If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to
Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through.
Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
4th paragraph:
Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of the day tells them it is. Shane wrote: Hmm. 3rd paragraph: Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop pretending to care about Americans rather than just America. However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay. Shane wrote: 2nd paragraph: But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them, of course. There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still think they're on their own on the frontier. Shane wrote: I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through. Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
6th paragraph:
However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician banning handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was always a megalomaniac is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to protect against tyrannical government! Our freedoms are being removed piece by piece, relentlessly, and a police state being established. Someone wrote a letter (to the Independent?) recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer PM, will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not really a joke. Shane wrote: Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it wouldn't have got through if it was, say, the British Government doing the censoring. Next paragraph: Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that it makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US. That isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?). Shane wrote: 4th paragraph: Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of the day tells them it is. Shane wrote: Hmm. 3rd paragraph: Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop pretending to care about Americans rather than just America. However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay. Shane wrote: 2nd paragraph: But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them, of course. There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still think they're on their own on the frontier. Shane wrote: I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through. Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
Surprised that one got through. 7th:
We do have it pretty good with our National Healthcare System.....so don't complain. And I do believe ours is better than the UK. Had a lot of time to investigate that one. Yes. Probably wasn't until recently, but I almost died because of what ours has become (under Thatcher, Major and Blair. Must figure out some time how to sue the f**ker for it!). Off to bed.....getting as bad as Shane and Mike!! Night.....Figgs Hope you haven't slept all this time, Figgs! Shane Shane wrote: 6th paragraph: However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician banning handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was always a megalomaniac is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to protect against tyrannical government! Our freedoms are being removed piece by piece, relentlessly, and a police state being established. Someone wrote a letter (to the Independent?) recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer PM, will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not really a joke. Shane wrote: Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it wouldn't have got through if it was, say, the British Government doing the censoring. Next paragraph: Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that it makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US. That isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?). Shane wrote: 4th paragraph: Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of the day tells them it is. Shane wrote: Hmm. 3rd paragraph: Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop pretending to care about Americans rather than just America. However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay. Shane wrote: 2nd paragraph: But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them, of course. There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still think they're on their own on the frontier. Shane wrote: I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through. Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this is a
wME group. That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is necessary to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get Sadam and minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such around the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME. And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that Fing war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end if at other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace monkeys likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions against the millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of the war, except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72, much control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with old antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA, Easter of '72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop their advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to foreground, Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have been done earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced them to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in Linebacker II. They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have you, us, lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job. Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about. We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear the scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the albatross they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost in the end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for the promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns, how long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied by Russia and China? Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it was about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would vaporize Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND! Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva Convention. That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of baloney created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England would have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that Geneva document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES, SO DO WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back. Norman "Shane" wrote in message ... I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through. Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
"Shane" wrote in message ... Shane wrote: I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various forms. Shane wrote: I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get through. Shane wrote: 2nd paragraph: But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them, of course. There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still think they're on their own on the frontier. I don't get your analogy. What "facts" are pro-gun lobbyists denying? What is irresponsible about collecting guns at a dance and giving them back when it's over? I wouldn't give car keys or guns to a drunk. Otherwise, both are fine. The right to bear arms is a conservative idea. The USA was founded by generally conservative people, thus we also have laws against such things as public indecency. Owning a gun does not inflict on anyone else's rights, unless you illegally use that gun against someone. There are only 4 reasons to own a gun: For self defense (generally only allowed as a last resort to stop someone who is an imminent threat to life or property) For revolution (also a last resort, as our first course of revolution is to run for office or support someone else for office to change things "through the system") For hunting (not for handguns) For collecting Shane wrote: Hmm. 3rd paragraph: Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop