# Fighting for MY Freedoms?



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.

How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.

As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain. 

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.


----------



## Natalie (Jul 7, 2013)

i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???


----------



## USNavyVet (Jul 7, 2013)

Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.

Sambino, there are evil people in this world who really do want to harm us. We can't all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The issue with Afghanistan is that that the people there do not consider themselves to be from Afghanistan. They consider them part of the local tribes. This kind of thinking has allowed groups like Al Qaeda to set up camps easily to train people in order to attack us and our allies. I do not think nation building works but the only alternative is to go in and destroy the country every few years and that does not seem feasible economically or ethically. 

So yes, we fight for your personally and for all Americans. You're welcome.


----------



## editec (Jul 7, 2013)

I think I agree.

No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.

Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

We manufacture enemies better than any other country on the planet.


----------



## USNavyVet (Jul 7, 2013)

editec said:


> I think I agree.
> 
> No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.
> 
> Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.



So in your opinion, Americans being killed does not infringe on that person's freedom? 9/11 was fiction? The shoe bomber didn't exist? Everyone really loves America?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think I agree.
> ...



We are not loved because of our actions.

In the Middle East alone our government has been jumping in and out of bed with governments and dictators like a 2 dollar whore for decades all in a bid for control and it has been a miserable failure of policy.

I suppose you think that the war in Vietnam was necessary to protect our freedom as well.

FYI it wasn't.

Neither was Korea or any other undeclared war we have manufactured since WWII


----------



## USNavyVet (Jul 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Our government does what's best for this country in our foreign policies. Well usually. Not really sure what Obama's doing. Anyway, every country does what's in their best interests and that is why we are in those countries. Call it manufactured all you want. That just shows me that you know nothing about foreign policy.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



Funny that.

It seems our government sucks at foreign policy.

Our foreign policy consists of invasion as a tool.  Yeah great plan that's worked so well.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

Invading an entire country looking for 1 man was beyond idiotic.

The Taliban offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to a 3rd party country.

Pres. Bush refused the offer.

10 years later, thousands of maimed and dead American soldiers, and almost a trillion dollars wasted.

He was found in another country.  ..


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



aka Your in the blame America Crowd.  It's all our fault that a bunch of Imbred Muslims who have returned to a 7th Century Mentality of kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do arent' the real problem.

We went to War because of 9/11, because about 3000 Americans were deprived of their very basic FREEDOM.  The FREEDOM OF LIFE.  Killed by extremist like OBL who wants ANY UNBELIEVERS to CONVERT OR DIE.  

He was ticked at us because we dared to step in his HOLY  SAND BOX in the First Gulf War.  Even though the countries over there ASKED FOR OUR ASSISTANCE. We LIBERATED KUWAIT, but FAILED TO FINISH THE JOB.  Bush Sr. should have ordered us to Finish off Saddam back then, when we had 500,000 Troops on site.  By failing to finish it, we set ourselves up for a future conflict.  aka We are so worried they WILL NOT LOVE US, that we don't FINISH A FIGHT THAT HAS STARTED.  Which is why politicians screw up the Wars we are in, because of Political PRESSURES.

Afganistan was the training base of Al Queda PERIOD.  Our enemies were there, so we were justified to go there to make them pay for what they did.  The Nation building side is to shore up current Government there so HOPEFULLY the Taliban and Terrorist Groups will not seize power again and set up training bases there again.

That is the military FIGHTING FOR ALL OF US.  As they are there to FIGHT TERRORIST that would love nothing more than to KILL MORE AMERICANS.  While you might not feel individually threatened, the THREAT OF TERRORISM IS REAL unless you live under a Rock.

Can we stay there forever...........NO
Will they stand or fall after we leave...........Unknown
Will it stop terrorism...................NO
Could it stop them from training there..............Yes

BTW.......
Vietnam War was part of the Cold War.  It was a useless War led by Idiotic politicians.  By refusing to FIGHT IT LIKE A WAR, it went on and on and finally was basically lost.  Had we fought it like a War and sent mass armies to the North there would have been no way the Vietcong could have stopped us.

But Politics ruled the day, because we set up Rules and Lines and refused to fight it as a War.  What would we have done with it afterwards?  Who the hell knows.  Which is why it was a useless War.

Korea.  Again, a War we FAILED TO FIGHT AS A WAR.  When China entered the War Politicians told the Generals how to fight it, and didn't allow them to cut the Chineese supply lines to ribbons.  Had they done so, the Chineese couldn't have held the North even with a MILLION TROOPS.  And because of this POLITICAL BS, KOREA IS NOW DIVIDED between a Prosperous Democratic Government, and a BS Dictatorship in the North that is a thorn in our butts.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Invading an entire country looking for 1 man was beyond idiotic.
> 
> The Taliban offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to a 3rd party country.
> 
> ...



