't be fought off with full gun ownership in Iraq. Highlighting the flawwed belief that gun ownership in the US is needed to fight off any potential tyrants.

falls down, once again, on the fact that the US wasnt imposing tyranny, hence only those wishing to impose tyranny whether of a Baathist or Islamic variety got involved in attacking- also falls down by equating Iraq with the US and further falls down by not having legally held gun ownership stats in any of this

reply to post by mind is the universe


your post didn't even make sense. Take a deep breath and try again.