pretending to care about Americans rather than just America. However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay. Yes to gun control? To what extent? I generally agree with laws requiring gun locks and gun purchase waiting periods, and I'd have to disagree with any law preventing law abiding citizens of legal age from owning guns. In some ways we could imagine the world a better place without atomic bombs, but in the right hands they are a good thing. There have been several movies where nuclear weapons were used to save the world from certain destruction. If the US did not invent atomic bombs, Germany/Japan would likely have won the war. If the US did not have atomic/nuclear bombs, what would stop China today from declaring war and conquering the world? Shane wrote: 4th paragraph: Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of the day tells them it is. You define what is right as whatever the government tells you because that is how democracy works. If the government tells you something you don't like, you vote new people in the next election to change it. The government is also constrained by checks and balances. Lawmakers and judges keep each other in check and overturn the other's rulings if they conflict with the constitution. If the system fails and the government gets out of the hands of the people, then the people take up arms against it. Shane wrote: Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it wouldn't have got through if it was, say, the British Government doing the censoring. Next paragraph: Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that it makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US. That isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?). You are a fool if you think a policeman will "always be there to protect you". Police will not be there unless you live right next door, or you live in a place like New York City where there may be one or more police on every block. For most of us, it will likely take the police a minimum 10 minutes to get there. If someone wants to shoot you or even stab you to death the police will not likely be able to stop them. The second part is the police may not be there to protect you even if they are there. They may be dirty paid off cops, or they may simply be following their government's instructions, which would mean the citizens must take up arms against the police if the government gets out of hand. Some towns in the USA even went so far as to make laws suggesting every head of household should own a gun to deter criminals. I think it might be a nice idea for every legal citizen of legal age to own a gun, though some people should not be trusted with bullets. If you're going to keep them from carrying an unloaded gun, you might as well ban shovels and other such deadly objects. 6th paragraph: However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician banning handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was always a megalomaniac is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to protect against tyrannical government! Our freedoms are being removed piece by piece, relentlessly, and a police state being established. Someone wrote a letter (to the Independent?) recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer PM, will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not really a joke. They banned handguns? Are you talking about Britain now? You seemed to be talking about the USA earlier.. Surely every civilized nation should be opposed to bans on handguns. It is tough to obtain automatic weapons and high caliber weapons. Your average citizen is generally not allowed to own a tank. If the government uses tanks against it's own people, we'll just have to fight back with land mines and such. Only children, criminals, and certifiably mentally unstable people should be prevented from owning guns. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
"Norman" wrote in message ... I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this is a wME group. It was actually started with the premise of keeping wME alive, hoping that even OT posts will keep the forum alive, and keep knowledgeable ME users around in case someone does have an actual question. That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is necessary to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get Sadam and minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such around the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME. Indeed. If we are to believe the movie Blood Diamond, Africa is in the midst of a bloody revolution. I'm guessing Saddam's people did not have guns where they convicted him of genocide. The Jews apparently could have used a few more guns in Hitler's day but still, Hitler was a good guy compared to Stalin. And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that Fing war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end if at other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace monkeys likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions against the millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of the war, except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72, much control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with old antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA, Easter of '72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop their advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to foreground, Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have been done earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced them to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in Linebacker II. They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have you, us, lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job. Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about. We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear the scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the albatross they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost in the end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for the promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns, how long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied by Russia and China? Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it was about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would vaporize Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND! I was going to mention that Iraq should not be compared to Vietnam, but I do have a couple of points to add. People willing to blow themselves up is not a difference. Vietnam had people strapping bombs to women and children to kill our troops. That is why Kerry accused our troops of being baby killers. Sometimes they leave you no choice. Troops shoot people in Iraq all the time when those people appear to be suicide bombers. The other thing those wars have in common is the US fighting to bring democracy to them. The big difference there is Vietnam never asked for it. We declared communism to be evil after seeing what became of it in places like Russia (under Stalin) and decided to remove the Vietnamese government whether they liked it or not. To this day, as far as I'm aware, the Vietnamese are still content to live with communism. The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they are now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with. The people of Iraq wanted revolution. They were obviously not happy with Saddam, as confirmed recently by his execution, and could not remove him from power peacefully. The people of Vietnam did not want revolution. If they decide they want one, and cannot attain it by peaceful means, and do not have the power to revolt, then super power nations like the USA should step in. China has been communist. They are not happy with their government which still tries to censor their media. They are shifting toward democracy, and getting there by peaceful means. War should always be a last resort. Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva Convention. That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of baloney created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England would have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that Geneva document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES, SO DO WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back. Norman Which rule(s) should we break? The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture our captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a good idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways that we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their plans or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea. When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they could simply declare a new leader. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