BS

They had no intentions of turning over OBL.  They had given him a safe haven and a base of operation to train.

Your either with us or against us.  The Taliban were and still are clearly against us.  Thus they are our enemies.  They have been removed from power, but will return after we leave.  The real question is whether the new Government in Afganistan will be able to Hold the Line after we are gone.

One day, MR. Sunni man, Terrorist will do something worse than 9/11, and when that happens the GLOVES will Come off, and America may actually fight it like a WAR in the Region.

Is that a good or bad thing for the Region?  You know Damned well we have the capabilities to flatten that region, but we don't.   Why continue pushing for a fight that they can't win?

When the Middle East, which isn't really possible considering their mindset, comes to terms that they must accept the beliefs of others on this earth without saying they must kill the unbelievers, the Wars will end.  Not until then.

They kept and keep pushing for a fight, aka Terrorism.  Eventually it will lead to utter Ruin in the entire region.  Which is INSANITY.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

* Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offe*r

Afghanistan &#8211;&#8211; A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.

President Bush quickly rejected the offer.

"The president has been very clear, there will be no negotiations," White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Washington has repeatedly rejected any negotiations or conditions on its demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

The statement by Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir did not break new ground. But its timing and the fact it was made to foreign reporters by such a senior figure &#8211; the Taliban's third most powerful figure &#8211; could indicate the movement was desperate for a way out of the crisis after more than a week of punishing airstrikes.

Kabir said that if the United States gave evidence bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and halted the bombing, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country" &#8211; a country, he added, that would never "come under pressure from the United States."

Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



I am a realist.  Our actions have consequences if you ca't see that through yout opaque veil of patriotism that's your problem



> We went to War because of 9/11, because about 3000 Americans were deprived of their very basic FREEDOM.  The FREEDOM OF LIFE.  Killed by extremist like OBL who wants ANY UNBELIEVERS to CONVERT OR DIE.



And we killed how many people that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?



> He was ticked at us because we dared to step in his HOLY  SAND BOX in the First Gulf War.  Even though the countries over there ASKED FOR OUR ASSISTANCE. We LIBERATED KUWAIT, but FAILED TO FINISH THE JOB.  Bush Sr. should have ordered us to Finish off Saddam back then, when we had 500,000 Troops on site.  By failing to finish it, we set ourselves up for a future conflict.  aka We are so worried they WILL NOT LOVE US, that we don't FINISH A FIGHT THAT HAS STARTED.  Which is why politicians screw up the Wars we are in, because of Political PRESSURES.



Kindergarten understanding of the world.





> That is the military FIGHTING FOR ALL OF US.  As they are there to FIGHT TERRORIST that would love nothing more than to KILL MORE AMERICANS.  While you might not feel individually threatened, the THREAT OF TERRORISM IS REAL unless you live under a Rock


.

The so called "terrorist threat" is overblown and manufactured so as to impose things like the Patriot Act on us.





> BTW.......
> Vietnam War was part of the Cold War.  It was a useless War led by Idiotic politicians.  By refusing to FIGHT IT LIKE A WAR, it went on and on and finally was basically lost.  Had we fought it like a War and sent mass armies to the North there would have been no way the Vietcong could have stopped us.



Vietnam was a proxy war with the Russians.  That's it.  Lives were wasted there just as lives are wasted in the Middle East.

No Middle Eastern country poses a credible threat to the US.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Give evidence that OBL was behind the attack.  LOL

You don't negotiate with your enemies Sunni Man.  They wanted a Fing War and they got it.  The Taliban aided them, so they get it to.

Terrorist and Terrorist supporting nations have been asking for a fight for a long time.  When they get it they cry foul.

They go to their 72 Virgins for all I care.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



BS

If you had your way we would just say we Love you man after our people are killed.  F off

Middle Eastern countries support terrorism which target Americans PERIOD.  and Terrorism is a threat to America and the World as a hole.  Which is why we went to WAR.

If there hadn't been a 9/11 we wouldn't be at War Now.  

They pushed for the War and got it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


The so called war was inevitable.

9/11 or not it was going to happen because we wanted it.

Wake up.

We made Saddam Hussein what he was.  After we withdrew our support of the Shah of Iran we armed Hussein and supported him in the Iraq Iran War, we continued to supply him with weapons and arms until we got tired of him then we took him out.

It had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD.

Our meddling in the ME has been going on for over half a century and we are now reaping the rotten fruits of our labors of ill will.  People in the ME didn't just one day wake up and hate America.  We nurtured that hate for decades.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

So what are the roots of that evil Skull?

Peanut head and the Shah.  Who gave him safe haven?

