# Vietnam War - how did US benefit from it?



## 777

I am trying to find answers to how USA benefited from Vietnam war. 
I am doing a paper for school so this is a historical question rather than a personal opinion. Any factual & historical input would be appreciated!

Thank you


----------



## RetiredGySgt

777 said:


> I am trying to find answers to how USA benefited from Vietnam war.
> I am doing a paper for school so this is a historical question rather than a personal opinion. Any factual & historical input would be appreciated!
> 
> Thank you



The purpose of the "defense" of Vietnam had little to do with any direct benefited to the US. It was the height of the Cold War, neither the Soviets or the US could afford to actually fight each other directly because of the fear of Nuclear war.

The policy of the US was containment, preventing the spread of communism. In that context, Vietnam was a war to prevent the spread of communism. The "benefit" was that we did not want another country and possibly an entire region to go communist.


----------



## no1tovote4

Many benefits were secondary.  The military used VN as a testing ground for new weapons and learned an amazing amount about field medicine.  

During the VN conflict many new advances were made in field medicine, as well as inventions used in field medicine that you may not know about.  SEALs used superglue to seal wounds both in air and water environments, for instance.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> The purpose of the "defense" of Vietnam had little to do with any direct benefited to the US. It was the height of the Cold War, neither the Soviets or the US could afford to actually fight each other directly because of the fear of Nuclear war.
> 
> The policy of the US was containment, preventing the spread of communism. In that context, Vietnam was a war to prevent the spread of communism. The "benefit" was that we did not want another country and possibly an entire region to go communist.





> The "benefit" was that we did not want another country and possibly an entire region to go communist.



Just as the world, especially the Afghans and Iraqis, is currently benefiting by our Holy Crusade to stop another country and possibly an entire region going Muslim. 

To paraphrase our Dear war criminal Leader, Far better to fight them (insert any of the hundreds of evil anti-American enemies du jour since 1607 here) over there than in America. 

Nice to see they are still trying to make a silk purse out of the appalling sows ear that was the Vietnam War!


----------



## 777

Could I say that Vietnam war was worth militarily, ideologically or otherwise to USA now that we can analyze it historically?  Or was the war unnecessary, costly blunder?


----------



## Truthmatters

There were no foriegn policy gains, there were no military gains,there were no social gains.

The only gain was to a small group of industrialist who benifited from the military industrial complex.

It was a loss in all respects for America.

I thought for a while maybe we had learned a lesson about letting our country be taken to war based on lies but I guess I was wrong about that one.


----------



## Superlative

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt

777 said:


> Could I say that Vietnam war was worth militarily, ideologically or otherwise to USA now that we can analyze it historically?  Or was the war unnecessary, costly blunder?



Depends. In the end we allowed South Vietnam to fall. However had we allowed that to happen in the 50's it is entirely possible that the entire region would have been in peril. the 20 years we either supported them or fought there allowed several things to happen. Thailand become more stable, China become unstable and ceased being in lockstep with the Soviets. For 20 years we showed we were willing to fight and die for a concept other than just the direct defense of the US.

I would say it was a toss up. My personal opinion is that Truman missed an opportunity in 1948 to support Ho Chi Mein and prevent the entire mess. BUT times were different then and he was under pressures that effected his ability to see that potential.

I would say failing to support Ho, we did the right thing by fighting in Vietnam Idealogically. Militarily we learned lessons , but we have still failed to heed them completely. In the end it was a political loss.

I do not believe it was a blunder to fight, but how we fought it and failed to define it to the people WAS a blunder. Further Nixon pulled it out, we had it beat,but his paranoia directly lead to a total loss with his political suicide.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

777 said:


> Could I say that Vietnam war was worth militarily, ideologically or otherwise to USA now that we can analyze it historically?  Or was the war unnecessary, costly blunder?



It was WORSE than an unnecessary, costly blunder. For starters the US lost a former and potential future ally in Ho Chi Minh, and earned the enmity of a few formally neutral nations, with its usual criminal military meddling in others affairs.

Millions died as a result of the US trying to deny the North and South of Vietnam the opportunity to unite as one nation. Fundie-mentally because Americans had been brainwashed by their churches and successive administrations of BOTH kinds that Communists were evil atheists who hated us "because they envy us and want to destroy our freedom." 

And that these savage sub-human Yellow Hordes were coming to rape Randolph Scott and Stardust, Rin Tin Tin, and Doris Day and to enslave and put unbelievably brave American men to work in the giant rice paddy the were going to make out of America.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ahh yes, we were so misguided, Stalin was just a big misunderstood pacifist that wanted friendship and peace. Mao was a nice guy too right? Kruschev followed in Stalin's mold, a peace loving friend to all peoples? Breshnez too of course.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> Depends. In the end we allowed South Vietnam to fall. However had we allowed that to happen in the 50's it is entirely possible that the entire region would have been in peril. the 20 years we either supported them or fought there allowed several things to happen. Thailand become more stable, China become unstable and ceased being in lockstep with the Soviets. For 20 years we showed we were willing to fight and die for a concept other than just the direct defense of the US.
> 
> I would say it was a toss up. My personal opinion is that Truman missed an opportunity in 1948 to support Ho Chi Mein and prevent the entire mess. BUT times were different then and he was under pressures that effected his ability to see that potential.
> 
> I would say failing to support Ho, we did the right thing by fighting in Vietnam Idealogically. Militarily we learned lessons , but we have still failed to heed them completely. In the end it was a political loss.
> 
> I do not believe it was a blunder to fight, but how we fought it and failed to define it to the people WAS a blunder. Further Nixon pulled it out, we had it beat,but his paranoia directly lead to a total loss with his political suicide.





> I would say failing to support Ho, we did the right thing by fighting in Vietnam Idealogically.




The Free World (i.e. the non-American world) defines fighting ideological wars in others peoples backyards as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (No, Mistress Kathie&#8230;..N-O-O-o-o-o!!&#8230;Not the dreaded Red Demerit Square!!....Anything but THAT!!  )

The leaders and their supporters &#8211; including civilians &#8211; of such countries should be HANGED and/or imprisoned when and if they are bought before a Free World Court.

This was a crucial part of the prosecuting power's case against the Nazis, THAT AMERICA INSISTED ON, and duly had made into INTERNATIONAL LAW, during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trails after WW2.

A part that Americans have consistently and conveniently refused to recognise ever since.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes, we were so misguided, Stalin was just a big misunderstood pacifist that wanted friendship and peace. Mao was a nice guy too right? Kruschev followed in Stalin's mold, a peace loving friend to all peoples? Breshnez too of course.




ALL of them were no worse than you, a pathetic camp follower who supports, aids, and abets your evil regime's war crimes against humanity!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Chips Rafferty said:


> ALL of them were no worse than you, a pathetic camp follower who supports, aids, and abets your evil regime's war crimes against humanity!



You forgot to add as a Marine I am a baby killer and murder civilians for sport.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

RetiredGySgt said:


> You forgot to add as a Marine I am a baby killer and murder civilians for sport.



God bless you, and thank you for your service.


----------



## Psychoblues

No.  There was no benefit or national honor that was defended there, ultimately or even superficially.




777 said:


> I am trying to find answers to how USA benefited from Vietnam war.
> I am doing a paper for school so this is a historical question rather than a personal opinion. Any factual & historical input would be appreciated!
> 
> Thank you



I fought there, I saw my brethren die there.  all of them died and suffered in vain.

It was not the congress of the United States that lost that WAR.  It was the premise that we fought it at fault. 

Dig it?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

maybe but why you have to pick on him?. any service member should be respected, you can hate a war but dont take that out on him.


----------



## Psychoblues

And your reference is to what, martin?




actsnoblemartin said:


> maybe but why you have to pick on him?. any service member should be respected, you can hate a war but dont take that out on him.



Your quote function works just like mine does.

If you are saying what I think you are saying then you are simply a nutcase.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You will discover that there are 3 or 4 people on this board you simply can not have a rational discussion with. They are not interested in anything you have to say unless it is to agree with them.


----------



## Gunny

777 said:


> Could I say that Vietnam war was worth militarily, ideologically or otherwise to USA now that we can analyze it historically?  Or was the war unnecessary, costly blunder?



The Vietnam War, in hindsight, was a pointless endeavor on the US's part.  We attempted to democratize and industrialize an government and people who were agrarian, and modeled their society after French colonial society in which class status defined who and what one was.  The governnment was corrupt, did not support the will of the people, nor have their support.

In geopolitical terms, it allowed the major opposing superpowers of the Cold War to battle each other via proxy using an undeveloped nation's civil war as the cover.


----------



## Gunny

actsnoblemartin said:


> maybe but why you have to pick on him?. any service member should be respected, you can hate a war but dont take that out on him.



What am I missing?  I don't see that PB "picked" on anyone; rather, expressed his opinion of the VN War.  

You may not agree with his opinion and that is your right, but trust me, I know a PB personal attack if anyone does and this doesn't fit the bill.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> You forgot to add as a Marine I am a baby killer and murder civilians for sport.



WELL GOLL-E-E! Did you teach _that_ up at Camp Henderson, Sargunt Carter?  

Lets just disregard your usual pathetic grandstanding attempts (LOOK WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT A HOLY MARINE, PEOPLE!) to garner sympathy and draw a red herring over your conservanazi slime trail. 

Lets recap what I accuse you of - and you have never provided one skerrick of evidence to refute - shall we? 

You deliberately and purblindly sustain and approve of a patently piratical, murderous regime that is, *according to U.S. and international law,* indictable for *crimes against humanity.* 

This stance makes YOU an accessory to mass murder, perhaps even premeditated genocide, under these same laws. 

As a demonstrably mental Mormon, you cursorily worship a rabidly racist Jew who, funnily, wouldnt have given a loathsome Goy like you the fumes off of his Gefilte fish farts.  

I maintain this makes you a religiously insane racist and a willing accomplice to your inherently evil political-religious regimes continuing mass murder in criminal pursuit of Imperial profit. 

Accordingly, you ought to be hung like Hitlers henchmen were at Nuremberg.

I also maintain that, seeing that I persistently oppose all the evil that you hold dear, I am - according to global standards, not you immoral American ones - the epitome of universal decency.   

