Cheesey, your analogy is fundamentally flawed. The only way it works is if you support puting those weapons in the hands of the very people you fear. Otherwise your argument is entirely inconsistent.

---

Most wars have been fought over religion and natural resources or land conquest. Since there is no more land to conquer, then we are down to religion and natural resources. I'm going with religion on this one as Israel is totally surrounded by countries harboring a rival religion and they hate each and currently have a false peace going on.

WWIII will be fought by the sides that back Israel versus the sides that back the Arab nations. Treaties like NATO will be tested as to their loyalties. I expect a blood bath.

---

Israel isn't worth trying to save. They're like that skinny little dork with the overprotective mom who always taunts the big boys on the playground because he thinks they won't actually dare to take a swing at him. Israrel is just itching for a fight, so let them duke it out on their own. This isn't 1967 anymore. If they gets squashed like the annoying, warmongering beetle they are, I sure won't grieve.

---

The oil wars have already begun. Historians 100 years from now will point to the first Gulf War as the beginning of the oil wars.

Water wars are next.

We simply have too many people competing for too few resources. You need water to survive and oil to have a reasonable standard of living.

Large parts of India, Pakistan, and China are using the same water supply. When you have hundreds of millions of people competing for the same water and the supply is dwindling, you're going to have a problem.

Several countries in the Middle East are starting to run low on ground water.

It's going to get ugly. Then of course, everyone's going to want to come to America as we have resources (and jobs). That will strain the people already here.

Dakota - Religion is the excuse to take sides when resources are low.

NSD - Agreed. War like WWI & WWII are already outdated. It's much for effective to not fight all out and have surprise skirmishes and guerrilla efforts.

Honestly, I have no idea how it's going to happen. But I do know that a quick decline in living standards is a cause for revolution/war. Unfortunately it's almost inevitable.

---

I don't think it is. Not putting the weapons in their hands will have the same results as not making sure to keep them out of their hands. Apathy towards lunatics will have the same results as putting weapons into their hands. Just like gun control issues.
Targeting law abiding citizens, who already obey the law won't lower violent crime rates. You have to TARGET the law breakers. Ones that already don't obey the laws.
Otherwise you just end up with more "toothless" and "useless" laws. Kind of like the U.N. They run around yelling, but have no authority against those that won't follow the U.N.'s laws already. We saw proof of that very thing with Saddam. He scoffed at them and treated them like the worthless organization they are.

Just because WE think logically, doesn't mean the idiots around the world will.

---

You believe in personal weapons rights. Why do you not also believe in national weapons rights? And who determines who gets to have weapons and who does not? Who gives one nation the right to make that determination? Who is the arbiter of what is sane and logical?

How familiar are you with the Iran-Iraq war? For that matter, how familiar are you with the ancient conflicts between Persia and Babylon? Why can you not see that Iran (Persia) might have very legitimate national security concerns, given that the nation who supported their most ancient enemy (Iraq/Babylon) in a war that killed almost 2 million of their citizens currently has troops occupied on their very borders? From my perspective -- and the perspective of the Iranians -- it would be illogical and insane for them to sit idly by with such an obvious threat looming next door.

---

So....those that don't like either of those countries.....they don't have a right to protect THEIR borders?
As far as weapons "rights". Don't we have a responsibility to protect OUR country against those that hate us? If that means "policing" the world, then so be it.
I trust our country more then the despots that run small countries.
I don't 8understand the trust that you give to dictators that kill their OWN people, live in palaces while a block away they let their people starve. These are the so called "leaders" of these countries. They live off the misery of others, and are only in power because they STOLE it. To ignore those types is dangerous in my opinion.
We don't put weapons in the hands of lunatics here, but not targeting THEM and going after people that don't break the law is stupid, and a waste. it LOOKS good on the surface, but does NOTHING.

---

+1.

If it happens, that would save us billions of dollars every year. We could use that money to pay down the national debt.

Besides, if you talk to them, they like to brag "we don't need you." Oh, really? Then stop taking billions of dollars from us every year.

---

Thanks for the +1, man, but holy crap, two typos in that post. For some reason I always notice my typos when people quote my posts, but never in the posts themselves.

I think I once read that Israel gets more in foreign aid from us than any other nation. Is that true?

---

Who said anything about trust? I don't trust any of the foul-mouthed, close-minded, tobacco-chewing rednecks that carry guns around here, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should have a right to do so. If one of them ever tried to lay a hand on my sisters or wife or sons, though, I'd put a bullet in him and not blink. But until that happens, they can carry around all the hardware they want and it's not going to bother me a bit. I'll just find it a little amusing that they feel such an overpowering need to compensate.

By the way, Saddam Hussein is rumored to have killed between 35,000 and 50,000 people in his 35-year reign. That's a lot of people to be sure. However, the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq at United States' insistence are estimated to have starved over half a million children alone! (Did you know that prior to the imposition of sanctions, the number-one epidemiological problem in Iraq was childhood obesity? Now it's malnutrition.) Moreover, estimates range anywhere from 100,000 to over a million civilians killed in this war since the United States invaded. There has been a massive brain drain in Iraq of the very people needed to rebuild that country: doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, chemists, biologists, physicists, and computer scientists. When I was a medic at one of the military-run prisons in Iraq, I was continually amazed at how great a proportion of my prisoners were intelligentsia -- people educated in the United States, England, and Europe. This war has devastated the ranks of the educated.

So who is the greater butcher?

And who cares if you don't trust these little nations anyway? They're little nations. What threat do they actually pose to us? They're like mosquitoes buzzing around your face. Sure, it sucks when they bite, but it's not going to kill you. None of these nations represent any sort of serious threat to us, and if living conditions there are so intolerable, the people of those nations should rise up and overthrow their governments, just as our people did during the War for Independence. If they are too lazy to do that, it stands to reason they're not all that dissatisfied with their lives.

I'm far more concerned about the potential threats posed by China and Russia, who have been climbing into bed for the better part of a decade, than any of the assorted little 'stans out there who foam and froth at the mouth every time they want a few extra concessions at the bargaining table.

---