JohnnyDoglands wrote:Flooding a country with arms as a charitable act is only going to be a short sighted solution. Not taking account what has happened in the past, not thinking about what the consequences might be in the future. I thought it was clear that the opinion i gave was that giving arms instead of aid was a bad idea.

Could giving someone the means to defend themselves and their families not be seen as 'aid'?

I largely agree with your description of what is going on in Zimbabwe by the way. I flagged what you said because it ... well you said this...

If we had flooded the country with arms to support THEIR struggle, surely we would be looking at mass executions on the news now instead of punishment beatings?

And my point was that their have been mass executions in Zimbabwe and we are seeing more than punishment beatings.

My suggestion is that if those executed and beaten had the means to fight back maybe they wouldn't have been executed and beaten.

That's why it's relevant to the thread.
The point is if the population is armed then the government (any government) might be a little more reticent about fucking over the citizens.
Not armed the population is totally reliant on their government being nice all the time and always being there to look after them wherever and whenever they are needed.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:You ask me if i can call any armed uprising justified, I'm saying justified is the wrong word. If you want an example, I call the armed uprising in Ireland UNDERSTANDABLE.

No it's not the wrong word given the question. Here...

un·der·stand·a·ble
–adjective
capable of being understood; comprehensible.

By this definition any uprising or war, with some research, is understandable.

jus·ti·fi·a·ble
–adjective
capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide.

This one is asking for a judgment call. That's all I'm asking for. Are there any you see as justified. That you could justify.
I'm not asking for some absolute good only for an opinion.

As I have said I respect the position that you (one) would never justify violent action. I am not going to swing any answer round my head to hit anyone with. I am just curious.

It feels like people are just dancing round saying 'violence is never justifiable, to me, in any circumstances' and I don't see why.

Earwicker wrote:
This one is asking for a judgment call. That's all I'm asking for. Are there any you see as justified. That you could justify.
I'm not asking for some absolute good only for an opinion.

As I have said I respect the position that you (one) would never justify violent action. I am not going to swing any answer round my head to hit anyone with. I am just curious.

It feels like people are just dancing round saying 'violence is never justifiable, to me, in any circumstances' and I don't see why.

If I could think of any instance where an armed militia had targeted the govt/ army directly and not attempted to highlight their cause by attacking civilian targets then i would have given it. The English Civil war maybe? It doesn't exactly fit the criteria, but its the closest i can think of off hand.

The reason I voted Not Crap about the right to bear arms, yet disagreed about arming Zimbabweans is because the Americans already have access to weapons, as well as the right to own them. It doesn't require another country to step in and provide them, and later get the blame when ten years down the line there is still a bloodbath instead of stability.

Before I get accused again of not having a real opinion i would say that yes, it would be nice if those being attacked in Zimbabwe had a means to defend themselves but only if they would disarm again straight after restoring democracy. It would be nice if the perpetrators of these attacks got a taste of their own medicine, but do two wrongs make a right?
Yes If you or I were in their situation we would want revenge, but why cause yet more violence at all? If the rest of Africa steps up to the plate and applies the proper pressure on Mugabe, then we could see a solution to this problem soon, and I hope that is what will happen.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:The reason I voted Not Crap about the right to bear arms, yet disagreed about arming Zimbabweans is because the Americans already have access to weapons, as well as the right to own them. It doesn't require another country to step in and provide them, and later get the blame when ten years down the line there is still a bloodbath instead of stability.

If someone took it upon themselves to arm a resistance movement in Zimbabwe which succeeded but later turned out to be tyrannical themselves - blaming the enablers of the resistance would be unfair - to me. Remember I'm not suggesting arming some tribal warlord.

If they succeeded the government would be able to 'legitimately' buy arms anyway.

What you want is for there to be no guns at all and no one trading them anywhere in the world with anyone.

Cool.

That would be lovely.

Having said that - my initial reason for mentioning the arming of an oppressed people was to illustrate why many in America see the right to bear arms as something valuable.
I tentatively mentioned Zimbabwe and said this...

I said wrote:The people don't want Mugabe.(we know because the elected someone else)
The international community does fuck all. (so far)
Should 'the people' be given guns?

Notice the question mark.
I then later acknowledged my lack of knowledge regarding Zimbabwe and said...

I said wrote:If, however, it is as simple as a leader has decided to keep power through violence because of his inability to give it up then I say give the people guns.

Notice the 'if...'

As it stands I can see plenty of reasons why us old colonialists shouldn't involve ourselves. However (as it stands) I wouldn't be against the African Union involving themselves in some way militarily. As long as that involvement lead only to the swearing in of the population's choice of government.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:If the rest of Africa steps up to the plate and applies the proper pressure on Mugabe, then we could see a solution to this problem soon, and I hope that is what will happen.

This would be lovely.
I wouldn't hold your breath though.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:Yes If you or I were in their situation we would want revenge, but why cause yet more violence at all?

I am not talking about revenge. I've been talking about self defense.

Listen I'm all for non-violence.
Just not when I'm getting my head kicked in.

Earwicker wrote:
What you want is for there to be no guns at all and no one trading them anywhere in the world with anyone.

Cool.

That would be lovely.

I don't think i said that, you're putting words in my mouth. Lets not give them any more guns than they already have was my point, sorry if it didn't come across too clearly.

You seem to have me pegged as some kind of peacenik, maybe thats the impression I'm giving off. Not so. We are both talking about how the violence in Zimbabwe is a bad thing. You brought it up so i assume you would like to see an end to that violence. So do I, so does everyone except Mugabe and his thugs.
I mentioned on the previous page that I didn't think the African Union has not done all it can yet. I would like to see a peaceful resolution, but that doesn't mean that if all else fails I don't think military action from AU troops should be ruled out. If the threat is not there, then talks are pretty toothless.
Mugabe needs his allies, and at the moment they are cutting him too much slack because of his past as a fighter of white oppression. The rest of the world is doing its best to persuade Thabo Mbeki to get tough, and that is about all we in the western world can do, short of sending UN peacekeepers in which may still happen. Neither of us can predict what is going to happen, but I think it is unlikely the international community will just leave Mugabe to his own devices.

I was interested to hear Condoleeza Rice talking about the possibility of economic sanctions on Zimbabwe last week. I remebered reading this before then....

The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 is an act passed by the United States Congress which sanctioned Zimbabwe for its involvement in the Second Congo War and the government's unwillingness to make the transition to democracy.
Under ZDERA, the United States is prohibited from supporting any efforts by the International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions to extend loans, credit or debt cancellation to the government of Zimbabwe. As Zimbabwe needs to import all its energy, and oil is paid for in US dollars, this made the country vulnerable to financial sanctions like ZDERA.

It sounds like sanctions have already been in place since 2001 to me.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:I'm starting to think that this thread has been derailed and I wish to apologize to Rotten Tanx that we have strayed so far from the original topic. Sorry Rotten Tanx.

I would like to reiterate this point. I can see how the right to bear arms relates to this but maybe it is time start a new thread about what is going on in Zimbabwe, seeing as we aren't really talking about the US constitution anymore.