There ya go, Gummy. See if you can slime outta that!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Chips Rafferty said:


> WELL GOLL-E-E! Did you teach _that_ up at Camp Henderson, Sargunt Carter?
> 
> Lets just disregard your usual pathetic grandstanding attempts (LOOK WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT A HOLY MARINE, PEOPLE!) to garner sympathy and draw a red herring over your conservanazi slime trail.
> 
> Lets recap what I accuse you of - and you have never provided one skerrick of evidence to refute - shall we?
> 
> You deliberately and purblindly sustain and approve of a patently piratical, murderous regime that is, *according to U.S. and international law,* indictable for *crimes against humanity.*
> 
> This stance makes YOU an accessory to mass murder, perhaps even premeditated genocide, under these same laws.
> 
> As a demonstrably mental Mormon, you cursorily worship a rabidly racist Jew who, funnily, wouldnt have given a loathsome Goy like you the fumes off of his Gefilte fish farts.
> 
> I maintain this makes you a religiously insane racist and a willing accomplice to your inherently evil political-religious regimes continuing mass murder in criminal pursuit of Imperial profit.
> 
> Accordingly, you ought to be hung like Hitlers henchmen were at Nuremberg.
> 
> I also maintain that, seeing that I persistently oppose all the evil that you hold dear, I am - according to global standards, not you immoral American ones - the epitome of universal decency.
> 
> There ya go, Gummy. See if you can slime outta that!



None of your claims are more than hot air from a lunatic.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> None of your claims are more than hot air from a lunatic.



....I love to hear them Mormons squeal, its a shame these slugs ain't real .....

Try reading something other than the corrupt American media, supermarket Penny Dreadfuls, and war comics for once in you Walter Mittyish life, Vince. 

The invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were/are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY according to International and American Law. And those who support(ed) them are no better than the German and Japanese civilians of WW2.

The bombing begins in five minutes!  

*******Copyright Violation. Edited by Scooter.*******


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Chips Rafferty said:


> ....I love to hear them Mormons squeal, its a shame these slugs ain't real .....
> 
> Try reading something other than the corrupt American media, supermarket Penny Dreadfuls, and war comics for once in you Walter Mittyish life, Vince.
> 
> The invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were/are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY according to International and American Law. And those who support(ed) them are no better than the German and Japanese civilians of WW2.
> 
> The bombing begins in five minutes!
> 
> Crime Against Humanity
> by John Pilger
> April 10, 2003
> 
> A BBC television producer, moments before he was wounded by an American fighter aircraft that killed 18 people with "friendly fire", spoke to his mother on a satellite phone. Holding the phone over his head so that she could hear the sound of the American planes overhead, he said: "Listen, that's the sound of freedom."
> 
> Did I read this scene in Catch-22? Surely, the BBC man was being ferociously ironic. I doubt it, just as I doubt that whoever designed the Observer's page three last Sunday had Joseph Heller in mind when he wrote the weasel headline: "The moment young Omar discovered the price of war". These cowardly words accompanied a photograph of an American marine reaching out to comfort 15-year-old Omar, having just participated in the mass murder of his father, mother, two sisters and brother during the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, in breach of the most basic law of civilised peoples.
> 
> No true epitaph for them in Britain's famous liberal newspaper; no honest headline, such as: "This American marine murdered this boy's family". No photograph of Omar's father, mother, sisters and brother dismembered and blood-soaked by automatic fire. Versions of the Observer's propaganda picture have been appearing in the Anglo-American press since the invasion began: tender cameos of American troops reaching out, kneeling, ministering to their "liberated" victims.
> 
> And where were the pictures from the village of Furat, where 80 men, women and children were rocketed to death? Apart from the Mirror, where were the pictures, and footage, of small children holding up their hands in terror while Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street? Imagine that in a British high street. It is a glimpse of fascism, and we have a right to see it.
> 
> "To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.
> 
> Nothing Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing boys and their media court do now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of record, understood by the majority of humanity, if not by those who claim to speak for "us". As Denis Halliday said of the Anglo-American embargo against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books". It was Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the "oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 and quickly realised that the UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation".
> 
> I have mentioned these two men often in these pages, partly because their names and their witness have been airbrushed from most of the media. I well remember Jeremy Paxman bellowing at Halliday on Newsnight shortly after his resignation: "So are you an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" That helped set the tone for the travesty of journalism that now daily, almost gleefully, treats criminal war as sport. In a leaked e-mail Roger Mosey, the head of BBC Television News, described the BBC's war coverage as "extraordinary - it almost feels like World Cup football when you go from Um Qasr to another theatre of war somewhere else and you're switching between battles".
> 
> He is talking about murder. That is what the Americans do, and no one will say so, even when they are murdering journalists. They bring to this one-sided attack on a weak and mostly defenceless people the same racist, homicidal intent I witnessed in Vietnam, where they had a whole programme of murder called Operation Phoenix. This runs through all their foreign wars, as it does through their own divided society. Take your pick of the current onslaught. Last weekend, a column of their tanks swept heroically into Baghdad and out again. They murdered people along the way.
> 
> They blew off the limbs of women and the scalps of children. Hear their voices on the unedited and unbroadcast videotape: "We shot the shit out of it." Their victims overwhelm the morgues and hospitals - hospitals already denuded of drugs and painkillers by America's deliberate withholding of $5.4bn in humanitarian goods, approved by the Security Council and paid for by Iraq. The screams of children undergoing amputation with minimal anaesthetic qualify as the BBC man's "sound of freedom".
> 
> Heller would appreciate the sideshows. Take the British helicopter pilot who came to blows with an American who had almost shot him down. "Don't you know the Iraqis don't have a fucking air force?" he shouted. Did this pilot reflect on the truth he had uttered, on the whole craven enterprise against a stricken third world country and his own part in this crime? I doubt it. The British have been the most skilled at delusion and lying. By any standard, the Iraqi resistance to the high-tech Anglo-American machine was heroic. With ancient tanks and mortars, small arms and desperate ambushes, they panicked the Americans and reduced the British military class to one of its specialities - mendacious condescension.
> 
> The Iraqis who fight are "terrorists", "hoodlums", "pockets of Ba'ath Party loyalists", "kamikaze" and "feds" (fedayeen). They are not real people: cultured and cultivated people. They are Arabs. This vocabulary of dishonour has been faithfully parroted by those enjoying it all from the broadcasting box. "What do you make of Basra?" asked the Today programme's presenter of a former general embedded in the studio. "It's hugely encouraging, isn't it?" he replied. Their mutual excitement, like their plummy voices, are their bond.
> 
> On the same day, in a Guardian letter, Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, pointed us to evidence of this "hugely encouraging" truth - fleeting pictures on Sky News of British soldiers smashing their way into a family home in Basra, pointing their guns at a woman and manhandling, hooding and manacling young men, one of whom was shown quivering with terror. "Is Britain 'liberating' Basra by taking political prisoners and, if so, based on what sort of intelligence, given Britain's long unfamiliarity with this territory and its inhabitants . . . The least this ugly display will do is remind Arabs and Muslims everywhere of our Anglo-Saxon double standards - we can show your prisoners in . . . degrading positions, but don't you dare show ours.".
> 
> Roger Mosey says the suffering of Um Qasr is "like World Cup football". There are 40,000 people in Um Qasr; desperate refugees are streaming in and the hospitals are overflowing. All this misery is due entirely to the "coalition" invasion and the British siege, which forced the United Nations to withdraw its humanitarian aid staff. Cafod, the Catholic relief agency, which has sent a team to Um Qasr, says the standard humanitarian quota for water in emergency situations is 20 litres per person per day.
> 
> Cafod reports hospitals entirely without water and people drinking from contaminated wells. According to the World Health Organisation, 1.5 million people across southern Iraq are without water, and epidemics are inevitable. And what are "our boys" doing to alleviate this, apart from staging childish, theatrical occupations of presidential palaces, having fired shoulder-held missiles into a civilian city and dropped cluster bombs?
> 
> A British colonel laments to his "embedded" flock that "it is difficult to deliver aid in an area that is still an active battle zone". The logic of his own words mocks him. If Iraq was not a battle zone, if the British and the Americans were not defying international law, there would be no difficulty in delivering aid.
> 
> There is something especially disgusting about the lurid propaganda coming from these PR-trained British officers, who have not a clue about Iraq and its people. They describe the liberation they are bringing from "the world's worst tyranny", as if anything, including death by cluster bomb or dysentery, is better than "life under Saddam". The inconvenient truth is that, according to Unicef, the Ba'athists built the most modern health service in the Middle East.
> 
> No one disputes the grim, totalitarian nature of the regime; but Saddam Hussein was careful to use the oil wealth to create a modern secular society and a large and prosperous middle class. Iraq was the only Arab country with a 90 per cent clean water supply and with free education. All this was smashed by the Anglo-American embargo. When the embargo was imposed in 1990, the Iraqi civil service organised a food distribution system that the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation described as "a model of efficiency . . . undoubtedly saving Iraq from famine". That, too, was smashed when the invasion was launched.
> 
> Why are the British yet to explain why their troops have to put on protective suits to recover dead and wounded in vehicles hit by American "friendly fire"? The reason is that the Americans are using solid uranium coated on missiles and tank shells. When I was in southern Iraq, doctors estimated a sevenfold increase in cancers in areas where depleted uranium was used by the Americans and British in the 1991 war. Under the subsequent embargo, Iraq, unlike Kuwait, has been denied equipment with which to clean up its contaminated battlefields. The hospitals in Basra have wards overflowing with children with cancers of a variety not seen before 1991. They have no painkillers; they are fortunate if they have aspirin.
> 
> With honourable exceptions (Robert Fisk; al-Jazeera), little of this has been reported. Instead, the media have performed their preordained role as imperial America's "soft power": rarely identifying "our" crime, or misrepresenting it as a struggle between good intentions and evil incarnate. This abject professional and moral failure now beckons the unseen dangers of such an epic, false victory, inviting its repetition in Iran, Korea, Syria, Cuba, China.
> 
> George Bush has said: "It will be no defence to say: 'I was just following orders.'" He is correct. The Nuremberg judges left in no doubt the right of ordinary soldiers to follow their conscience in an illegal war of aggression. Two British soldiers have had the courage to seek status as conscientious objectors. They face court martial and imprisonment; yet virtually no questions have been asked about them in the media. George Galloway has been pilloried for asking the same question as Bush, and he and Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, are being threatened with withdrawal of the Labour whip.
> 
> Dalyell, 41 years a member of the Commons, has said the Prime Minister is a war criminal who should be sent to The Hague. This is not gratuitous; on the prima facie evidence, Blair is a war criminal, and all those who have been, in one form or another, accessories should be reported to the International Criminal Court. Not only did they promote a charade of pretexts few now take seriously, they brought terrorism and death to Iraq.
> 
> A growing body of legal opinion around the world agrees that the new court has a duty, as Eric Herring of Bristol University wrote, to investigate "not only the regime, but also the UN bombing and sanctions which violated the human rights of Iraqis on a vast scale". Add the present piratical war, whose spectre is the uniting of Arab nationalism with militant Islam. The whirlwind sown by Blair and Bush is just beginning. Such is the magnitude of their crime.



