The Lord of War comes to the U.S.

[Swordfish941]

MT2008, you are one of the most knowledgable people I've ever known.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

MT2008, you are one of the most knowledgable people I've ever known.

I have my opinions like anyone else, and that's that.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

Assassinate/capture as an enemy combatant or operative.

Except that he hasn't personally tried to kill anyone, in which case, he doesn't meet "unlawful combatant" status. Not to mention that the liberals would be up in arms (errr, flowers) over us doing something like that. How can you possibly be so concerned about the rule of law if you would advocate us treating Bout like an enemy combatant (rather than a criminal, which is what he really is)?

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

I didn't mean the state or the territory would be balkanized, I meant the criminal element. Without FARC running things the various "duties and responsibilities", so to speak, of the drug trade would be scattered amongst what ever willing individuals care to pick them up. That's where the comparison to Mexico comes from, the one drug lord running routes through Mexico went to prison and control was passed onto numerous underlings who then went to war with each other and have been at it for some time. It's not an "Us vs. Them" scenario in Mexico, it's a "Them vs. Them vs. Us vs. Them" scenario.

Those "willing individuals" would still need to find a way to establish control in the areas that FARC previously controlled. Part of the reason FARC gained control of the areas of Colombia it held is because, like any capable insurgency, it followed the Maoist strategy of winning hearts and minds through social programs that were intended to help the most destitute peasantry in those regions. Its social system started to fall apart in later years, but that was how it gained control originally. That isn't something that any newcomer could do overnight; it takes many, many years.

The drug cartels in Mexico work in a similar way; the major cartels that currently operate in Mexico spent years administering government and economic activity in order to cultivate population loyalty. Mexico is also (due to its geography) a far more difficult country to control than Colombia.

[Mandolin1]

As far as i see it, we have no authority to arrest or try him. His crimes were committed outside the US and who cares if he wants to sell bad guys stuff to shoot down Black Hawks. Arms dealers may be bad, but there is no real international authority to stop them and they do business in countries that have no real government or just bribe their way through. He told bad guys the stuff he had was good for killing Americans? He's probably told that to all his customers, just replace America with the name of the buyer's enemy.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

As far as i see it, we have no authority to arrest or try him.

Sure we do. He was extradited to this country from Thailand with the approval of their justice system. Since we have an extradition treaty with Thailand, and since they arrested/detained him (after a DEA operation), they had the final say. And they chose to allow extradition. People are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts just because they happen to be citizens of different countries than those where they were arrested.

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

His crimes were committed outside the US and who cares if he wants to sell bad guys stuff to shoot down Black Hawks.

Who cares? Are you an American? Personally, I care if someone is selling weapons to enemies of America. So does almost everyone I know who is in the service. I'm sure they'd take offense to your comment.

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

Arms dealers may be bad, but there is no real international authority to stop them and they do business in countries that have no real government or just bribe their way through. He told bad guys the stuff he had was good for killing Americans? He's probably told that to all his customers, just replace America with the name of the buyer's enemy.

Then let this be the precedent. If you are really indifferent to the idea of men like Viktor Bout profiting from civil wars, then you must be an extremely cynical person. I don't see how you can't feel some degree of disgust and outrage at such evil actions. Anyone who would sell weapons to men like Mullah Omar or Charles Taylor - repeatedly - needs to be locked up.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Then let this be the precedent. If you are really indifferent to the idea of men like Viktor Bout profiting from civil wars, then you must be an extremely cynical person. I don't see how you can't feel some degree of disgust and outrage at such evil actions. Anyone who would sell weapons to men like Mullah Omar or Charles Taylor - repeatedly - needs to be locked up.

What about other people who would do business with those kinds of people? What about people who help them obtain medical supplies, fuel, and food? Not weapons, but necessary for the effort, and therefore an indirect means of killing our soldiers.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

What about other people who would do business with those kinds of people? What about people who help them obtain medical supplies, fuel, and food? Not weapons, but necessary for the effort, and therefore an indirect means of killing our soldiers.

Come on, do you really think there's no difference between a gun (which is designed to kill) versus food or medicine? Selling weapons is far more important to a rebel army's ability to wage war than food, fuel, or medical supplies. There is a reason that most sane human beings think it's intuitive that convicted criminals not be allowed to own lethal weapons, and that this be written into law. The same logic applies to war lords and terrorists.

That being said, there are economic sanctions that can be placed on rogue regimes and militant groups which prohibit observing parties to the sanctions from selling anything to them.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Come on, do you really think there's no difference between a gun (which is designed to kill) versus food or medicine? Selling weapons is far more important to a rebel army's ability to wage war than food, fuel, or medical supplies. There is a reason that most sane human beings think it's intuitive that convicted criminals not be allowed to own lethal weapons, and that this be written into law. The same logic applies to war lords and terrorists.

That being said, there are economic sanctions that can be placed on rogue regimes and militant groups which prohibit observing parties to the sanctions from selling anything to them.

I never said there was no difference, but you cant have an army of nothing rifleman, therefore any other form of support is still somewhat complicit in whatever damages occur.

And as far as criminals owning weapons goes, I believe that if you can't be trusted with a firearm then you can't be trusted with freedom. If you are walking the streets than you should be allowed to have a gun, if you are too dangerous to have a gun then you are too dangerous to be walking the streets.