[“None of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”]
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 5:08
"
Why? I don't need to. The manufacturers aren't responsible for how people misuse the firearms they buy from them. It is the responsibility of governments to protect their people. I guess you think our government should stop Coca Cola from screwing up India too. Well, I'll agree this is bad - it isn't our responsibility to handle these things, it is the responsibility of the people who are effected, and their government. For the same reason I don't think it is our respsonsibility to tackle Coke (its not ours, its the indian government's), is the same reason I think we don't have a responsibility to stop the arms industry from selling to whoever. The arms industry isn't responsible for how OTHER people misuse their arms." Dude, if part of the American economy relies, thrives with and depends on companies that are mistreating other nations, all the players of that economy has a responsibility to put their foot down. But you don't ask for change so we have to change them through political means. You can start by not Drinking Cola or Pepsi anymore. Capitalism doen't work if consumers don't take responsibility. Furthermore, America had no qualms about trading arms with talibans before IX XI. You might not care about the inconsideration of arms manufacturers when foreigners suffer, but what if you have to pay the price?
"
Why? I don't need to. The manufacturers aren't responsible for how people misuse the firearms they buy from them. It is the responsibility of governments to protect their people. I guess you think our government should stop Coca Cola from screwing up India too. Well, I'll agree this is bad - it isn't our responsibility to handle these things, it is the responsibility of the people who are effected, and their government. For the same reason I don't think it is our respsonsibility to tackle Coke (its not ours, its the indian government's), is the same reason I think we don't have a responsibility to stop the arms industry from selling to whoever. The arms industry isn't responsible for how OTHER people misuse their arms." If an economy decides to not remove businesses inside its borders that cause suffering elsewhere, they are partially founding their economy on suffering, and void its moral superiority.
"Yes it does. It isn't the responsibility of the gun industry or the capitalists who own it to handle the security of other nations, or to question the moral sanctity of their sales or the recipients of their guns. This responsibility lies with the foreign government whose people may be effected, not with the gun industry." Downward spiral; the governments that are trying to pull countries together get destabilized by the influx of guns, eagerly awaited on by macho-misogynist-guerillas who fire at whatever.
"So why oppose freedom fighters being armed? Sure they aren't always morally scrupulous (I think is the right word), but neither is our military, or our soldiers, as I just said above there. Since you support our military and its action, I don't see why you oppose these rebels and their action, since they probly committed at least some of the same atrocities, like the rape example." Word is unscrupulous. Would you sell an armament to a dude with a proven record of mental instability (if you live in Alabama, don't bother answering)? So why do you think it is okay that parts of the American economy sell guns to people, who -unlike the America army or IDF-, doesn't have any objectives to minimalize civilian suffering.
"Sure. And I doubt you can show me that the objectives of various rebels include raping an occasional girl, either. Clearly, there is a distinction to make between the ideas in the heads of the soldiers on the fields, and the ideas in the heads of the armies. Since you wouldn't hold our entire military accountable for the actions of a single soldier or a small group of soldiers in Iraq, I fail to see why you would hold an entire group of rebels accountable for the actions of a small group of them, unlike how you view our own military." None of the objectives of the American army has abasement and oppression of civilians as a subobjective or prerequisite. These guerillas want control above everything around them, they do everything they want and are subject to no martial courts.
"So because we weren't successful, means we shouldn't have tried?" Poisoning... Water... Supply... Becomes, freedom... How?
"We can't fix everything you know." You can not unfix everything you know.
"You implied it. You had said something along the lines of 'well, the Cuban authoritarian communist government has the support of its people, so the USA was wrong to try and put a stop to it', or something." Consensus has no objective value. However, when a resistance is not present inside the country, resorting to terrorist tactics to swing sentiments or express disapproval is pure cowardice.
"Bush's civil liberty violations are quite over the top. Outside of that, what can I say, he's better than the dems, imo." Yeah yeah yeah. I was referring to Obrador, just south of youse.
"Sure, but I still have no problem that they helped them fight back the Soviets. Part of that was also that they saw the Soviet Union as a kindof evil empire that was spreading evil throughout the globe, which it kindof was I guess. Seeing as how the Soviets were so brutal, so oppressive, and the Afghanis were probably quite a bit better, I see no reason why we shouldn't have armed them." Because their ideal vision of the world is no better, and they hate you?
"I agree the crusade on drugs is not libertarian. However, the crime fighting sector does other things that can be justified with more or less libertarian ideas, so I don't think it is right to take all funding from it, but rather to just vote libertarian so that we can get the laws changed to protect drug users, provided they don't harm others." Complete failure to see the parallell.
"They are a bunch of biased shits, and we shouldn't have to fund their anti-gun studies." Prove the bias.
"They are a bunch of biased shits, and we shouldn't have to fund their anti-gun studies." A hack in the vinyl.
"Right. But they do this for the sake of furthering their agenda of getting rid of the governments that are there. If the government's actions and crimes are worse than this, even though they are assholes themselves, I again don't see why the USA shouldn't be allowed to arm them if they wish." Fighting fire with fire is okay when you don't target the same kindling as the oppressors just to get your rocks off.
"There are many. Just look at history. We dismantled the Nazis, just to name one off the top of my head. We are dismantling the former Iraqi regime too." That was not a coup d'état, and it was between countries, and raping civilians wouldn't have done anything to facilitate it.
"There's lots of dirty shit pulled by both parties, and this doesn't exclude the democrats. I don't think anyone but the third parties are clean. This doesn't mean much to me. They are both full of crooks, but I already knew this. I don't see how the republicans are that much worse, the democrats, again, often pull similar shit." I tentatively await proof of democrat's resorting to voting fraud et al.
"If you'll recall from above, I don't condone every action committed by every soldier on the field. This doesn't mean I don't think that soldiers in general should be armed, or that the general cause or purpose of said group is bad or wrong. Notice the similarity that exists within our own American military. This doesn't mean I disaprove of our military or its overall mission." Doesn't really answer the question below.