Iraq? How To Win The WOT In Iraq. Now!

Q. How do you start to re-build a lawful society after 40 years of rule by an oriental despot? Harsh rule by a family who held itself above the ordinary laws of humankind not to say of Iraq. Well, it is obvious to me.

What is your first move? How do you convey to the Iraqi people you are serious? What can you offer, and quickly, to give them hope for tomorrow? What can you do that is easy to see the results of? And also quickly? What is the cheapest thing you can do for a start? What one thing can you do that offers the best value for time and effort expended?

A. You ban guns. You outlaw firearms. You take up all the guns you can find. You see a gun, you take it. You hold big melt-downs in the cities as often as you can get enough guns to make an impressive bonfire. You advertise. You explain to the public what you are doing. You are attempting to stop the violence before it starts. You are withdrawing from ready access and easy usage the one invention of man that lends itself almost exclusively to killing other humans.

No need to have a law against guns. No need to have lengthy debates in parliament. No use going to court. No use arguing justification by reason of non-violent uses of guns or firearms. No use arguing this or that exception to the general rule. That is all subterfuge or avoidance. You rely on the police power inherent in a state to survive. As in the commander-in-chief power which some claim is unlimited.

Seeing a man with a gun is like seeing a man with small pox. You don’t have to take him to court to force him into quarrentine. Experience tells us that is the only workable solution, albeit in defiance of his ordinary liberty and civil rights as a free person and citizen. OTOH, if what he is carrying is destroying your very country, destructive of 5,000 years of culture, then you mst take the appropriate steps, at once. Not every problem is as serous as firearms in Iraq, but it is so serious it admits of no delay.

Ban Guns Now!


[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

If we had a telaporter that could somehow home in on every make of weapon and remove all guns from Iraq at once then what you say would be a great idea (think about it U.S troops and Iraqis together with only fist fighting).
The trouble is we don't. Removing weapons from Iraq would take decades as you no doubt anticipated. Trouble is it’s grossly unfair; Iraq is in such a state that if the civilian population were not well armed you would have militias taking men and woman as virtual slaves. They can't do that right now (not because they don't have the heart) but because they can't count on everyone being unfair.

Furthermore terrorist organisations (like any organisation) is perfectly capable of smuggling weapons from across Iraq's many borders. I'm sure Iran will help the Shiite our from one end and the Syrians will help the Sunni from the other. It's the innocent civilians who won't be able to do that (unless they join up with a group for their family security).
I'm sorry but it’s my knowledge that unlike (perhaps) the U.S, Iraq is one place that doesn't need an anti gun lobby. And with it being such "a democracy?" I'm sure even if it was put to the vote the people and their leaders would agree.

posted by Liberal1984

“ . . If we could home in on every weapon and remove all guns from Iraq at once .. “ [Edited by Don W]

Yes, that would be the best of all possible worlds. I do not expect that, however. It is a course of action I’m talking about. I don’t expect maybe in a decade to have all weapons out of Iraq. I do think it is workable. I think Iraqis would support it. It is the only thing I can think of that could be started now and be a strong talking point for anyone who wants peace in Iraq.

“Removing weapons from Iraq would take decades as you no doubt anticipated. Trouble is it’s grossly unfair; Iraq is in such a state that if the civilian population were not well armed you would have militias taking men and woman as virtual slaves. “

Geo W has already said the US will be in Iraq until Janizary 20, 2009. That gives two years plus to reduce the number of armed people in Iraq. It is the function of the Coalition Forces the Iraqi Army and police to keep law and order until the place is governable. It will never be governable in peace unless the people who are armed are disarmed. When do you start?

“ . . terrorist organizations are perfectly capable of smuggling weapons from across Iraq's many borders. I'm sure Iran will help the Shiite our from one end and the Syrians will help the Sunni from the other.

I’m counting on the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds to see the advantage to everyone to have a disarmed Iraq. We learned in Vietnam - we should have - that it is the whole people who do, by their very numbers - control what will happen.

I'm sorry but it’s my knowledge that unlike the US, Iraq is one place that doesn't need an anti gun lobby. I'm sure even if it was put to the vote the people and their leaders would agree.
[Edited by Don W]

With so many negatives in one sentence, L84, I think you said that “anti gun” is not viable in Iraq even if put to a popular vote. That is, the Iraqi would vote YES for guns. In any case, I do not expect a plebiscite but I would like to believe 90% of Iraqis want peace and want to be rid of guns.


