89 posted on
04/04/2004 3:36:36 PM PDT by
GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
In my opinion we're talking apples and oranges here.
Any invading force into the United States would be seeking to conquer it for it's own personal gain. The United States is occupying Iraq for it's own gain, but it is also an effort to help the Iraqi people gain a grip on their own future. We don't seek to add their land to our posessions. We don't seek to pilage their resources. We don't even seek to control them in perpetuity. We simply want them to develop a peaceful nation that can live peacefully on the world stage.
Compare this to an occupation of the United States by a Germany, Japan or China. Do you see those types of occupations in the same light. I doubt it.
In order for Iraq to be safe from a neighbor state, I support it having a viable military, one that answers to it's elected officials. And if it's populace didn't contain a large radical element of former Republican Guard members, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Sadly, US Troops and the developing Iraqi government itself, is exposed to insurrection on far to great a level.
While I support second ammendment rights for the Iraqis, it's a little premature to accord them the same rights as a fledgling United States in the late eighteenth century, or even the same rights as a nation of our stature in present day America.
Let Iraq stabalize. Then allow the populace to own weapons. I would personally rather them keep the weapons, if it weren't for our troops taking rounds in the back or being blown two stories in the air by bombs.