OK, some of your best friends tell you that I have a gun, and I am planning on shooting you with it. I have been known to kill many people in the past, so although killing you would be a mistake, I am not afraid to do it.
Now, I am a wiley son-of-a-gun, and I can shoot you before you can shoot me. In the old west, I would have been a gunslinger. I may not be able to kill you on the first shot, but I will definitely do some damage.
So you ask me "Do you have a gun?", and I respond "Probably", followed by some curse words. You ask to see my gun, and you get the curse words again. You want to talk it over? Not gonna happen. I hate you and everything you stand for.
So what do you do? Do you wait for me to pull my gun and shoot you, so that you can shoot back after you are already shot? Or do you take action, and shoot me before I can shoot you, simply assuming I have a weapon?
If my life was in danger, I would take action. So what is different about this and the Iraq war?
2007-05-07 10:32:50 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Notice how the Liberals avoid the question...
2007-05-07 10:39:43 · update #1
How about this scenerio: You are a convicted felon. Federal law has prohibited you from having a gun. The conviction was for Manslaughter, and you are on parole for 20 years, after serving a minumum prison sentence.
The Parole office requires that you give them access for random home visits, to determine that you are following the conditions of your parole.
You deny them access, routinely for several years, and each time they give you more time to comply.
They get news from an informant that you have a gun and are planning to use it, and have named some intended victims.
Now what? I say it's time for you to do some time. And Saddam's time was up.
2007-05-07 10:43:01 · answer #1 · answered by Shrink 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Hey man, you know me, Mr. Liberal. What would I do? I would get the heck out of anywhere that you are at and hide. If I am not able to get out of there, I would get some of my friends and tell them to help me reason with you. Or maybe send them to figure out why you hate me so much. But I would not kill you, even if you refused to talk to me or them for me, I would maybe shoot you in your leg or arm or something. I know you doubt me, but I am 90% sure that this is what I would do. Does this mentality work for foreign relations? Probably not.
I feel that the Iraq war is different.
1) They have no guns that can affect us over here.
2) Our paths don't have to cross
3) There is a difference between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which is why we are only done with about 30% of the War but defeated the Iraqi military years ago. Al Qaeda needs to die, Sadam knew better than to mess with us.
For whatever reason, it makes sense to me but probably not to you. But what is the difference between pre-war Iraq and present day Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Everyone hates us, so if we were proactive in defeating all enemies, WWIII would break out. If everyone took your approach, mere suspicion would cause wars.
2007-05-07 14:30:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good thing everyone doesn't think like you or we would all be running for cover. I believe everyone should have the right to carry a gun, but you sound trigger happy. Also sounds like you have a grudge against society. I would stay as far away from you as possible. Also sounds like you might be a vet with post traumatic stress disorder. If not who have you killed and why. By the way - there is nothing wrong with asking the government for help. After all they take more money from my paycheck than I pay for house, car, or anything else. I would love to have that money to do what I want with.
2007-05-07 10:49:44 · answer #3 · answered by mcmunn1127 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's a rather forced metaphor. The situation with Iraq before the war was pretty complex. Sadam was claiming, to the US and UN, that he didn't have WMDs, while also hiding sites from UN inspectors and shuttling material around the country, suspiciously (trying to make it look like he might still have the chemical weapons he used so effectively against Iran in thier war - useful to deter Iranian agression), and also circumventing UN sanctions as much as possible.
For years, that sort of strategy - evading inspections, undermining sanctions, and posturing to appear stronger than he was - kept him in power. He wasn't gong to give it up and let the inspectors have full access or comply with sanctions - in his paranoid mind, that would be inviting a coup from his own people, or an invasion from Iran (and just because you're paranoid...).
2007-05-07 10:41:43 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't avoid it.
It is an analogy a Republican would use.
You assume someone has a gun, then goes and asks him to see it, and when he refuses, which is has right, you use that as justification to say your life is in danger, so you go out and murder someone who didn't do anything to you!
Lets just say that person, under the NPT had the absolute right to have that gun, what then. Are you going to show them all of yours if they ask!
This is how things are unresolved, and this is a mentality which is not going to function in our society. You don't kill people, innocent people, over perceived threats! We do now I guess, and look what happened. The person doing the accusing was totally wrong in every aspect!
The difference is you broke International law, destabilized the middle East, made it unsafer for us, did al Qaeda's recruiting, and killed 10's of thousands of innocent people, not to name the 3,700 of our kids that are dead. All because you wanted to play Wyatt Earp!
Now close your eyes and pretend this was occuring in the US by another country!
2007-05-07 15:14:36 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Good stuff, bro..... here is my take on it.
The lunatic left wants to negotiate with rouge Middle Eastern States such as the former Iraq and Iran.
Herein lies the problem:
The Islamic Extremist want to kill all of the Infidels (everyone not them) and push the Jews "into the sea". They want to bring about Armageddon and then their "God" will return and rule the world under Islamic Law. Then, all of those peace loving Muslims will go to heaven and get their 72 virgins!
These people bred their kids just to turn them into Homicide Bombers. Ya, sweet people... strap on a bomb and hop on a bus full of innocent children and blow them all up.
How do you negotiate with that?
2007-05-07 12:47:26 · answer #6 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The difference is that Iraq didn't claim to have a gun, they claimed to have an air rifle, and in the past Iraq has proven much slower on the draw than the U.S. In fact, Iraq is more comparable to the retarded kid down the street who wears a bright red bike helmet and a fanny pack everywhere he goes. To get your friends to back you up, you lied and told them that Iraq had a Bazooka (and that you knew because you sold it to him). Then after you'd already disarmed Iraq, you sat on his chest and punched the little retard in the face for a long time after he went unconscious. When your friends tell you that you've done enough, you call them cowards and threaten them with terrorist actions.
How many friends should you expect to keep?
2007-05-07 10:48:30 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
This is a very, very weak analogy to Hussein's Iraq. Why don't you add that we also had a massive bullet-proof shield surrounding us that would keep you from being able to hit us (air superiority over no-fly zones). Your bullets rarely, if ever, worked (wonderful scuds). Our friends had been through your house on numerous occasions after they took your guns to make sure you had no more, and never found any guns or bullets. Even if you had a gun, the bullets could never reach us (Atlantic ocean). And you had another bully to your side you were trying to deal with and believed was a far greater threat to you than we ever were(Iran). Finally, that you knew we could sustain every bullet and weapon you could throw at us and we would crush you in seconds with no problems. That may be a little more accurate.
2007-05-07 10:44:04 · answer #8 · answered by Arbgre555 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I would shoot, and then check to see if he had the weapon. If he did or didn''t I would know he could have prevented it by just telling me if he had the weapon.
As for the Iraq analagy, I know why we are there but it really doesn't fit well into the statement given.
2007-05-07 10:37:49 · answer #9 · answered by rosslambert 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
"OK, some of your best friends tell you that I have a gun, and I am planning on shooting you with it. I have been known to kill many people in the past, so although killing you would be a mistake, I am not afraid to do it"
that's easy because you are currently waiting on death row to leave this world as a result of the many people who knew that you had been "known to kill many people in the past" and testified against you in court, my response would be to publicly taunt you
2007-05-07 10:38:39 · answer #10 · answered by Nick F 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