[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

Even if the Iranians and Syrians, and surrounding neighbours decided it was in their interests to prevent arms getting into Iraq they would still have to enforce it. For individuals it’s difficult but possible to smuggle weapons, for an organisation its a piece of cake. Take a look at the IRA in the 1970's they had to get weapons by boat to the island Ireland through well guarded waters. Yet they managed to get grenades and machine guns. I've seen videos where they hid about one hundred machine guns within hay bails within a barn.
Iraq's all land so the trip has to be piece of cake (even if you hid the weapons in bits in say an engine), criminals often put drugs wrapped up in plastic bags in the fuel tank so I suppose it could be done with explosive. Not that in Iraq I think they would necessarily bother.

I sympathise with your idea though. I wondered about it before I knew more about the methods of terrorism and nature of Iraq. But look to the IRA and you will see that if they could do it in the U.K then Iraqis can certainly do it in the Middle East. It’s such a big task that its not worth embarking on given all the trouble that just attempting to do so would cause to e.g. innocent Iraqis living in dangerous places where they genuinely need their guns. And you will always be able to find-make explosives.

The problem is, the ones that are insurgents, they're not going to let you just take their guns. Whereas the regular joe on the street, he really does need an AK for his household.

Also, there's a good chance that the iraqi army will be supplemented by civilian militias, where are the guns to arm it going to come from?

posted by Liberal1984

Even if the Iranians and Syrians decided it was in their interest to prevent arms getting into Iraq they would still have to enforce it. For individuals it’s difficult to smuggle weapons, for an organization it’s a piece of cake. Take a look at the IRA in the 1970's they had to get weapons by boat to the island of Ireland through well guarded waters. [Edited by Don W]

There is a big difference in Ireland and Iraq. The Irish Catholic population was unified and well motivated to hide or give passive support to the IRA members, even though many disapproved of the violence. Successful guerilla movements enjoy popular support or will be unable to continue. I do not sense there is such support in Iraq for what we are calling the insurgents. Militias issue aside. The insurgents are foreign, and opportunistic. With a deadline for CF withdrawal, the number of incoming insurgents would diminish on its own.

Yet they managed to get grenades and machine guns. I've seen videos where they hid about one hundred machine guns within hay bales within a barn.

One question on Ireland. I wonder if the IRA did not have sympathizers inside the British security forces? From what I heard, the fighting argument in the Six Counties was based primarily on severe discrimination by the Protestant majority against the minority Catholic population. Even me, as a hard nosed Orange-man, would have no truck with religion based discrimination. Or any other kind. So, I’m merely asking if you think the British were ever able to really put a tight network around the whole island? In other words, is it not possible - probable - no one really had a 100% dedication to the undertaking?

It’s such a big task that its not worth embarking on given all the trouble that just attempting to do so would cause to e.g. innocent Iraqis living in dangerous places where they genuinely need their guns. And you will always be able to find-make explosives. [Edited by Don W]

Is it as big a task as sending a man to the moon and bringing him back safely? JFK made that speech in 1962, and in 1969, it was done. Barely 7 years. As far as I know, from scratch. I’m merely suggesting it - disarming - is what is needed to pacify Iraq. General disarming of the entire population. If we can’t deal with the most elemental source of violence, how are we going to deal with violence at all? The average Iraqi is left to go it alone. No one is advocating measures that will insure his future life. Or his families. We are at a cross-roads. I hope we can make the correct “turn.”

posted by Nygdan

The problem is, the ones that are insurgents, they're not going to let you just take their guns. Whereas the regular joe on the street, he really does need an AK for his household. Also, there's a good chance that the Iraqi army will be supplemented by civilian militias, where are the guns to arm it going to come from? [Edited by Don W]

I feel 100% confident if any Iraqi father was asked whether he wanted to remain armed in the outside chance he could defend his family, OR, see all weapons removed from Iraq - other than police and a small Japan-type defensive army - which would he choose? Disarming. Instead, we talk about countervailing force. We don’t even look to see if there is a viable alternative. In other words, it’s a given in our society. To violence, we genuflect for more violence. Our violence is greater than your violence. Therefore, we win?

By the Bye, Jacksonville, 750,000 people, just marked its 59th murder and we are not yet 6 months into the year. I don’t have the numbers but I’ll wager anyone here 90% were by killed by handguns. Wanna bet?


[edit on 6/26/2006 by donwhite]

There have been far more people killed in Iraq by Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) than by guns--what do you propose doing about them? Futhermore, if you managed to get most of the guns off the street that would not leave the people there only their fists to fight with--what about knives?

