what the hell is ROHS

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...

Just ignore pinky and the brian - he's not come out yet so in his confused state he thinks everyone else is queer!!!

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:39:39 +0100, Eeyore Gave us:

Why do you quadruple post your CRAP?

Wow, now you are defending Graham back as he did in another post for you! What a charming couple you guys make. I bet there is a lot of love between you when you gaze so lovingly into his eyes....

But, alas, like I did to Graham, I am now banishing you from my newsreader. Bye Ian, may you and your true love Graham be very happy together!

As I said, Saddam wanted to keep his chemical weapons, but the international inspections and controls (and the first invasion of Iraq) resulted in most being destroyed. Only a few fairly useless ones were left, and he had no way to keep them intact.

His removal was certainly pre-emptive, and therefore it was wrong. Like most of the free world, I'm a believer in "innocent until proven guilty", and there is never any justification for punishing someone for crimes they might commit in the future. "Thought crime" is not an offence, much as the current American administration might like it to be.

There was plenty of justification for limiting Saddam's access to dangerous weapons - but as the NRA will tell you, owning a gun does not make you a murderer. Even if you have killed in the past, you cannot be convicted of killing someone in the future.

And even if Bush had good reason to fear attacks from Saddam (a preposterous idea, given the evidence available at the time as well as with hindsight), destroying the country and its people was not "right" in any sense of the word.

Look, it's quite simple - on one side, you've got a little old lady who has no idea how to use a gun, probably hasn't loaded it or learned where the safety catch is, and is the kind of person who catches wasps in a glass to let them out the window. On the other side, you've got a hardened criminal who has practised with his gun - he may even have shot someone before. He is either stoned out his head and gives no thought to the consequences, or he is aware that he may be killed or at least jailed for life if he does not act. Tell me, who is the most likely to end up shot? Pulling a gun raises the stakes in a confrontation - you'd better not be bluffing.

I think you misunderstand the concept of gun "control". It means

*controlling* access to guns, not just passing a law against them. I have no illusions about it being an easy process - even in civilised countries with few guns, it is hard. In the USA, it would be a huge effort. And there would certainly be a period where criminals have more access to guns than law-abiding citizens. I would expect there to be more gun crime then - but fewer killings. Perhaps it is impossible to get USA to the state when guns are a rarity - certainly it would take a new kind of politician to make it a reality.

On 10 Jul 2006 12:32:02 +0200, David Brown Gave us:

Or had better be prepared to hold the person in arrest until the law arrives to deal with whatever the reason was you put a gun on someone to begin with.

Do you know that some criminal groups manufacture guns themselves to sell outside the legal distribution system? That way there is no name or serial number if it ends up in the hands of the police. that way they can not trace it back to an owner. It doesn't take a lot of fancy tools to make a working gun. A small used CNC machine and the right steel would let you build a lot of them. Some unlicensed guns made from composites are also found by law enforcement. the only reason to make a gun or rifle from composites is to avoid setting off metal detectors.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

So, he intended to fool the inspectors and intended to hide these weapons. OK, so you agree he was in violation of the order.

But you can never again own a gun (not including a pardon). Saddam was removed for keeping some, as any parole would be relocked up.

Destroying a regime of a murderous tyrant was ruining Iraq? Thats not even a stretch, thats pure bullshit. Fabrication. A lie. The true people nor the Americans are destroying the country, it is those who do not want to see the future democracy that sabotage infrastructure, kill the new leaders, etc.

Whats wrong is the method, not the desired result. You can't allow a former dictatorship to run itslef right off the bat. Democracy is hard to those who never had it at first. Better to install a government, one representative of the future parties to run it. Allow them to debate and decide for themsleves... with a limit. If they cannot do it themselves effectively at first, the decision is made for them. Move on to the next decision. Eventually, they will learn to cooperate and run things. To expect that so soon was unrealistic.

I can only guess about that (as can you, or anyone else). But I expect that like anyone else when faced with imposed limitations, he pushed these limits as far as he could.

No, you can never again legally buy a gun in a gun shop - that's very different from never again being able to own a gun. As far as I have read, it should be easy enough to buy a gun at a gun fair (probably depending on the state), since checks are much weaker there, as well as illegally getting hold of a gun. So just like with Saddam, when your guy has shot someone, you make it as hard as practically possible for him to get a gun in the future. But even if you find that he has a new gun, you condemn him for having the gun but not for future murders. On the scale of Iraq, the equivalent was that Saddam was found to have a rusty old pocket knife - hardly a hanging offence.

Before the American invasion, Iraq was not a nice place to live. People were justifiably scared of the regime, there was little freedom, and a shortage of many of the basic necessities of live (as much a result of the international sanctions as anything else, although sanctions of some sort were necessary to contain Saddam). But at least there was relatively little religious oppression (women being no more oppressed than men), and there was little to be scared of except the regime. Three years or so after the American invasion, people are scared of all sorts of people - the Americans, the authorities, insurgents, freedom fighters, and anyone of a slightly different religion. They have fewer of the basic necessities (things like electricity, water, oil and gas) than before, and they now have more religious oppression as well.

Now, I fully realise that only some of the bombings and shootings are done by Americans, while the various Iraqi factions are behind the rest. But they were not blowing up marketplaces before the invasion - whatever else you may say about Saddam, he kept the country a lot more stable than it is now.

There are two things wrong with that argument. One is that a stable democracy with Iraqis running Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people was never the desired result for the American administration. There are plenty of theories as to the reason for the invasion, some more altruistic than others, but don't kid yourself in thinking it was for the good of the Iraqi people. In an ideal outcome for the administration, it does not matter a hoot how the country is governed, as long as American oil companies get the Iraqi oil and its profits, and the country is stable enough to let them work in peace. In all the interventions America has made (other than for the defence of allies), such as throughout central and southern America, there has never been a question of trying to establish democracy - it has more often been supporting coups to topple democratic governments.