Yup, unbiased factual information there.....


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, unbiased factual information there.....





> Published on Sunday, March 2, 2003 by The Free Press (Columbus, Ohio)
> 
> Bush and America's Willing Executioners Would Be Guilty at Nuremburg
> by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
> 
> If he launches an attack on Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, George W. Bush will be guilty of crimes on par with those committed by the infamous Nazi leaders who were tried at Nuremburg in 1948, after World War II.
> 
> The law is clear. At Nuremburg, American, British, French and Soviet jurists used international conventions, legal precedent and a global moral consensus to establish a code of conduct deemed the standard for all nations.
> 
> Key was the "crimes against humanity" prohibition stemming from the conscious slaughter of six million Jews, leftists, gypsies and others by the Nazi fanatics.
> 
> But also crucial was the ban on unprovoked attack by one nation against another. The explosive fuse that set off World War II was the September 1,1939 Nazi attack on Poland, which was unprovoked by any stretch of the military imagination. By all accounts it was an act of aggression and conquest, which led ultimately to as many as 50 million deaths over the next six years.
> 
> Article VI of the Nuremburg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war.
> 
> A week before the unprovoked Nazi assault on Poland, Hitler promised his generals he would provide "a propagandistic reason for starting the war.â? He then justified a "preemptive" strike based on lies about a non-existent Polish Army attack against Germany.
> 
> The Nazi attack date had been set for more than a year.  "The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not," Hitler told his generals.  "In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."
> 
> After Hitler's deceptions were revealed at Nuremburg, the surviving Nazis based their defense on the claim of "preventative war," claiming a need to protect Germany from a pending Polish attack.  They were the last, until Bush, to use that rationale.
> 
> It didn't work.  For this attack, ranking Nazi commandants, starting with Hermann Goering, Hitler's Number Two, were convicted and sentenced to death. That charge and that alone was deemed sufficient to warrant hanging.
> 
> Unless Saddam Hussein launches an attack on the United States very soon, any American attack on Iraq without UN approval would be on a legal par with the Nazi attack on Poland.
> 
> A key US argument, that Iraq was somehow linked to the September 11 terror attacks, has been definitively dismissed. In the eighteen months since, all credible evidence points to intense hostility rather than cooperation between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell, arguing in front of the UN, failed to prove any cooperative connection.
> 
> Iraq has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, whose legal legitimacy was essential to the 1991 campaign that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
> 
> Thus far, there is no United Nations consensus that the Iraqis have definitively failed to comply with the terms of that defeat to an extent that would justify a renewed military attack, one that would inevitably involve civilian casualties.
> 
> With no claim to having been attacked, George W. Bush has instead argued that his war on Iraq would be "preemptive," meant to prevent Saddam from launching a future war.  But Iraq has not attacked anyone in more than 12 years and two-thirds of the country is under a no-fly zone.  Thus Bush is merely resurrecting the preventative war doctrine invoked by the Nazis before their Nuremburg hanging.
> 
> In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander, dismissed the idea of a preventative war against the Soviet Union. "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler," he said. "I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
> 
> George W. Bush has now added to the list of pre-war demands a "regime change" by which Saddam Hussein would give up power. Bush then proposes rebuilding Iraq along democratic lines.
> 
> But Nazi functionaries at Nuremburg also received stiff sentences for approving essentially the same totalitarian statutes that now appear in the Homeland Security, Patriot I and Patriot II Acts authorizing secret arrest, detention and "disappearances" of American citizens without legal recourse or public notification.  At Nuremburg, such laws were recognized as a form of state terror.
> 
> The embrace of such laws in America casts serious doubt on the Bush Administration's real willingness to install democracy anywhere else.
> 
> When the Nazis attacked Poland in 1939, no one envisioned that just eight years later Germany would be leveled and its all-powerful reichmarshalls would be tried and sentenced under international law.
> 
> Such a vision seems less far fetched today. America's current military might has prompted the Bush Administration to frame its proposed war in terms of a "crusade" against "evil."  But military action against Iraq is guaranteed to inflame the passions of 1.2 billion Muslims. The proposed war is explicitly opposed by the Pope.  International support is extremely limited. The US itself is deeply divided, with its economy in serious trouble.
> 
> The diplomatic campaign for this attack has been handled with all the wisdom and foresight of madmen lighting matches in a room full of gasoline. There is no reason to expect a military campaign would be handled any better.
> 
> It is clear from the precedents at Nuremburg that any American attack on Iraq without United Nations approval would be illegal under international law. It is also clear that the inevitable civilian casualties resulting from such an attack would qualify as crimes against humanity.
> 
> And sooner or later, the American perpetrators of such an attack and related crimes might well find themselves standing trial before some sort of Nuremburg-style international tribunal.
> 
> Given such circumstances, the guilt of George W. Bush will not be in doubt. But the guilt of subordinates giving supporting orders, and of soldiers and functionaries carrying them out, will also be a given.
> 
> The Nuremburg court, including its American judges, repeatedly ruled that those who "only followed orders" in committing atrocities were guilty of crimes against humanity.
> 
> Those willing Americans executioners who "only follow orders" in perpetrating this illegal attack on Iraq should understand that they stand to be found just as guilty as the ones giving those orders.
> 
> And that one way or another, sooner or later, that guilt will demand payment.



To paraphrase yourself, 





> You will discover that there are 13 or 14 people on this board you simply can not have a rational discussion with. They are not interested in anything you have to say unless it is to agree with them.



I have had this exact experience with American Calvinazis for years now. Hence I just lampoon these primitive-minded, only recently bi-pedal, inbred Bubbas rather than try and reason with the poor superstitious bastards. 

After all, who in their right mind argues with the mentally afflicted!  

No amount of evidence will ever get these totally self-absorbed Bubbary Apes to admit they can EVER be wrong about ANYTHING. 

These narcissists are just too fucking infatuated with their own self-image - they call it "patriotism" - to ever expect them to try anything as radical as self-reflection.

Therefore you just keep presenting the evidence and hope that one day, perhaps one of them, who hasn't been to church or watching Fux Channel for a year or so, just might be receptive to reason for a split second or so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Well every board needs it insano comedic bafoon , you do nicely as it. But you have competetion, better get even crazier, if thats possible.


----------



## Care4all

777 said:


> I am trying to find answers to how USA benefited from Vietnam war.
> I am doing a paper for school so this is a historical question rather than a personal opinion. Any factual & historical input would be appreciated!
> 
> Thank you


It takes a stronger man and a stronger country to NOT go to war, when times seem hopeless.

A Diplomat, with the big stick power behind them, in their shaddow.

As a DOVE, not a HAWK, this is how I see it.

----------------

As far as Viet Nam, Retgysgt hit on a few things in the beginning of this thread that I always believed to be true, regarding the containment of the Cold war opponents of ours and what happened to China as a result and other asian countries in the region.

But one thing that I have not seen mentioned that I believe did have a part in it was JAPAN.  Even with the Korean thing going on....  We are protecting, and were protecting Japan from the Chinese.  We invested a great deal in to Japan after ww2, and they later became one of the world's dominating countires in capitalism, and in their investment in us, later on down the road.


----------



## Psychoblues

I didn't pick on anyone, martin.




actsnoblemartin said:


> maybe but why you have to pick on him?. any service member should be respected, you can hate a war but dont take that out on him.



Did you notice that no one had any argument with what this Viet Nam Vet had to say?  Listen to the vets, martin.  Those of us that were there will tell you how insignificant we felt then and how insignificant we are now.


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> It takes a stronger man and a stronger country to NOT go to war, when times seem hopeless.
> 
> A Diplomat, with the big stick power behind them, in their shaddow.
> 
> As a DOVE, not a HAWK, this is how I see it.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> As far as Viet Nam, Retgysgt hit on a few things in the beginning of this thread that I always believed to be true, regarding the containment of the Cold war opponents of ours and what happened to China as a result and other asian countries in the region.
> 
> But one thing that I have not seen mentioned that I believe did have a part in it was JAPAN.  Even with the Korean thing going on....  We are protecting, and were protecting Japan from the Chinese.  We invested a great deal in to Japan after ww2, and they later became one of the world's dominating countires in capitalism, and in their investment in us, later on down the road.



It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction.  It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.

Strength is no good without wisdom.  A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.


----------



## Gunny

Psychoblues said:


> I didn't pick on anyone, martin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice that no one had any argument with what this Viet Nam Vet had to say?  Listen to the vets, martin.  Those of us that were there will tell you how insignificant we felt then and how insignificant we are now.



No one responded to your post because you posted nothing to respond to.  You made a psychoblues proclamation, devoid of any fact or logic, based on your political extremism.

In other words, you were ignored.


----------



## Truthmatters

You can keep your distance and negociate with a rattlesnake if you manage to manuver him into a box and hold the only food and water within a thousand miles.

Sometimes a fight is the only way but negotiation should be always the first attempts and fighting a last one.

Bush promised to use deplomacy and went straight to war brushing all aside.


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> You can keep your distance and negociate with a rattlesnake if you manage to manuver him into a box and hold the only food and water within a thousand miles.
> 
> Sometimes a fight is the only way but negotiation should be always the first attempts and fighting a last one.
> 
> Bush promised to use deplomacy and went straight to war brushing all aside.



That's just plain stupid.  You KILL rattlesnakes or they will KILL you.

Bush attempted diplomacy and it failed before he went to war.  You really need to get a grip on reality dude before you try and negotiate with any snakes.


----------



## Superlative

GunnyL said:


> That's just plain stupid.  *You KILL rattlesnakes or they will KILL you.*



Just passing through. Thought id give you a hard time.