As our people rotted as Hostages over a year.  Carter didn't do jack squat.  When the Iran/Iraq War started we were of the mindset of revenge, and of the mindset of the Cold War.  Yet the War was primarily Sunni versus Shia.  

They are even Intolerant of other forms of Islam, killing each other because they choose not to believe as they do.

Later, Saddam became a problem because of his support of Terrorism and his EXPANSIONIST DESIRES.  There would have been no first Gulf War if he didn't Invade Kuwait.  

And on and on...............

They would hate us for being Non believers even if we had never fired a shot over there.  Look at Islamic Fanatics in Africa, who attack and murder whole villages because they don't believe as they do.

We had no position in those ideals to kill every man woman and child because they chose to be Christians.

Yet that goes on today, without any interference at all from the us.  Radical Islam is a cult.  Taught from birth to kill any who don't agree, and we stand against it.

Secondly, we went into Bosnia to STOP THE SLAUGHTER OF MUSLIMS.
We went into Somalia to Stop the Starvation and Genocide of people who were mostly Muslims.

Yet we are hated.  You may say it's all about the oil, as oil there is a Vital Commodity for the world, but these countries wouldn't be anything other than a Third World Country without it, because they make a hell of a lot of money off of it.  

And on and on.........................

As does the fight against those who want all Non Believers dead.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Muslim Persecution of Christians: May 2012 :: Gatestone Institute

Elsewhere in Sub-Sahara Africa, wherever Christianity and Islam meet, Christians are being killed, slaughtered, beheaded and even crucified.

Unlike those nations, such as Saudi Arabia, that have eliminated Christianity altogether, Muslim countries with significant Christian minorities saw much persecution during the month of May: in Egypt, Christians were openly discriminated against in law courts, even as some accused the nation's new president of declaring that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam;" in Indonesia, Muslims threw bags of urine on Christians during worship; in Kashmir and Zanzibar, churches were set on fire; and in Mali, Christianity "faces being eradicated."

Elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa&#8212;in Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, the Ivory Coast&#8212;wherever Islam and Christianity meet, Christians are being killed, slaughtered, beheaded and even crucified.

Categorized by theme, May's assemblage of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes, but is not limited to, the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity. Note: As Pakistan had the lion's share of persecuted Christians last month, it has its own section below, covering the entire gamut of persecution&#8212;from apostasy and blasphemy to rape and forced conversions.

Church Attacks

Indonesia encountered several church-related attacks:

A mob of 600 Muslims threw bags of urine, stones, and rotten eggs at the congregation of a Protestant church at the start of Ascension Day service; they shouted profanities and threatened to kill the pastor. No arrests were made. The church had applied for a permit to construct its house of worship five years ago. Pressured by local Muslims, the local administration ordered the church shut down in December 2009, even though the Supreme Court recently overruled its decision, saying that the church was eligible for a permit. Local Muslims and officials are nevertheless demanding that the church shut down.

After protests "by hard-line groups including the Islamic Defenders Front," nearly 20 Christian houses of worship were sealed off by authorities on the pretext of "not having permits." The authorities added that, to accommodate the region's 20,000 Christians, only one church may be built in the district in question.

The Muslim mayor who illegally sealed the beleaguered GKI Yasmin church, forcing congregants to worship in the streets, has agreed to reopen it&#8212;but only if a mosque is built next door, to ensure that the church "stays in line." "As well as opposition from the mayor, the church has faced hostility from local Muslims, who have rallied against them [the Christians], blocked them from accessing the street where the church is situated and disrupted their outdoor services. It is unlikely that they will suddenly embrace the Christians," according to the report.

France: Prior to celebrating mass, "four youths, aged 14 to 18, broke into the Church of St. Joseph, before launching handfuls of pebbles at 150 faithful present at the service." They were chased out, although, according to the report, "the parishioners, many of whom are elderly, were greatly shocked by the disrespectful act of the youths of North African origin."

Kashmir: A Catholic church made entirely of wood was partially destroyed after unknown assailants set it on fire. "What happened," said the president of the Global Council of Indian Christians, "is not an isolated case," and follows the "persecution" of a pastor who baptized Muslims. "With these gestures, the Muslim community is trying to intimidate the Christian minority."

Kuwait: Two months after the Saudi Grand Mufti decreed, in response to a question on whether churches may exist in Kuwait, that all regional churches must be destroyed, villa-churches serving Western foreigners are being targeted. One congregation was evicted without explanation "from a private villa used for worship gatherings for the past seven years;" another villa-church was ordered to "pay an exorbitant fine each month to use a facility it had been renting&#8230;. Church leaders reportedly decided not to argue and moved out."

Zanzibar: Hundreds of Muslims set two churches on fire and clashed with police during protests against the arrest of senior members of an Islamist movement known as the Association for Islamic Mobilization and Propagation. Afterwards, the group issued a statement denying any involvement of wrongdoing.