The second idea is that it is possible to impose democracy from the outside (never mind the question of whether you have any moral right to suggest that your own idea of government is the right choice for other people). Iraq was not ready for democracy - changes like that have to come from within. By all means support internal democratic movements, and support the people, but you can't force someone to want to change. Iraq was like the former Yugoslavia - there were a number of significantly different peoples and cultures that were partially mixed and artificially forced under a single flag. The only way to keep a lid on such a powder keg is a strong and ruthless government. Once that has gone, the old hatreds erupt. Now you have cut off that government and provoked the situation before the people were ready. You have to let the Iraqis deal with it themselves - they will fight it out for some years, until the worst of the hatred has burned away and they tire of the fighting. Then you can help rebuild (as in Germany and Japan after WWII) - either as one country, or more likely as three separate countries.

Hear, Hear!

Thanks! Rich

In other words, your belief is to let oppressed people suffer indefinitely, without intervention, while cruel dictators kill them by the hundred thousands? Wow, what a plan that would be.

Funny thing is, Saddam used any money from oil for what? And there is ZERO doubt once this settles down the whole country will be better off. You again seem to prefer a century of turmoil and murder over 10 years of building. Poor choice.

And you confuse the Middle East and the rest of the world. But, perhaps preemptive action doesn't things to happen like did in Germany and Japan, overall avoiding a much more costly war in terms of both money and suffering for people. I think you out argued yourself.

My belief is that any change has to come from within. As I said, you can support internal groups trying to cause change, and you can also provide pressure from the outside (political pressure, sanctions, etc.). But you can't force a people to have the will and the courage to change their country. And you can't have a democracy unless the people are behind it.

Yes, a lot of people may die in the process. And it may take a while. But it is the only way.

Your claims of "ZERO doubt" are without basis in fact. There is little enough way of knowing how Iraq will look in ten years from now, and no way to know that it would be better than Iraq would have been in ten years had the USA not invaded. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine that Saddam's regime would have collapsed before then without any outside help.

Your time figures are also plucked from thin air. I'd prefer five years of turmoil and murder to thirty years of combined foreign rule and civil war (which is what Iraq has at the moment).

And the only things the USA is building in Iraq are prisons and an embassy the size of the Vatican City.

It's interesting you make the distinction. Most Americans seem to divide the world in two - "us" and "them", with no regard for the differences in culture, politics, religion or geography of different regions of the world. The US administration seems blissfully unaware of such nuances. But no, I am not confusing the Middle East with anywhere else.

The Allies war on Germany and Japan was not pre-emptive, it was reactive. Or do you mean the had the UK and France (with or without the USA) struck at Germany earlier, perhaps WWII could have been prevented? If you think through that a bit more, you'll realise that's not true on a number of levels. On a practical level, if the Allies had tried to attack Germany earlier, we'd have lost. Germany had been building up its military might enormously, while the UK was not close in strength - they had to wait until the last possible moment, when they had built up stronger forces and Germany's forces were more thinned out. More importantly, the German people believed in their country's expansions - a pre-emptive strike earlier would not have had the backing of the British people.

Pre-emptive strikes are a tool used by tyrants and bullies. America is always fond of taking the moral high ground, whether they have earned it or not, and should be above such petty "I punched him because he looked at me funny" attitudes. You have an unmatched military might - what sort of deliriums would make you think Iraq would make a serious military strike against you, or any of your allies? Perhaps the US was trying to show off, and to scare other "uncooperative" countries by making an example out of Iraq. It's a pity they didn't have a clue what they were doing (and ignored the guys who did know better), and ended up as the laughing stock of these "uncooperative" countries, who know they are safe because the USA can't afford another war.

too

What part of only taking them away from law abiding citizens instead of taking them away from criminals don't you understand? In America a majority of criminals have guns, only a very small minority of decent citizens have guns. Obtaining concealed carry permits is next to impossible, even carrying openly on your hip is illegal except for police in too many jurisdictions; criminals don't much care. Figuring out the consequences is left as an exercise for the student.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

You cannot hold the suspect under "arrest" unless you can convince then that you will shoot them and possibly kill them. The criminal has too much at stake.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

All very true. Not only that, if it is not required to be accurate, nor required to fire safely many times it can be made _very_ cheaply; say US$50 each within the US using US made materials and machines. May be much cheaper in other countries. Consider Kalinshnikov's.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

What is really funny is that the little ass doesn't know, or won't admit that it was the average citizen arming themselves that cleaned up the wild west. Of course he was brainwashed from birth that it was wrong to protect yourself, when needed. Personally, I'd rather not wait for a Queen when I need help NOW.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I guess I saw different movies. I thought the west was cleaned up when the citizens hired one gunslinger to kill off or chase away all the others.

And then they shot the gunslinger, but you didn't see it because the credits were already rolling.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I have to turn this around first....

You get SO long and borish and wrong, thinking length will prove your point, that no one can stand getting through your post!

"Premptive" has been the way of things for a long time, stopping the bullies before they destroy someone else's country (ie, a good thing would have been to stop Saddam before he invaded Kuwait.

If you are trying to back up that Saddam would have been toppled anytime soon, youre looney. The opposite was MUCH more likely. That negates about

90% of your ong-winded post there.

The Geramany scenario was WHY we have preemptive action now. And the U.S. really has no one to fear, thus isn't hiding morality and whats right under it.

What would make one think Iraq would attack anyone? Because they have repeatedly, perhaps? Because they said they wanted to again? Those MIGHT be clues....

Well written fantasy, no matter how long it is, does not represent fact. Please, be shorter in replies.