> "Most species of rattlesnakes have hemotoxic venom, destroying tissue, degenerating organs and causing coagulopathy (disrupted blood clotting). Some degree of permanent scarring is very likely in the event of a venomous bite, even with prompt, effective treatment, and a severe envenomation, combined with delayed or ineffective treatment, can lead to the loss of a limb and rarely, death. Thus, a rattlesnake bite is always a potentially serious, or even fatal, injury. Untreated rattlesnake bites, especially from larger species, are sometimes fatal. However, antivenin, when applied in time, reduces the death rate to less than 4&#37;. *Around 8,000 people are bitten by venomous snakes in the United States each year. On average, fewer than 15 snakebite deaths are reported."*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction.  It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.
> 
> Strength is no good without wisdom.  A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.



Not according to the Jewish Ghost Dancers" in the Wholly Babble!

Mark 16-18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Down here we are advised never to disturb snakes. Especially not to destroy their homes and kill their kids trying to extract snake oil from them.


----------



## Gunny

Superlative said:


> Just passing through. Thought id give you a hard time.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake



Attempting to obfuscate the point is not giving ME a hard time.  Want to take the chance the one in your yard isn't the one that's deadly?  Only one way to find out ....


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> Not according to the Jewish Ghost Dancers" in the Wholly Babble!
> 
> Mark 16-18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
> 
> Down here we are advised never to disturb snakes. Especially not to destroy their homes and kill their kids trying to extract snake oil from them.



Yeah, better to let them run around loose and bite you in the ass when least expected than to just cure them from biting altogether.  

Only those with a dishonest argument give one whit about the snake oil.


----------



## Care4all

GunnyL said:


> It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction.  It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.
> 
> Strength is no good without wisdom.  A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.




A wise man KNOWS not to kill another human being, (not a damn rattlesnake) unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

A wise man does NOT send his men in to a War without very strong advice from advisors, and here in the United States, that would be all of the Senate and the house of Representatives, with a 2/3's vote as YEA, before sending his men in to a Declared WAR.

So, I guess I disagree with you once again.

BTW, a human being is NOT a rattlesnake or a glob of cells.

Care


----------



## Care4all

GunnyL said:


> Yeah, better to let them run around loose and bite you in the ass when least expected than to just cure them from biting altogether.
> 
> Only those with a dishonest argument give one whit about the snake oil.


If you kill all the rattlesnakes... the Rodents will multiply and infest the earth! 

Seems to be what is happening in Iraq right now.


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> A wise man KNOWS not to kill another human being, (not a damn rattlesnake) unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
> 
> A wise man does NOT send his men in to a War without very strong advice from advisors, and here in the United States, that would be all of the Senate and the house of Representatives, with a 2/3's vote as YEA, before sending his men in to a Declared WAR.
> 
> So, I guess I disagree with you once again.
> 
> BTW, a human being is NOT a rattlesnake or a glob of cells.
> 
> Care



There's no difference between a rattlesnake and a zealot who cannot be reasoned nor negotiated with and their idea of compromise is "us dead."

A human being that wants to destroy me and mine, and the ideals that created and used to make our society great until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them, is a TARGET.  Nothing more or less.

And I consider you disagreeing with me reaffirmation that my stance is correct, and logic and fact-based.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Care4all said:


> If you kill all the rattlesnakes... the Rodents will multiply and infest the earth!
> 
> Seems to be what is happening in Iraq right now.




I'd rather be a chimp deserter like I am...

The Pie-eyed Piper of Crawford isn't having any effect whatsoever, is he!


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> I'd rather be a chimp deserter like I am...
> 
> The Pie-eyed Piper of Crawford isn't having any effect whatsoever, is he!





> I wouldn't give a bean to be a fancy pants Marine...



You couldn't fill them pants anyway.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> There's no difference between a rattlesnake and a zealot who cannot be reasoned nor negotiated with and their idea of compromise is "us dead."
> 
> A human being that wants to destroy me and mine, and the ideals that created and used to make our society great until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them, is a TARGET.  Nothing more or less.
> 
> And I consider you disagreeing with me reaffirmation that my stance is correct, and logic and fact-based.





> until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them, is a TARGET. Nothing more or less.



DEATH TO THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LIBRULS, LIBERTARIANS, AND THEIR RUNNING DOG FREE-THINKING AND ANTI-WAR HUMANITARIAN ALLIES!! 

LONG LIVE CHAIRMAN RSR AND HIS GLORIOUS REVOLUTION!!


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> You couldn't fill them pants anyway.



I certainly could. 4 or 5 times over these days.


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> DEATH TO THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LIBRULS, LIBERTARIANS, AND THEIR RUNNING DOG FREE-THINKING AND ANTI-WAR HUMANITARIAN ALLIES!!
> 
> LONG LIVE CHAIRMAN RSR AND HIS GLORIOUS REVOLUTION!!



Not quite.  I have no problem with moderate liberalism anymore than I have with moderate conservatism.  I don't care for the extremes of either side.

IF however, I had to choose one, it'd be conservatives because they at least want to maintain things as they are.  Extreme liberalism just destroys.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> Not quite.  I have no problem with moderate liberalism anymore than I have with moderate conservatism.  I don't care for the extremes of either side.
> 
> IF however, I had to choose one, it'd be conservatives because they at least want to maintain things as they are.  Extreme liberalism just destroys.



Whereas I'd tear the whole sorry mess down and start all over again.


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> Whereas I'd tear the whole sorry mess down and start all over again.



And as soon as those that helped you tear it down didn't like the direction your "start all over again" went, you'd be out the window following some other stupid idea you don't agree with.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> And as soon as those that helped you tear it down didn't like the direction your "start all over again" went, you'd be out the window following some other stupid idea you don't agree with.



So be it.

Uncertainty or anarchy (Oh mah Guard, he's a Carmmie!) is our natural state. 

If you look at the first verses of Genesis, the anthropomorphic G-d the Kikes created brings order to Chaos and thereby Freudianly exposes his creators and followers for what they really are.

Conservatives, reactionaries, authoritarians, and similar control freaks are just the opposite to the "rugged" individualists that they profess to be. 

In fact they are precisely what they are always accusing the Libruls of being.

Underneath all the bombast and bravado they are full of fear for the unknown.


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> So be it.
> 
> Uncertainty or anarchy (Oh mah Guard, he's a Carmmie!) is our natural state.
> 
> If you look at the first verses of Genesis, the anthropomorphic G-d the Kikes created brings order to Chaos and thereby Freudianly exposes his creators and followers for what they really are.
> 
> Conservatives, reactionaries, authoritarians, and similar control freaks are just the opposite to the "rugged" individualists that they profess to be.
> 
> In fact they are precisely what they are always accusing the Libruls of being.
> 
> Underneath all the bombast and bravado they are full of fear for the unknown.



Labels, labels, labels  .... whatever would you do without them?

I don't see conservatives as fearing the unknown.  It's more like "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"  That's just logical.

I could walk right out the door with nothing but the gym shorts I have on and STILL make it.  So I don't see it.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> Labels, labels, labels  .... whatever would you do without them?
> 
> I don't see conservatives as fearing the unknown.  It's more like "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"  That's just logical.
> 
> I could walk right out the door with nothing but the gym shorts I have on and STILL make it.  So I don't see it.




And you don't label Libruls and Muslims??  

Everyone talks in stereotypes, my friend. It is all we CAN do. No two men are identical.


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> And you don't label Libruls and Muslims??
> 
> Everyone talks in stereotypes, my friend. It is all we CAN do. No two men are identical.



Do a little homework.  I'm very specific when I point fingers.  I call extremists extremists.  I call muslims muslims, and dirty, bottom-feeding scumbag jihadists dirty, btoom-feeding scumbag jihadists.

My labels don't always come complete with some far-fetched definition as yours do.  It was to THAT I was alluding.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> A wise man KNOWS not to kill another human being, (not a damn rattlesnake) unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
> 
> A wise man does NOT send his men in to a War without very strong advice from advisors, and here in the United States, that would be all of the Senate and the house of Representatives, with a 2/3's vote as YEA, before sending his men in to a Declared WAR.
> 
> So, I guess I disagree with you once again.
> 
> BTW, a human being is NOT a rattlesnake or a glob of cells.
> 
> Care



Every "war" we have been in has been approved of BY the Senate and the House. In fact the House HAS to agree every year to FUND any war we have.


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> Every "war" we have been in has been approved of BY the Senate and the House. In fact the House HAS to agree every year to FUND any war we have.


Our constitution is clear.  It is Congress, that Declares War, via a Declaration of War, and this requires 2/3's of congress to vote in favor of going to war before a dome should be spent on it or any action of war taken.

I just don't see how a resolution which passes the constitutional authority of the Congress, to the President, and Which only takes a majority to pass it, meets constitutional muster on A Declaration of War, sgt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> Our constitution is clear.  It is Congress, that Declares War, via a Declaration of War, and this requires 2/3's of congress to vote in favor of going to war before a dome should be spent on it or any action of war taken.
> 
> I just don't see how a resolution which passes the constitutional authority of the Congress, to the President, and Which only takes a majority to pass it, meets constitutional muster on A Declaration of War, sgt.



There is NO requirement that every military action, no matter how long or short be a "declared" war. In fact after WW2 a conscious decision was made to NOT go that route.

There is NOTHING unconstitutional in any of the "wars" we have fought from Korea to the present. AND once again for clarity, the House of Representatives MUST agree to fund them, giving them ultimate power to end any conflict they chose.

Congress has agreed to every conflict and agreed to fund everyone we have had until we won or withdrew. Every president has gone before Congress for a resolution for any action that may take more than 90 days. And every one has been approved. Checks and balances as the system is intended to work.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> Do a little homework.  I'm very specific when I point fingers.  I call extremists extremists.  I call muslims muslims, and dirty, bottom-feeding scumbag jihadists dirty, btoom-feeding scumbag jihadists
> 
> My labels don't always come complete with some far-fetched definition as yours do.  It was to THAT I was alluding.



Then you might want to retract or amend this, 




> A human being that wants to destroy me and mine, and the ideals that created and used to make our society great *until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them,* is a TARGET. Nothing more or less


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> Then you might want to retract or amend this,



Nothing to retract.  It's aimed center-mast, _*specifically*_ where intended.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> Nothing to retract.  It's aimed center-mast, _*specifically*_ where intended.




So America was great until the Libruls betrayed its ideals, huh?  

What where those ideals?


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> So America was great until the Libruls betrayed its ideals, huh?
> 
> What where those ideals?



I did not say liberals betrayed their own ideals; although, that argument CAN be made.