BTW, while I don't know about this particular year, historically the use of firearms in homicides in all of Florida (Jacksonville was not singled out) runs at just under 56%.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by donwhite
I feel 100% confident if any Iraqi father was asked whether he wanted to remain armed in the outside chance he could defend his family, OR, see all weapons removed from Iraq - other than police and a small Japan-type defensive army - which would he choose? Disarming. I

I'm not convinced of even that, if we could make good on that promise (which we can't). In afghanistan, it has been reported that people didn't want to give up their rifle because their wife would make fun of them if they came home without it, its an act of emasculation, to have your gun taken away.

But, more importantly, we can't make good on that promise of getting rid of all guns in the country. Some elements of the insurgency have been stockpiling since sadam's day, I'd bet, and many elements of it are baathist fighters, who are relying upon saddam's stockpiles and caches, not to mention that other arms are coming in from iran. Even if we could stop any new weapons from surfacing, we'd still have to actually identify the inusurgents and kill them to disarm them. In the meanwhile, the rest of the population that gave up their arms, they'd be completely unable to resist when an insurgency militia comes to town (not that they seem to be doing much of that anyway).

Our violence is greater than your violence. Therefore, we win?

Essentially, yes.

By the Bye, Jacksonville, 750,000 people, just marked its 59th murder and we are not yet 6 months into the year. I don’t have the numbers but I’ll wager anyone here 90% were by killed by handguns. Wanna bet?

I think that the iraq situation illustrates why we have to accept that and keep guns. Look at the mess that the unorganized, untrained, and fractious insurgency is able to create, and thats for the most advanced military in history! You can only imagine that any tyrannical government would have to think twice after iraq of trying to install a dictatorship in the US.

posted by Astronomer70

There have been far more people killed in Iraq by Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) than by guns. What do you propose doing about them? Furthermore, if you managed to get most of the guns off the street would that not leave the people there only their fists to fight with. What about knives?
[Edited by Don W]

I agree, regarding the IED numbers. Albeit my agreement is not based on actual statistics, but on my perceptions. Those are formed mostly by what I see on tv. Of course, disarming would not be just taking up all the AK47s or AK74s you see. It most certainly would include going to the 1000s of stocks of munitions laid around the country by Saddam for just this sort of eventuality. Frankly, I would assume this is already in progress. Locating and destroying outlaw munitions.

As to the argument that a person may be killed by fists, knives and clubs. Again, I have to agree. I have 2 points to make in that regard. First, lethality. At the CDC website, you can find a chart that shows 28-30% of people who are shot, die. About 5,000. OTOH, of the more than 30 million other accidents serious enough to require a hospital visit, fewer than 0.10% die. About 30,000. To my satisfaction, I have shown that ‘gunshot’ is vastly more serious - more lethal - than any other form or injury. Whether accidentally or intentionally inflicted.

Second. Unlike fists, knives and clubs, which require up close killing, guns allow killing away from the victim. Not up close. This does not preclude people possessed of a certain personality from killing up close, but it is believed not very many people possess either the physical capability or the personalty needed to kill up close. I’m saying all that to say this: If there were no guns then most of those killings by guns would not occur.



[edit on 6/26/2006 by donwhite]

To donwhite:

with all due respect, this is one of the most naive posts I've seen in a while. The country is awash in weapons, and there are undoubtedly large cashes of those guarded by the various militias pursuing their own political and religious goals. No amount of PR will convince these people to give these up. In addition to central Iraq, there is pesh merga Kurdish fighters in the North. Good luck convincing them they should disarm for their own good. Seriously, what are we smoking here.

Given this circumstance, any "normal" man, a head of a family, would still like to have something for home defense, as opposed to promises of some nebulous future security.

Then there is pervasive corruption at all levels. Guns will be embezzled/divereted to however pays the right price.

And Nygdan put it nicely:

Originally posted by Nygdan
The problem is, the ones that are insurgents, they're not going to let you just take their guns. Whereas the regular joe on the street, he really does need an AK for his household.

Also, there's a good chance that the iraqi army will be supplemented by civilian militias, where are the guns to arm it going to come from?

In addition, I object to the title of this thread. It's not "war on terror" going on in Iraq, but a civil war in which the US is trying to achieve it's own goals as to the composition of the eventual sustainable government, which we like to see reasonably loyal to the US.



[edit on 26-6-2006 by Aelita]