I was watching CNN and seeing the US army delivering aid to the Afghan villages. The village chief was saying the Taliban would come down from the mountains and relieve them of their aid goods at nightfall. It got me thinking about what would happen if they army delivered guns to them all instead and kept on delivering arms until everyone in the middle east was armed.
You could then make it law that you had to carry your loaded weapon with you at all times. Those under 5 years old could be let off with a warning or just get them very small guns.
The middle east would be an interesting place once the carnage settled down. Main problem would be keeping them all armed. The warlords would want to keep taking their guns away.
How about we stop buying their oil and providing them with weapons?
That would make it even more interesting place.
They’d either start killing each other with stones in the proper 7th C. way or they’d just make China or Russia rich from cheap oil and arms and ammo sale.
You’re in good company with that opinion, Ironman.
Of course, the Soviet Union had great arms and terrible laws… so much for a well-armed state. On the other hand, Israel and Switzerland require that their citizens be well-armed, and have good laws. Then again, lots of arms hasn’t done Somalia any good, and a lack of good arms didn’t stop anyone in Rwanda. Beats me.
[quote=“Jaboney”]You’re in good company with that opinion, Ironman.
Of course, the Soviet Union had great arms and terrible laws… so much for a well-armed state. On the other hand, Israel and Switzerland require that their citizens be well-armed, and have good laws. Then again, lots of arms hasn’t done Somalia any good, and a lack of good arms didn’t stop anyone in Rwanda. Beats me.[/quote]
Somalia is lacking ANY kind of effective government either, right?
[quote=“jdsmith”]We dont buy oil from Afghanistan. We buy their opium.[/quote]No, the French buy their opium, process it into heroin then sell it to the Italians who then sell it to us. And don’t forget the Chinese if it goes eastward after processing.
Supply chain and all that…
[quote=“Jaboney”]You’re in good company with that opinion, Ironman.
Of course, the Soviet Union had great arms and terrible laws… so much for a well-armed state.[/quote]The state had the arms, not the people.[quote=“Jaboney”] On the other hand, Israel and Switzerland require that their citizens be well-armed, and have good laws.[/quote]Not too many terrorist attacks in Switzerland. Maybe its a better neighborhood. As for Israel, how long do yu think Israel would last if its populace was dis-armed?[quote=“Jaboney”] Then again, lots of arms hasn’t done Somalia any good, and a lack of good arms didn’t stop anyone in Rwanda. Beats me.[/quote]Slaughter in Rwanda. Thats not a good thing. But you are dealing with a ‘survival level’ populace and not a developed one.
Anyother useless analogies to offer up?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Jaboney”]You’re in good company with that opinion, Ironman.
Of course, the Soviet Union had great arms and terrible laws… so much for a well-armed state.[/quote]The state had the arms, not the people.[/quote]
Gee TC, I would never have thought of that. Oh no, wait, I did think of that. But Machiavelli addressed armed states, which is why I wrote it off in the first example, before moving on to an armed citizenry. (To be fair to Niccolo, he vigorously argued for arming the citizenry, and took steps to create a citizen army when he had the chance. Not that his efforts came to much.)
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Jaboney”] On the other hand, Israel and Switzerland require that their citizens be well-armed, and have good laws.[/quote]Not too many terrorist attacks in Switzerland. Maybe its a better neighborhood. As for Israel, how long do yu think Israel would last if its populace was dis-armed?[/quote]Maybe it is the neighbourhood. I think Israel would do just fine with a disarmed populace, given the size and proficiency of its army, and the inability of an armed populace to guard against bombs in pizza joints. Israel’s peace isn’t contingent on having a certain percentage of the population tasked to carry their Uzis on a daily basis. It may be a nice insurance plan, but one that’s seldom used. It certainly isn’t a primary bulwark against Israel’s existential threats.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Jaboney”] Then again, lots of arms hasn’t done Somalia any good, and a lack of good arms didn’t stop anyone in Rwanda. Beats me.[/quote]Slaughter in Rwanda. Thats not a good thing. But you are dealing with a ‘survival level’ populace and not a developed one. Anyother useless analogies to offer up?[/quote]Silly TC, the point of the analogies was to demonstrate that a straight forward solution, such as ‘arm them all’ is probably going to miss some very important factor contributing to the violence. Put another way–call it the Rummy way–a demonstration of uselessness is not, itself, useless. Knowing that a course of action will be useless, or insufficient in itself, is a very useful bit of knowledge. Care to try again?
Beats me.
Oh no, wait, I