When liberalism went from political idealism to nothing more than tearing down the status quo, it lost its basis in idealism.  It isn't "for" anything.  Only "against," and the current Democrat party is a direct reflection of it.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> I did not say liberals betrayed their own ideals; although, that argument CAN be made.
> 
> When liberalism went from political idealism to nothing more than tearing down the status quo, it lost its basis in idealism.  It isn't "for" anything.  Only "against," and the current Democrat party is a direct reflection of it.



I thought youd be delighted with the lack of political principles of Nancy "Shiksa" Pelosi and her Republocrat Mini Me Partei.

As far as us Shmoon in the Seppo satrapies can see, there is fuck all difference. 

Except for a few Bible based issues, like abortion and rumpy-pumpy, the *DIEM*ocrats are impossible to differentiate from your own Pharisee Partei.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> I did not say liberals betrayed their own ideals; although, that argument CAN be made.
> 
> When liberalism went from political idealism to nothing more than tearing down the status quo, it lost its basis in idealism.  It isn't "for" anything.  Only "against," and the current Democrat party is a direct reflection of it.



BTW, I didnt say that YOU said, 





> liberals betrayed *THEIR* own ideals; although, that argument CAN be made.



I said that you said that the Libruls betrayed _Americas_ ideals, 



> A human being that wants to destroy me and mine, and the ideals that created and used to make our society great *until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them*, is a TARGET. Nothing more or less


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> I thought youd be delighted with the lack of political principles of Nancy "Shiksa" Pelosi and her Republocrat Mini Me Partei.
> 
> As far as us Shmoon in the Seppo satrapies can see, there is fuck all difference.
> 
> Except for a few Bible based issues, like abortion and rumpy-pumpy, the *DIEM*ocrats are impossible to differentiate from your own Pharisee Partei.



You're starting to speak that language we don't speak here again.  

I don't belong to a party, and if I did, it wouldn't be either of the two main offerings now.  I'd have to make up my own.


----------



## Gunny

Chips Rafferty said:


> BTW, I didnt say that YOU said,
> 
> I said that you said that the Libruls betrayed _Americas_ ideals,



Egads!  Shot in the ass with semantics!


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> You're starting to speak that language we don't speak here again.
> 
> I don't belong to a party, and if I did, it wouldn't be either of the two main offerings now.  I'd have to make up my own.




Too cryptic for ya, eh?

*Shmoon:* http://www.lil-abner.com/shmoo.html 

*Seppo:* Seppo - can mean both septic tank or American person (as both are deemed to be full of shit). http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/language.htm 

*Satrapies:* Territories of Imperial Satraps, like Johnny Suck a Seppo arse whenever you see one! Howards Australia. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satrapy

*rumpy-pumpy:* self explanatory 

*Ngo Dinh Diem:* The Democrats original Man in Saigon. 

*Shiksa:* http://www.howtodothings.com/family-and-relationships/a4282-how-to-avoid-being-seen-as-a-shiksa.html


----------



## actsnoblemartin

hahahah



GunnyL said:


> Egads!  Shot in the ass with semantics!


----------



## T-Bor

No, I would say because you were a Marine you were a loser who had no life and no where to go thus you joined the Military like all the Rejects who have no life do.  Want to find a bunch of mindless robotic reject idiots, go join the core. 




RetiredGySgt said:


> You forgot to add as a Marine I am a baby killer and murder civilians for sport.


----------



## Gunny

T-Bor said:


> No, I would say because you were a Marine you were a loser who had no life and no where to go thus you joined the Military like all the Rejects who have no life do.  Want to find a bunch of mindless robotic reject idiots, go join the core.



Well, then you would be wrong in your assumption.  I had a job at the Miami Herald making more money than I made for the next 6 years in the Corps, AND they were paying for my education.

Some people do things just because they believe it is the right thing to do.


----------



## trobinett

T-Bor said:


> No, I would say because you were a Marine you were a loser who had no life and no where to go thus you joined the Military like all the Rejects who have no life do.  Want to find a bunch of mindless robotic reject idiots, go join the core.



So T-Bor, do you appreciate your rights as an American citizen?

Do you enjoy the hard earned right to post such disrespectful bull shit?

Does it make you feel some how more "human"?

Have you thought for one moment, of those that have put THEIR lives on the line for the garbage of the world, such as yourself?

Why do I ask the obvious?

In the never ending believe that at some point in time, you FUCK HEADS will wake up!

But, I know in that hope I'm dreaming, so, back to playing video games, and filling your hopeless lives with drugs, and the lies of those that would enslave you.

Have a shitty life, you deserve it..........


----------



## actsnoblemartin

How can you post such hate filled garbage?. You know its those marines who fought to give you right to open your mouth, and much as i detest you for what your saying, I defend youre right to say it.



T-Bor said:


> No, I would say because you were a Marine you were a loser who had no life and no where to go thus you joined the Military like all the Rejects who have no life do.  Want to find a bunch of mindless robotic reject idiots, go join the core.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I defend his right to say it, but i always have the right to think t-bor is acting like an asshole, when he has diarhea of the mouth with comments like that. I certainly wont give him any more positive rep points, unless he apologizes and promises not to that again, and frankly, If he doesnt apologize, I might have to use my right, as given by the board to ding him. 

Youre entitled to your opinion t-bor, and im entitled to buzz you, if i feel youre being a prick, and if you dont apologize, and refrain from such statements in the future, i might just have to ding you.



trobinett said:


> So T-Bor, do you appreciate your rights as an American citizen?
> 
> Do you enjoy the hard earned right to post such disrespectful bull shit?
> 
> Does it make you feel some how more "human"?
> 
> Have you thought for one moment, of those that have put THEIR lives on the line for the garbage of the world, such as yourself?
> 
> Why do I ask the obvious?
> 
> In the never ending believe that at some point in time, you FUCK HEADS will wake up!
> 
> But, I know in that hope I'm dreaming, so, back to playing video games, and filling your hopeless lives with drugs, and the lies of those that would enslave you.
> 
> Have a shitty life, you deserve it..........


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Just to clarify, I said may, or maybe. I didnt say i was dinging anybody, I said i might.


----------



## T-Bor

Ding me ??? What does that mean?? Oh no you mean my rep points...Oh please no NOT THAT !!! NewsFlash pal I care about as much as my rep points as I do my Gamerscore on Xbox live.  So here is a little incentive to ding me...GO FUCK YOURSELF !!!!!!  Since YOU seem to care about it..Perhaps I will ding you too...Just because I know it bothers you. 




actsnoblemartin said:


> I defend his right to say it, but i always have the right to think t-bor is acting like an asshole, when he has diarhea of the mouth with comments like that. I certainly wont give him any more positive rep points, unless he apologizes and promises not to that again, and frankly, If he doesnt apologize, I might have to use my right, as given by the board to ding him.
> 
> Youre entitled to your opinion t-bor, and im entitled to buzz you, if i feel youre being a prick, and if you dont apologize, and refrain from such statements in the future, i might just have to ding you.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Brother, i didnt even give you a negative rep, did you just give me a negative rep?

Youre a vile person, but i decided not to ding you because i dont think people should ding others just because they dont like someone.

Why did you give me negative rep?


----------



## Gunny

actsnoblemartin said:


> Brother, i didnt even give you a negative rep, did you just give me a negative rep?
> 
> Youre a vile person, but i decided not to ding you because i dont think people should ding others just because they dont like someone.
> 
> Why did you give me negative rep?




Can the stress level.  He can neg-rep you, but it's for zero points since he has no rep power.  However, if you insult someone and they neg rep you for it, you really don't have much of a complaint.


----------



## Psychoblues

Pos/neg reps are an administration tool.  It's fairly clear where this administration falls on the pos/neg thing.





GunnyL said:


> Can the stress level.  He can neg-rep you, but it's for zero points since he has no rep power.  However, if you insult someone and they neg rep you for it, you really don't have much of a complaint.



28% pos and falling.  Halleluya!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The Lord is watching out for us imbeciles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ruby

Lets not forget how we out and out lied to start that war too.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

The tonkin incident that we used a basis to enter the war was a LIE.



> The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2  and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.
> 
> The truth was very different.
> 
> Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers  in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.
> 
> "The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."
> 
> On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf  a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.
> 
> But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.



I cant believe anyone would claim it was "worth it", it seems we STILL dont value all the human life that was lost or all the horrific suffering that we caused. 

Then we have the lingering affects that still plague Vietnam...from OUR chemical warfare.

http://www.hatfieldgroup.com/files/ENN_12966.pdf

In fact here is a list of links that discuss the problems Vietnam still faces from it all.

http://www.hatfieldgroup.com/files/Hgnews.htm

Yea but we got to test new weapons on PEOPLE (since when did people become acceptable guinea pigs for weapons) and we got to test out some new battlefield medicine...(more live guinea pigs I guess).


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Lets not forget how we out and out lied to start that war too.
> 
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
> 
> The tonkin incident that we used a basis to enter the war was a LIE.
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe anyone would claim it was "worth it", it seems we STILL dont value all the human life that was lost or all the horrific suffering that we caused.
> 
> Then we have the lingering affects that still plague Vietnam...from OUR chemical warfare.
> 
> http://www.hatfieldgroup.com/files/ENN_12966.pdf
> 
> In fact here is a list of links that discuss the problems Vietnam still faces from it all.
> 
> http://www.hatfieldgroup.com/files/Hgnews.htm
> 
> Yea but we got to test new weapons on PEOPLE (since when did people become acceptable guinea pigs for weapons) and we got to test out some new battlefield medicine...(more live guinea pigs I guess).



Do not for one second pretend you give a rats shit about anyone else. You would have us abandon Iraq to chaos murder and mayhem because you do not like our Government or troops. Your excuse of course being that magically if we leave peace and harmony will break out and all will be well? No you admit murder chaos and mayhem will ensue, you just don't care cause it won't be Americans involved.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Do not for one second pretend you give a rats shit about anyone else. You would have us abandon Iraq to chaos murder and mayhem because you do not like our Government or troops. Your excuse of course being that magically if we leave peace and harmony will break out and all will be well? No you admit murder chaos and mayhem will ensue, you just don't care cause it won't be Americans involved.




Do not for one second pretend you have a clue what my feelings are about anything. You get it wrong all the time.

The murder and chaos ensued due to the US invasion and will continue with no end in sight as long as we are there. Its not our nation, it belongs to Iraq. They have the RIGHT and the BURDEN of determining their own lives and futures. We certainly owe them more than we can ever PAY IN MONEY for what we have done to them and while we are quite capable of creating destruction, we are NOT capable of fixing it.

