Asymmetrical Warfare

[_SteelHead]

I always find it a conundrum that a country that has enshrined the "right to bear arms" as a principal right, then seeks to denies other nations the option to seek parity in arms they can bring to the field.

[_ajax18]

I always find it a conundrum that a country that has enshrined the "right to bear arms" as a principal right, then seeks to denies other nations the option to seek parity in arms they can bring to the field.

I don't. In the name of every dead and dismembered American soldier I'd disarm anyone who even breathed a threat to the soldiers occupying foreign lands. Foreign nationals aren't citizens and aren't entitled to the same rights. They're lucky we allowed them to live.

[_SteelHead]

The rights of the constitution's Bill of rights are "self evident" human rights that we as Americans believe apply to all humans, not just citizens. Locke referred to them as "natural rights", and it usually the NRA types who invoke his (Locke's) arguments in debates around gun ownership. Natural/human rights exist regardless of citizenship.

[_Bret Ripley]

Foreign nationals aren't citizens and aren't entitled to the same rights. They're lucky we allowed them to live.

The rights of the constitution's Bill of rights are "self evident" human rights that we as Americans believe apply to all humans, not just citizens.

Nice try: the Bill of Rights invokes the term 'inalienable' which (when properly translated) means can't be used by aliens. Next!

Locke referred to them as "natural rights" ...

Locke was a non-citizen, and he's just lucky we let him live. Next!

[_SteelHead]

Ok, that made me LOL.

[_ajax18]

The rights of the constitution's Bill of rights are "self evident" human rights that we as Americans believe apply to all humans, not just citizens. Locke referred to them as "natural rights", and it usually the NRA types who invoke his (Locke's) arguments in debates around gun ownership. Natural/human rights exist regardless of citizenship.

It just seems like common sense that if we're going to occupy a hostile foreign country that we would take their guns away. If we're not willing to do that why are we putting our troops in harms way there?

It seems as if the left is more likely to take the guns away from law biding American citizens than they are an Iraqi militant civilian by day soldier by night. It's crazy. Why would anyone be willing to fight and die for a country that cares so little about its soldiers?

[_canpakes]

Remember when the Right collectively sharted their britches when Obama supposedly bowed too far horizontally to some foreign leader?

Today, Trump writes:

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”

It’s awesome that Trump places the United States at the heel of the Kigdom of Saudi Arabia, to await their orders on who to attack, and when, on their command.

[_SteelHead]

It just seems like common sense that if we're going to occupy a hostile foreign country that we would take their guns away. If we're not willing to do that why are we putting our troops in harms way there?

It seems as if the left is more likely to take the guns away from law biding American citizens than they are an Iraqi militant civilian by day soldier by night. It's crazy. Why would anyone be willing to fight and die for a country that cares so little about its soldiers?

Just begging the question of why we are occupying hostile foreign countries. Which country that we are currently occupying have we declared war upon? Are we occupying Iran? Why do they not have the "natural right" to defend themselves with the same weapons we have at our disposal?

[_ajax18]

Just begging the question of why we are occupying hostile foreign countries.

Because of the erroneous view of GWB that we could set up democracy in an Islamic country as a means of preventing future threats against our national security from a brutal dictator like Sadaam Hussein.

Why do they not have the "natural right" to defend themselves with the same weapons we have at our disposal?

I suppose they do have that right inasmuch as they can defend it. But do you really want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons that can reach the US or even Israel? I think if we're powerful enough to take that right away from them, we should while we still can.

[_SteelHead]

Just begging the question of why we are occupying hostile foreign countries.

Because of the erroneous view of GWB that we could set up democracy in an Islamic country as a means of preventing future threats against our national security from a brutal dictator like Sadaam Hussein.

Why do they not have the "natural right" to defend themselves with the same weapons we have at our disposal?

I suppose they do have that right inasmuch as they can defend it. But do you really want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons that can reach the US or even Israel? I think if we're powerful enough to take that right away from them, we should while we still can.

What right do we have to do so? What empowers us to deny a nation self determination?

The only country to use nuclear weapons as part of a war/conflict to date is......?