"Eric" wrote in message ... "Norman" wrote in message ... I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this is a wME group. It was actually started with the premise of keeping wME alive, hoping that even OT posts will keep the forum alive, and keep knowledgeable ME users around in case someone does have an actual question. That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is necessary to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get Sadam and minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such around the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME. Indeed. If we are to believe the movie Blood Diamond, Africa is in the midst of a bloody revolution. I'm guessing Saddam's people did not have guns where they convicted him of genocide. The Jews apparently could have used a few more guns in Hitler's day but still, Hitler was a good guy compared to Stalin. And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that Fing war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end if at other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace monkeys likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions against the millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of the war, except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72, much control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with old antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA, Easter of '72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop their advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to foreground, Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have been done earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced them to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in Linebacker II. They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have you, us, lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job. Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about. We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear the scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the albatross they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost in the end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for the promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns, how long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied by Russia and China? Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it was about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would vaporize Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND! I was going to mention that Iraq should not be compared to Vietnam, but I do have a couple of points to add. People willing to blow themselves up is not a difference. Vietnam had people strapping bombs to women and children to kill our troops. That is why Kerry accused our troops of being baby killers. Sometimes they leave you no choice. Troops shoot people in Iraq all the time when those people appear to be suicide bombers. The other thing those wars have in common is the US fighting to bring democracy to them. The big difference there is Vietnam never asked for it. We declared communism to be evil after seeing what became of it in places like Russia (under Stalin) and decided to remove the Vietnamese government whether they liked it or not. To this day, as far as I'm aware, the Vietnamese are still content to live with communism. The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they are now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with. Leaving the rest up for discussion, I must whole heartedly agree with this viewpoint and include Iraq in this equation. Initially we didn't go there to fight terrorism, nor to preserve *our* freedom, but for control of the oil reserves. Time *to wake up*. H. The people of Iraq wanted revolution. They were obviously not happy with Saddam, as confirmed recently by his execution, and could not remove him from power peacefully. The people of Vietnam did not want revolution. If they decide they want one, and cannot attain it by peaceful means, and do not have the power to revolt, then super power nations like the USA should step in. China has been communist. They are not happy with their government which still tries to censor their media. They are shifting toward democracy, and getting there by peaceful means. War should always be a last resort. Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva Convention. That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of baloney created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England would have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that Geneva document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES, SO DO WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back. Norman Which rule(s) should we break? The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture our captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a good idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways that we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their plans or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea. When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they could simply declare a new leader. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Recent subjects I brought up
"webster72n" wrote in message ... The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they are now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with. Leaving the rest up for discussion, I must whole heartedly agree with this viewpoint and include Iraq in this equation. Initially we didn't go there to fight terrorism, nor to preserve *our* freedom, but for control of the oil reserves. Time *to wake up*. H. Bush says we initially went there to fight terrorism, that the main if not only reason we removed Saddam from power was because he was allowing terrorists to train in his country and was even funding their efforts. While this may have been our main reason for initially sending in troops, Bush did seem to make a fool of himself by repeating that we were there because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (which were apparently smuggled out of the country just before we got there). I am a little puzzled by every Bush speech that makes it sound like our entire mission in Iraq is still fighting terrorists, even though we reportedly did kill al-Quaeda's #2 guy among others. It seems most of our missions there have nothing to do with any terrorists that are remotely connected with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Our main mission it appears is keeping the peace, which has a lot to do with religion (Sunnis fighting Shi'ites), and surely has something to do with the flow of oil. So I am in favor of keeping our troops there for as long as the Iraqi people need us and as long as they are committed to taking over the peacekeeping efforts themselves as soon as possible, and even sending more troops temporarily, but it would be nice if a Bush speech would tell the whole story. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
'tweaking' placesbar in tweakui :-) (history vs recent) | [email protected] | General | 0 | November 10th 05 03:31 PM |
Recent installation of System Recovery of ME | christina | General | 1 | September 1st 05 04:46 AM |
Recent "Blue Screen" problems | TomYoung | General | 7 | March 21st 05 05:46 AM |
Delete from recent docs list and it no longer holds 15 items | jersie0 | General | 1 | June 24th 04 05:24 PM |
Protection Error after download recent security patches | willis smith | General | 1 | June 3rd 04 09:33 PM |