Yep, violence will continue after the US leaves but at least they can make real headway to their own self-determination. And it will also be true that Iraqis wont install a govt that favors americas interests over Iraqs.... and its also true that they wont turn over their oil resources via the hydrocarbon laws the US is trying to shove down their throats. Its probably also true that so many of the american mercenary companies  *like blackwater*, and companies like Betchel and Halliburton will be tossed out on their can. Its also true that they will take control over the oil revenues as well!

Maybe you shouldnt pretend to care about people while advocating they continue to be subjected to a foreign occupation by a nation who invaded them immorally and illegally and has brought them nothing but death and destruction.

BTW, when are you going to give a rats ass about the fact that the USA LIED again to invade another nation??? You sure dont seem to care much about that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

When someone provides credible evidence anyone lied, I may consider it. But since that never happened I do not need to worry about it. The only lie in the Iraq War is that Bush did so. One has to disengage their brain to buy that, ignore the entire world, the democrats and the UN.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Ruby said:


> Do not for one second pretend you have a clue what my feelings are about anything. You get it wrong all the time.
> 
> The murder and chaos ensued due to the US invasion and will continue with no end in sight as long as we are there. Its not our nation, it belongs to Iraq. They have the RIGHT and the BURDEN of determining their own lives and futures. We certainly owe them more than we can ever PAY IN MONEY for what we have done to them and while we are quite capable of creating destruction, we are NOT capable of fixing it.
> 
> Yep, violence will continue after the US leaves but at least they can make real headway to their own self-determination. And it will also be true that Iraqis wont install a govt that favors americas interests over Iraqs.... and its also true that they wont turn over their oil resources via the hydrocarbon laws the US is trying to shove down their throats. Its probably also true that so many of the american mercenary companies  *like blackwater*, and companies like Betchel and Halliburton will be tossed out on their can. Its also true that they will take control over the oil revenues as well!
> 
> Maybe you shouldnt pretend to care about people while advocating they continue to be subjected to a foreign occupation by a nation who invaded them immorally and illegally and has brought them nothing but death and destruction.
> 
> BTW, when are you going to give a rats ass about the fact that the USA LIED again to invade another nation??? You sure dont seem to care much about that.



I note that there is no quasi-Christian Moron Temples in Ayewrack. 

I wonder if this might have something to do with CU&#8217;s nonchalance concerning the lives of the Fattoush scoffing sub-human octoroons there?  

Not that I&#8217;m insinuating CU is a closet racist, or a misogynist, mind you!  

Although I'd say he would be seething with rage that you, a brood mare and a mere animated male masturbatory aid, in the fascistic Moron cult&#8217;s assessment, presumes to address *him* in equal terms. Instead of meekly kow-towing to him, like the mute perambulatory muffs and mousey doormats with abysmal self-esteem, he is used to dominating and using as a casual sperm receptacle!


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> When someone provides credible evidence anyone lied, I may consider it. But since that never happened I do not need to worry about it. The only lie in the Iraq War is that Bush did so. One has to disengage their brain to buy that, ignore the entire world, the democrats and the UN.



Well at least sand isnt in short supply, which is a good thing for someone like yourself who needs it to bury their head in.

Where are the WMD Bush administration said Saddam had?

Here is a speech made by Bush in 2002 .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html



> The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.* It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. * It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.



*bolding is mine.

It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. We KNOW that is false. We found no PROGRAM at all and NO production of chemical and biological weapons. We have found NOTHING at all to support the statement that he was seeking Nuclear weapons either and there certainly were none found, no program on going and not even ATTEMPTS to start a program found. 

FLAT OUT LIE.

His next paragraph



> We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.



A cute trick that was used alot, talk about 9/11 at the same time you speak of saddam which will create the fear and image that they are CONNECTED. 

His next paragraph



> Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?



I guess the fact that Saddam and Iraq werent actually THREATENING america is unimportant. We will talk about the threat AS IF its been actually made. LIE. Saddam didnt threaten the world with the horrible poisons, diseases, gasses or atomic weapons....he didnt even HAVE those things. MORE LIES.



> If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?



Oh we KNOW he has dangerous weapons huh? Funny, cause we have yet to see these horrible WMD and came up EMPTY.

Then we have quotes like



> "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
> - Dick Cheney
> August 26, 2002



and 



> "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
> - Ari Fleischer
> January 9, 2003



and



> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
> - George W. Bush
> March 17, 2003



The funny part about that last Bush quote was that there was PLENTY of doubt and its why the US had to boot the inspectors out of Iraq to proceed with invasion...the inspectors had PLENTY of doubt and werent coming up wtih the smoking gun and in fact were coming up with the opposite conclusions. The Niger claims were a clear forgery and many in the intelligence community had already gone on record as stating that. In fact OUR OWN CIA concluded that they were fakes so the US ignored that and then said "according to british intelligence" he was trying to obtain uranium from Niger....never mentioning that our own intelligence came up with a very different conclusion. BTW, no one disputes that those documents are forgeries. They arent even GOOD forgeries. Its one of the CLEAREST indications that not only did the administration lie, but that it did so KNOWINGLY.

Get out your shovel, you need all the sand you can get.


----------



## Gunny

Funny part is, your entire post is nothing but proof that it is YOU who has their buried in the sand.  I wouldn't even no where to start rebutting your longwinded fantasyworld CRAP.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Well if your definition of a lie is the same as someone else on this board , being that any statement that turns out wrong, even when the person making it believed it to be true, is a lie, your right. Of course that means every one everywhere is a serial liar every day of their lives.

As to weapons programs, your the one with your head in the sand. We have irrefutable proof, from captured documents, equipment, and scientists, that Saddam Hussein was waiting for sanctions to be lifted to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and return to a nuclear program. Sanctions that France, Germany, Russia and China all were working on lifting even as we prepared for war.

I love the quote from Bush on the other Governments, since it is TRUE. Every Government including the UN believed he had weapons, believed he was hiding them from inspectors. Hell several European Countries believed he was close to having a Nuclear weapon.

I notice you didn't quote the plethoria of leading Democrats that made similar statements and claims right up to the Invasion. I wonder why that is? I suggest you learn reading comprehension BEFORE you try to tell others what Bush said. And perhaps a lesson in hearing all the others that agreed and said the same things. From all over the world and from the Democratic Party here in the States.

The ostrich is not me. I would tell you to look in a mirror, but you can't with your head as far down in the sand as it is.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Funny part is, your entire post is nothing but proof that it is YOU who has their buried in the sand.  I wouldn't even no where to start rebutting your longwinded fantasyworld CRAP.



LOL hardly surprising mr. cellophane.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well if your definition of a lie is the same as someone else on this board , being that any statement that turns out wrong, even when the person making it believed it to be true, is a lie, your right. Of course that means every one everywhere is a serial liar every day of their lives.
> 
> As to weapons programs, your the one with your head in the sand. We have irrefutable proof, from captured documents, equipment, and scientists, that Saddam Hussein was waiting for sanctions to be lifted to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and return to a nuclear program. Sanctions that France, Germany, Russia and China all were working on lifting even as we prepared for war.
> 
> I love the quote from Bush on the other Governments, since it is TRUE. Every Government including the UN believed he had weapons, believed he was hiding them from inspectors. Hell several European Countries believed he was close to having a Nuclear weapon.
> 
> I notice you didn't quote the plethoria of leading Democrats that made similar statements and claims right up to the Invasion. I wonder why that is? I suggest you learn reading comprehension BEFORE you try to tell others what Bush said. And perhaps a lesson in hearing all the others that agreed and said the same things. From all over the world and from the Democratic Party here in the States.
> 
> The ostrich is not me. I would tell you to look in a mirror, but you can't with your head as far down in the sand as it is.




They said they KNEW FOR A FACT, obviously they didnt KNOW for a fact. They also used intelligence that they already were told was FALSE and FORGERIES by our own CIA. Seriously, its pretty obvious.

Its also not true that EVERY govt thought he had WMD, if that were the case the US wouldnt have had a problem getting a go-ahead to invade from the UN. Everyone seemed to agree in containment and inspections...both were in force. 

And lets not forget about those mobile biological weapons labs that were really just hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

Now we could call it a mistake BUT they were actually sold to Iraq by Britain and we KNEW that already. I mean are you actually trying to say that the US is sooooo stupid that it dosent know the difference between a mobile biological weapons lab and a weather balloon inflator??? 

Or wait it gets even more alice in wonderland...



> Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.



Now we are claiming firefighting equipement to be decontamination vehicles???

All of this was roundly debunked as soon as people were actually able to review the "evidence" offered.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html 

Its a good link there, it lays out the lies very well.

You have to believe our entire intelligence community, our entire govt and the entire Bush administration are DUMB as doornails or they knowingly lied. I dont believe them to be moral, but I dont believe they are ALL quite that dumb.

None of our "evidence" held up to scrutiny cause it was all bogus.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sure thing, thats why Congress in a Bipartisan investigation determined no lie occurred. Delusional would be you. I guess all those democrats that all said the same thing were in on it too?


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, thats why Congress in a Bipartisan investigation determined no lie occurred. Delusional would be you. I guess all those democrats that all said the same thing were in on it too?



And you actually expect a corrupt govt to police itself? Wow, you are VERY delusional. Of course the democrats arent any better....I certainly never claimed they were.

Just keep ignoring the SOLID evidence, the documented quotes, the evidence they tried to pass off but didnt actually pass at all. I understand why our corrupt politicians do it....I cant think of a feasible excuse for you though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> And you actually expect a corrupt govt to police itself? Wow, you are VERY delusional. Of course the democrats arent any better....I certainly never claimed they were.
> 
> Just keep ignoring the SOLID evidence, the documented quotes, the evidence they tried to pass off but didnt actually pass at all. I understand why our corrupt politicians do it....I cant think of a feasible excuse for you though.



So you were just APPALLED when President Clinton for 8 years had the Secret Service and security round up dissenters at any public event he was at and rope them off out of sight and sound of him and the press? And you were APPALLED at the MSM for refusing to air the "Swiftboat Veterans" ads and speeches?

And I ask again, where do you live? And why do you live there?

Your list of "evidence" is delusional.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you were just APPALLED when President Clinton for 8 years had the Secret Service and security round up dissenters at any public event he was at and rope them off out of sight and sound of him and the press? And you were APPALLED at the MSM for refusing to air the "Swiftboat Veterans" ads and speeches?
> 
> And I ask again, where do you live? And why do you live there?
> 
> Your list of "evidence" is delusional.




