| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Tanks Patrol Iraqi City After Ambush |
| 2003-09-20 |
| TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) - U.S. tanks and armored fighting vehicles rumbled through Saddam Hussein’s hometown and its outskirts early Saturday in a show of force following a coordinated ambush against American forces that killed three soldiers and wounded two. Soldiers patrolled through Tikrit and the eastern banks of the Tigris river, site of a deadly attack Thursday by Saddam loyalists. The patrol began late Friday and ended early Saturday. Intended as a show of force, it was also an attempt to flush out pockets of armed resistance in the area. Finally. Stay for a while. "We took a tank company and a Bradley company," Lt. Col. Steve Russell, the 1st Battalion commander of the 4th Infantry Division’s 22nd Infantry Regiment, told The Associated Press. "We wanted to send a message." The U.S. troops usually patrol in smaller vehicles but this operation came after a series of attacks Thursday described by the military as some of the fiercest and best coordinated since American forces arrived in the Tikrit area in April. Fifty-eight Iraqis were captured after the attacks and U.S. troops seized a considerable number of weapons from a minivan fleeing the area, the military said. During the patrol, tanks swept through residential areas, occasionally dismounting to set up security points, to check cars and people leaving Tikrit after the city’s 11 p.m. curfew. The patrol ended without incident. "We wanted to make contact with the enemy," Russell said. "If they want, we’ll surely oblige him." Teach these folks not to mess with you, Steve Hey another Steve! Wotta great name! |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Aris asked and commented: Doesn't the whole war on Iraq for-reasons-of-WMDs go against basic NRA principles, the principles that say that every person has the right to gather as many weapons to himself as they can? In a word, no. First, the NRA takes no position on what NATIONS do. Second, the NRA is about individuals and gun ownership, not whether nations should or should not have armaments. Indeed I heard one minor communist party over here use something like that as part of its reasoning to oppose the War on Iraq -- their belief that all nations should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, not just the Big 5 of the security council. You SURE he was a communist? I thought communists were all about love, peace, and brotherhood. I'm stunned that a communist would even suggest a thing. More important, do YOU think every country should have WMDs? Like for example, Turkey, Greece, and Albania? Just curious. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-9-21 3:41:25 AM |
| #13 The entire rationale of the 2nd Amendment is that an unarmed society can be easily manipulated, having nothing to fight back with. It's not to secure the GOVERNMENT, but to secure our FREEDOM. There's nothing in the Amendment, or any of the documents written for and against its inclusion (the so-called Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, which is really a collection of newspaper editorials for and against. They do pretty well cover the discussion, however) discussing the type or number of weapons any person can have. Technically, a person should be able to have his/her own nuclear arsenal. The government has done its best to restrict, deny, and hedge on this article practically from the day it was ratified. Governments don't like armed citizens - it makes them nervous. Of course, if their behavior wasn't so obnoxious, there wouldn't be any reason to be nervous. As for Iraq, let the people keep their weapons. Then add some really STIFF penalties under their constitution (when they finally get around to writing it) and laws about MISUSING their weapons. After all, it's the BEHAVIOR that makes the crime, not the weapon. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-20 6:49:11 PM |
| #12 snellenr - I guess then only the Swiss are responsible enough to allow citizens to have full autos, but regardless there are better things to do with the available money and logistics than spend them replacing weapons or disarming the law-abiding folk and leaving them helpless with the Ba'athists and jihadis running around--not to mention the common criminal element in every culture who loves knowing their victims are defenseless. Thankfully, not every Iraqi with an AK wants to kill Americans (much to the chagrin of Murat and Stevey). However, if the Iraqis want to instill American-style gun control down the road, that's a decision that should be left to them. Our mission should be more focused on restoring the infrastructure, establishing a responsible government, and getting out (although a base there would be nice) than imposing our cultural values on them. Once the basic democracy is in place, they can modify it to suit their own cultural wants and tastes. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-9-20 6:23:20 PM |
| #11 NMM's the kind of gun grabber who would point to a Baathist shooting an RPG, and say: "see guns kill people, we should start the disarmng among law-abiding Americans"... thanks Pal, I'll renew my NRA membership and make an extra donation in your honor..later on I'm gonna go buy some ammo...be thinking of you then too ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-20 12:28:47 PM |
| #10 The idea of letting the population keep AK-47s is nuts -- not even the NRA suggests that full-auto weapons should be widely available in the U.S. (or, if they have, everyone's still laughing). We'll save ourselves a lot of trouble (in the long run) if we confiscate any AKs we find and replace them with a cheap bolt-action rifle. If we choose something that's incompatible with 7.62 ammo, that's even better... |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-9-20 11:20:50 AM |
| #9 Good reply, Francis. NMM likes to take the NRA's belief in reasonable self-defense and blow it way out of proportion. I see nothing wrong with letting Iraqis keep basic weapons (AK-47's among them) for self-defense. Especially now, when large parts of the country are still somewhat chaotic and lack efficient policing, they deserve the right to defend themselves from roaming bandits and Saddam's holdout hooligans. RPGs and other heavy weapons are an entirely different matter and should be confiscated. Those are not weapons for reasonable self-defense. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-9-20 11:05:23 AM |
| #8 NMM and Aris on the same wavelength. Purrfekt. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-9-20 11:05:16 AM |
| #7 Doesn't the whole war on Iraq for-reasons-of-WMDs go against basic NRA principles, the principles that say that every person has the right to gather as many weapons to himself as they can? Indeed I heard one minor communist party over here use something like that as part of its reasoning to oppose the War on Iraq -- their belief that all nations should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, not just the Big 5 of the security council. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-20 10:27:50 AM |
| #6 Mike Moore (you live up to your namesake I see), How do you propose getting rid of all the guns / rpgs, etc. in the country?!? How many MILLIONS of them are buried in the sand, or hidden in the corners of every hut, cave, and building in Iraq, and the entire ME. And blaming the NRA nutz is typical of left wing drivel. I haven't seen ANY statement from the NRA concerning Iraq. Their charter is basically to safeguard the 2nd amendment, otherwise they tend to be apolitical. You don't have a problem defending the constitution, do you? Or is it some sort of Chinese dinner menu, where you pick any 3 amendments from column A, and 4 from column B?!? |
| Posted by: Francis 2003-9-20 9:49:27 AM |
| #5 That is a new angle I hadn't anticipated. The Iraqi insurgency is an arm of the NRA. I bet the real Michael Moore already the |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-20 9:33:08 AM |
| #4 Don't blame the NRA,I haven't hear C.Heston proclai"From an Iraqi's cold,dead hand"(although it does bring a fetching picture to mind) |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-9-20 7:38:45 AM |
| #3 But then they won't have anything to fire in the air to celebrate. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-20 2:24:41 AM |
| #2 TJ--Because of the NRA nutz in the US--I think the Iraqi population should be disarmed--with the death penalty for possession of an RPG--why are the assholes allowed to posseess assault rifles?! This is like trying to occupy a country where the NRA has had its agenda approved--an armed citizenry because its part of the Iraqi "culture" I say screw that--disarm them all except the US certified police |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-20 2:18:49 AM |
| #1 I cannot understand why arms are still in the hands of the Iraqis. Surely the penalty for being armed in Germany and Japan after the surrender was severe. Why shouldn't these attacks continue if we cannot send the correct message? |
| Posted by: TJ Jackson 2003-9-20 12:58:54 AM |