Yes I was appalled at MANY things Clinton did. He also had no right to shut out dissent. He did other things as well such as NAFTA etc that I also was APPALLED OVER. He deserves his nickname slick willy.

MSM media are just corporations, you wont really find true media there so I am not sure what your point is there. They are private businesses who look for their own profit interests and nothing more and nothing less.

 I am concerned when the GOVT does all it can to silence dissent and I certainly take issue with american citizens who want to help FURTHER that cause.

I live in Sweden cause I married a Swedish man. Why the PERSONAL questions...what does my personal life have to do with the merits of the issue? Or maybe you just want to bring it down to a personal thing cause you are having trouble sticking with the merits of the issue...so predictable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Yes I was appalled at MANY things Clinton did. He also had no right to shut out dissent. He did other things as well such as NAFTA etc that I also was APPALLED OVER. He deserves his nickname slick willy.
> 
> MSM media are just corporations, you wont really find true media there so I am not sure what your point is there. They are private businesses who look for their own profit interests and nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> I am concerned when the GOVT does all it can to silence dissent and I certainly take issue with american citizens who want to help FURTHER that cause.
> 
> I live in Sweden cause I married a Swedish man. Why the PERSONAL questions...what does my personal life have to do with the merits of the issue? Or maybe you just want to bring it down to a personal thing cause you are having trouble sticking with the merits of the issue...so predictable.



Ohh so now your backing away from a previous statement you made that you are GLAD you got you and your family OUT of the United States? 

And last I checked the Government is NOT silencing her at all AND further YOU want freedom of expression BUT just from people you agree with. Or you would not be so irritated with the opinions of a few people that think she should be punished for the REAL laws she has broken on many occasions.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh so now your backing away from a previous statement you made that you are GLAD you got you and your family OUT of the United States?
> 
> And last I checked the Government is NOT silencing her at all AND further YOU want freedom of expression BUT just from people you agree with. Or you would not be so irritated with the opinions of a few people that think she should be punished for the REAL laws she has broken on many occasions.



No I am not backing away from any statement, I am glad with my choice and my son is much better off here. I live in sweden because I married a swedish man...whats so confusing to you?

I didnt say the govt was silencing her although I do and will continue to complain about all efforts to do so by govt (free speech zones etc). 

My comments were about the POSTERS who were wishing her in jail and seemed to support the idea of silencing her because they dont like the content of what she has to say. Thats not exactly embracing freedom and democratic principles. Maybe you should go back and re-read it so you can absorb  better understanding and comprehension.

The REAL laws are just the typical ones over dissent and the dissent is FAR more important than nuisance laws. Its also NEVER been viewed that breaking nuisance laws made a person a CRIMINAL worthy of prison. 

Face it, you just simply support silencing her and will grasp at any straw to justify it that you can. You are quite ready to completely disregard the importance of dissent in a society based on democratic principles....is that somthing a person who cherishes democratic principles would do?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> No I am not backing away from any statement, I am glad with my choice and my son is much better off here. I live in sweden because I married a swedish man...whats so confusing to you?
> 
> I didnt say the govt was silencing her although I do and will continue to complain about all efforts to do so by govt (free speech zones etc).
> 
> My comments were about the POSTERS who were wishing her in jail and seemed to support the idea of silencing her because they dont like the content of what she has to say. Thats not exactly embracing freedom and democratic principles. Maybe you should go back and re-read it so you can absorb  better understanding and comprehension.
> 
> The REAL laws are just the typical ones over dissent and the dissent is FAR more important than nuisance laws. Its also NEVER been viewed that breaking nuisance laws made a person a CRIMINAL worthy of prison.
> 
> Face it, you just simply support silencing her and will grasp at any straw to justify it that you can. You are quite ready to completely disregard the importance of dissent in a society based on democratic principles....is that somthing a person who cherishes democratic principles would do?



Well except for the whole jail time component of numerous laws she has broken, you might have had a point.

Now as to MY opinion? Let her rant and rave all she wants. Arrest her ass when she breaks the law BUT treat her like anyone else that gets arrested for the same laws she breaks. If jail is a standard component of a law she broke and others routinely get jail time for it, SO SHOULD SHE.

As to Prison, your right. None of the laws involve anything higher than county jail, I believe.

Now as to reading comprehension and assumptions, you should read what I have written, I never gave an opinion on "prison" I simply stated she has broken numerous laws and that some of them do in fact have jail time as a component of punishment for them.

But thanks for proving your inability to comprehend the written word and your ability to assume what ever you feel at the moment.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well except for the whole jail time component of numerous laws she has broken, you might have had a point.
> 
> Now as to MY opinion? Let her rant and rave all she wants. Arrest her ass when she breaks the law BUT treat her like anyone else that gets arrested for the same laws she breaks. If jail is a standard component of a law she broke and others routinely get jail time for it, SO SHOULD SHE.
> 
> As to Prison, your right. None of the laws involve anything higher than county jail, I believe.
> 
> Now as to reading comprehension and assumptions, you should read what I have written, I never gave an opinion on "prison" I simply stated she has broken numerous laws and that some of them do in fact have jail time as a component of punishment for them.
> 
> But thanks for proving your inability to comprehend the written word and your ability to assume what ever you feel at the moment.



None of the laws she broke even have a "jail time sentence" to them. Its usually a brief detainment with a fine.  

Activists will OF COURSE be repeat offenders, if they werent then that would mean our govt is successful at discouraging dissent to the point that it dosent really exist in any effective way anymore and THAT would a real crime.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> None of the laws she broke even have a "jail time sentence" to them. Its usually a brief detainment with a fine.
> 
> Activists will OF COURSE be repeat offenders, if they werent then that would mean our govt is successful at discouraging dissent to the point that it dosent really exist in any effective way anymore and THAT would a real crime.



Why do "dissenters" feel it necessary to interrupt others right to speak? Do they not know how to take turns ?


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> Why do "dissenters" feel it necessary to interrupt others right to speak? Do they not know how to take turns ?



There is no "turn" for them to wait for. Dissent means you will have to speak up and be a nuisance. Those "other" people get plenty of voice and chances to speak and be heard, its the average american who dosent get that chance and has to stand up in dissent to have themselves heard.

Rather sad to see so little regard for dissent. Its such a cornerstone of democracy.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> There is no "turn" for them to wait for. Dissent means you will have to speak up and be a nuisance. Those "other" people get plenty of voice and chances to speak and be heard, its the average american who dosent get that chance and has to stand up in dissent to have themselves heard.
> 
> Rather sad to see so little regard for dissent. Its such a cornerstone of democracy.



Bullshit--dissenters have PLENTY of opportunities to speak and be heard. I have respect for dissent. I don't for silly asses dressed in pink who insist on interrupting others who are trying to express their ideas.


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> Bullshit--dissenters have PLENTY of opportunities to speak and be heard. I have respect for dissent. I don't for silly asses dressed in pink who insist on interrupting others who are trying to express their ideas.



Well thanks, you just made it clear that you dont understand what dissent is.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> Well thanks, you just made it clear that you dont understand what dissent is.



Dissent is a bunch of silly assed women dressed in pink interrupting government procedings ???    
Maybe you would be nice enough to explain what exactly dissent is.


----------



## Ruby

dilloduck said:


> Dissent is a bunch of silly assed women dressed in pink interrupting government procedings ???
> Maybe you would be nice enough to explain what exactly dissent is.



It is causing a nuisance, making SURE your voices get heard and you get attention of those who are in office and not listening and not acting in the publics best interest. It is refusing to stop, cease or be silent. It should never be violent but it can certainly be DISRUPTIVE.


----------



## Gunny

Ruby said:


> It is causing a nuisance, making SURE your voices get heard and you get attention of those who are in office and not listening and not acting in the publics best interest. It is refusing to stop, cease or be silent. It should never be violent but it can certainly be DISRUPTIVE.



Really?  Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to be disruptive.  Fact is, you don't have that right and I for one cheer everytime some group of morons is tossed in jail for it.


----------



## dilloduck

Ruby said:


> It is causing a nuisance, making SURE your voices get heard and you get attention of those who are in office and not listening and not acting in the publics best interest. It is refusing to stop, cease or be silent. It should never be violent but it can certainly be DISRUPTIVE.



Then the democrats have succeeded. All they are is a nuisance. It might be wise to have something to say BEFORE you find a chance to be heard too.

Disruption and noise isn't dissent. It's a pain in the ass.


----------



## manu1959

777 said:


> Could I say that Vietnam war was worth militarily, ideologically or otherwise to USA now that we can analyze it historically?  Or was the war unnecessary, costly blunder?



vietnam was the US cleaning up yet another french mess....

vietnam taugtht the US to use afganistan to cripple the soviets.....

unfotunately, we then went there ourselves....


----------



## Care4all

GunnyL said:


> Really?  Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to be disruptive.  Fact is, you don't have that right and I for one cheer everytime some group of morons is tossed in jail for it.



I believe that is called ''civil *disobedience*''

here's a famous example



> Rosa Parks
> Rosa Parks was a black seamstress by profession and secretary for the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. Shortly before her arrest on December 1, 1955, she had completed a course in "Race Relations" at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. The boycott was triggered by her arrest, when she was charged for violating racial segregation laws in Montgomery after refusing to give her seat on a bus to a white man. She was sitting in the fifth row (the first row that blacks could occupy), along with three other blacks. Soon, all of the first four rows were filled up, and a white man walked on. Since blacks and whites could not be in the same row, the bus driver wanted all of the blacks to move. The other three blacks complied, but Parks refused.
> 
> When found guilty on December 5, Parks was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4, but she appealed. As a result of her courage, Rosa Parks is considered one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> I believe that is called ''civil *disobedience*''
> 
> here's a famous example



The question was where it is written in the Constitution as a right. The closest your going to get is the 1st amendment with its right to free speech and free assembly.  But that has limits as well and does not actually say you have the right to break the law.


----------



## Ruby

GunnyL said:


> Really?  Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to be disruptive.  Fact is, you don't have that right and I for one cheer everytime some group of morons is tossed in jail for it.



Well disruptive is why we have nuisance laws...they dont make you CRIMINALS though. It is technically illegal to be disruptive but it is also recognized that being a nuisance is most certainly part of dissent and any laws designed to get TOUGHER on such things are clearly just an attack on the first amendment.

Nuisance laws are the best balance to keep dissent and be able to draw lines so that things dont escalate to violence or other forms of coercion that would be a violation of others rights as well.

It is certainly the reason there has always been a history of govts and those who oppose the dissenters content and goals to plant provocateurs who go beyond disruptive and become quite violent and destructive.

The fact that you have no real respect or understanding of key role that dissent plays in a democratic society is rather sad. I do hope you represent a minority of americans.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question was where it is written in the Constitution as a right. The closest your going to get is the 1st amendment with its right to free speech and free assembly.  But that has limits as well and does not actually say you have the right to break the law.



Yet you are doing a good job of ignoring the important value of both dissent and civil disobedience.

I guess we should be remembering Rosa Parks as a criminal then since she went beyond dissent and into civil disobedience (which is a step up from dissent)?

http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html



> Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Some of the most well known of these are:
> 
> 1) The Boston Tea Party -- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state.



The citizens in this case even destroyed property...do we remember them and label them as criminals?



> 2) Anti-war movements have been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico in 1849. More recent examples were the nationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War. Actions have included refusal to pay for war, refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow military recruiters on high school and college campuses



It sure isnt shocking that people who now stand accusing of being "criminals" are anti-war protesters. We have a long history of this and the newest war with the protesters are hardly a new phenomena and are no more criminals than any other group who is trying to bring change. The biggest difference here is the people who disagree with the CAUSE.

I doubt you want to label those who did so for american independence, the womans right to vote (suffrage movement), the underground  railroad or those who gave aid and helped to  hide escaped slaves  as criminals right?



> * Civil disobedience is often an effective means of changing laws and protecting liberties. It also embodies an important moral concept that there are times when law and justice do not coincide and that to obey the law at such times can be an abdication of ethical responsibility. The choice of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is not for everyone. We all choose to do what feels right to us personally. However, it is hoped that this article will make such a choice more understandable to those who have wondered about this form of protest. *



Dissent and civil disobedience have made some of our best changes such as the end to slavery, rights for women, the right to vote for many who previously didnt have the right in our society, civil rights, and even our own independence and soveriegnty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ruby said:


> Yet you are doing a good job of ignoring the important value of both dissent and civil disobedience.
> 
> I guess we should be remembering Rosa Parks as a criminal then since she went beyond dissent and into civil disobedience (which is a step up from dissent)?
> 
> http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens in this case even destroyed property...do we remember them and label them as criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> It sure isnt shocking that people who now stand accusing of being "criminals" are anti-war protesters. We have a long history of this and the newest war with the protesters are hardly a new phenomena and are no more criminals than any other group who is trying to bring change. The biggest difference here is the people who disagree with the CAUSE.
> 
> I doubt you want to label those who did so for american independence, the womans right to vote (suffrage movement), the underground  railroad or those who gave aid and helped to  hide escaped slaves  as criminals right?
> 
> 
> 
> Dissent and civil disobedience have made some of our best changes such as the end to slavery, rights for women, the right to vote for many who previously didnt have the right in our society, civil rights, and even our own independence and soveriegnty.



Which has nothing to do with the argument at all. And how is it that Sheehan has ended up in every thread your in over the last 3 days? She broke the law, if that law includes jail time, her status as a "celebrity" should not exempt her from that punishment. Simple as that.


----------



## Ruby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Which has nothing to do with the argument at all. And how is it that Sheehan has ended up in every thread your in over the last 3 days? She broke the law, if that law includes jail time, her status as a "celebrity" should not exempt her from that punishment. Simple as that.




The thread drifted all over, but it was certainly a topic in this thread.

Well I guess she ended up the subject in 3 threads because her dissent is doing what its intended to do...get attention and get people talking.

She isnt a celebrity, she is an activist.


----------



## trobinett

Posted by Ruby:



> She isn't a celebrity, she is an activist.



Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.

The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.

Yea, now she IS  a celebrity, congratulation................


----------



## jillian

trobinett said:


> Posted by Ruby:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.
> 
> The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.
> 
> Yea, now she IS  a celebrity, congratulation................



Activists seek name recognition so they can advance their cause. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as celebrity, though certainly there are celebrity activists.

On the other hand, I suspect that if my name had that kind of weight to put behind the causes I believe in, that I'd want to use it, too....


----------



## trobinett

jillian said:


> Activists seek name recognition so they can advance their cause. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as celebrity, though certainly there are celebrity activists.
> 
> On the other hand, I suspect that if my name had that kind of weight to put behind the causes I believe in, that I'd want to use it, too....



Well, I suppose jillian, though "weight of a name", in my humble opinion, has little to do with it.

I would feel "used", but then, thats just me.............


----------



## Ruby

trobinett said:


> Posted by Ruby:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.
> 
> The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.
> 
> Yea, now she IS  a celebrity, congratulation................



No it means they go after making changes in their cause vehemently and no matter how much the opposition tries to smear them. 

It isnt easy to stand against a tide of professional propagandists and keep going and keep fighting for your cause...but activists do it all the time and the ones with the most name recognition take on the brunt of the smears as well.

You can try to call her a "celebrity" but the fact is she is KNOWN for one reason...thats her activism in trying to end a war she is against.


----------



## Psychoblues

"Excuse"?  Just how do you figure that, trobby?



trobinett said:


> Posted by Ruby:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.
> 
> The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.
> 
> Yea, now she IS  a celebrity, congratulation................



Celebrity and reputation have everything to do in American politics otherwise Ronald Reagan would have never been elected Governor, US president or anything else.  I already know you can't dig that but I beseech you, dig that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Psychoblues said:


> "Excuse"?  Just how do you figure that, trobby?
> 
> 
> 
> Celebrity and reputation have everything to do in American politics otherwise Ronald Reagan would have never been elected Governor, US president or anything else.  I already know you can't dig that but I beseech you, dig that.



Being elected to President had NOTHING to do with his supposed Celebrity status, he wasn't even a great actor. He was however a very good politician and had been one since the 50's.


----------



## Psychoblues

OK, RGS, I'll admit he was a "B" grade actor with some parts that he played well.




RetiredGySgt said:


> Being elected to President had NOTHING to do with his supposed Celebrity status, he wasn't even a great actor. He was however a very good politician and had been one since the 50's.



He played well as a politician and President also.  He was nothing like you imagine him to be.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Psychoblues said:


> OK, RGS, I'll admit he was a "B" grade actor with some parts that he played well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He played well as a politician and President also.  He was nothing like you imagine him to be.



I know the Liberal democratic state of California elected HIM twice as Governor and I know he won both his elections to the Presidency in a HUGE manner. I know he forced a dem Congress to do what he wanted every year. But your right unlike you I never met the man and spent any quality time with him. Perhaps you can share with us all the personal time you spent as his best buddy?


----------



## Psychoblues

What was that you said about the amnesty of 1986?




RetiredGySgt said:


> I know the Liberal democratic state of California elected HIM twice as Governor and I know he won both his elections to the Presidency in a HUGE manner. I know he forced a dem Congress to do what he wanted every year. But your right unlike you I never met the man and spent any quality time with him. Perhaps you can share with us all the personal time you spent as his best buddy?



I voted for Ronald Reagan.  He was the last honest Republican that I ever knew.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Psychoblues said:


> What was that you said about the amnesty of 1986?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I voted for Ronald Reagan.  He was the last honest Republican that I ever knew.



The amnesty was wrong. Doesn't matter that Republicans supported it or not. You see unlike you liberals, I can critizes my party when it makes mistakes. I can hold my party to some standards other than "the ends justify the means"

I too voted for Reagan both times. And if it had been legal and he had wanted to run a third time I would have voted for him again. Doesn't change the fact the amnesty was a bad idea and never should have happened.

How about rather then ignoring your claims and trying to change the subject you actually respond?


----------



## Psychoblues

I responded.






RetiredGySgt said:


> The amnesty was wrong. Doesn't matter that Republicans supported it or not. You see unlike you liberals, I can critizes my party when it makes mistakes. I can hold my party to some standards other than "the ends justify the means"
> 
> I too voted for Reagan both times. And if it had been legal and he had wanted to run a third time I would have voted for him again. Doesn't change the fact the amnesty was a bad idea and never should have happened.
> 
> How about rather then ignoring your claims and trying to change the subject you actually respond?



You shit your pants and try to change the subject.  Are you telling the truth about your RetiredGySgt thing or are you attempting to gain credense for an admittedly failed endeavor?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Psychoblues said:


> I responded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shit your pants and try to change the subject.  Are you telling the truth about your RetiredGySgt thing or are you attempting to gain credense for an admittedly failed endeavor?



Ahh yes you can not back up any of your claims and so resort to attempted character assassination. Par for the course. Usual Liberal tactics at work. Make bullshit statements and when called on them fail to defend them, prove them or support them, then resort to attacking the individual that has made them look foolish.


----------



## Psychoblues

Not at all, RGS.




RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes you can not back up any of your claims and so resort to attempted character assassination. Par for the course. Usual Liberal tactics at work. Make bullshit statements and when called on them fail to defend them, prove them or support them, then resort to attacking the individual that has made them look foolish.



As you know, I have provided links and other information in other threads.  I am not shy about genuine information.

Here's one to start your investigation:  http://www.awolbush.com/

You can dig it or not.  Your loss is my gain.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Psychoblues said:


> Not at all, RGS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, I have provided links and other information in other threads.  I am not shy about genuine information.
> 
> Here's one to start your investigation:  http://www.awolbush.com/
> 
> You can dig it or not.  Your loss is my gain.



Get bck to me when you can link to a legit source.


----------



## Ruby

trobinett said:


> Posted by Ruby:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought more of you Ruby, that response has EXCUSE written all over it.
> 
> The problem with ACTIVIST, is they seek their fifteen minutes of fame at ANY cost.
> 
> Yea, now she IS  a celebrity, congratulation................



Well an activist is SEEKING attention for the cause and action as well...that would require wide spread communication and therefore a well known activist is indeed somewhat famous, but thats different than celebrity.

Also, it is YOUR assumption that they just want attention and  they dont truly care for their cause...I would suspect that you feel this way because you DISAGREE with their cause and their point of view and not because they have done anything to indicate they arent actually dedicated to their cause.

I bet you dont view activists you agree with in the same way at all. The squeaky wheel gets the grease ! Did Martin L. King "just" want attention? Rosa parks? Jane Addams? Frederick Douglas? Aung San Suu Kyi? Mahatma Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? They are all famous activists, not celebrities just well known activists.


----------