Pakistan: Apostasy, Blasphemy, Rape, Forced Conversions, and Oppression

A 20-year-old Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy"&#8212;a crime "punishable with life imprisonment"&#8212;after vengeful Muslims accused him of burning a Koran soon after a billiard game. The Muslims kept taunting and threatening him, to which the Christian "dared them to do whatever they wanted and walked away." Days later came the accusation and arrest, which caused Muslim riots, creating "panic among Christians," who "left their houses anticipating violence."

Two years ago, after a Muslim man converted to Christianity and told his wife, she abused and exposed him, resulting in his being severely beaten. "No one was willing to let me live the life I wanted [as a Christian]&#8212;they say Islam is not a religion of compulsion, but no one has been able to tell me why Muslims who don't find satisfaction in the religion become liable to be killed." He eventually divorced, escaped, and remarried a Christian woman. Now that his family has again discovered his whereabouts, they have resumed threatening him. According to his wife: "Every other day, we receive threatening phone calls&#8230;They are now asking him to abandon us and renounce Christianity, threatening that they will kill me and our child."

A new report indicates that "on average, eight to ten Christians are being forced every month by fanatic Muslims to convert to Islam, mostly in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab. The victims of forced conversions are often girls from poor backgrounds who are then subjected to harrowing and traumatic ordeals. Most of the girls are vulnerable and unable to defend themselves against extremists because their community is deprived, defenseless and marginalized. Christians, who constitute about two percent of the Pakistani population, are paying a high price for being a part of the minority community." Two such cases from May follow:

In an attempt to force her to drop charges against them for raping her 13-year-old niece, a band of Muslims severely beat a pregnant Christian woman causing her to lose female twins to miscarriage. The rapists came when all male members of the Christian household were out working and beat the women "mercilessly." "They murdered our children, they raped our daughter. We have nothing left with us," lamented an older family member. As usual, police ignored both cases: both the raped Christian girl and her beaten family.

A 14-year-old Christian girl was abducted and forced to convert to Islam by her uncle, who himself had earlier converted. Pakistani police refused to liberate her, and said she converted of her own free will. According to her father: "After converting, my brother is conspiring against our family and kidnapped Mary with deception."

The investigation into the murder of the nation's only cabinet-level Christian, Shahbaz Bhatti, has become mired amid suspicions of a possible cover-up. Lax investigations, a series of freed suspects, and lack of coordination across law enforcement organizations have stalled the case after the March 2, 2011 slaying of the federal minister for Minority Affairs, who was an outspoken critic of, and targeted by, those who support Pakistan's "blasphemy" laws.

Christians are being threatened and abused for trying, since 1947, to save their community's graveyard. Despite failing to produce any proof, a retired Muslim official who claims he "recently discovered" that the land really belongs to him has already built a boundary wall, reducing the graveyard to less than a third of its original size, and turned the seized land over to agricultural use. Police, as usual, are failing to react.

Dhimmitude

[General Abuse, Debasement, and Suppression of non-Muslims as "Tolerated" Citizens]

Egypt: A court verdict that was criticized by many human rights groups as "unbelievable" and "extremely harsh" towards Christians was decided according to religion: all twelve Christians were convicted to life imprisonment, while all eight Muslims&#8212;including some who torched nearly 60 Christian homes&#8212;were acquitted, all to thunderous cries of "Allahu Akbar!" ["Allah is the Greatest!"] in the courtroom. Another Muslim judge in Upper Egypt dismissed all charges against a group of Muslims who terrorized a Christian man and his family for over a year, culminating with their cutting off his ear in a knife attack while trying to force him to convert to Islam after they "falsely accused him" of having an affair with a Muslim woman. And a new report describes the plight of Coptic girls: "hundreds of Christian girls &#8230; have been abducted, forced to convert to Islam, and forced into marriage in Egypt. These incidents are often accompanied by acts of violence, including rape, beatings, and other forms of physical and mental abuse."

Eritrea: Activists taking part in a protest outside the Eritrean embassy in London revealed that "Some 2,000 to 3,000 Christians are currently detained in Eritrea without charge or trial&#8230; Several Christians are known to have died in notorious prison camps," and "thousands of Eritreans flee their country every year," some falling "into the hands of abusive traffickers, and are held hostage in torture camps in the Sinai Desert pending payment of exorbitant ransoms, or the forcible removal of organs."

Ethiopia: A Christian man accused of "desecrating the Koran" spent two years in prison, where he was abused, pressured to convert to Islam, and left paralyzed. Now returning home, he has found that his two young children have been abducted by local Muslims: "My life is ruined&#8212;I have lost my house, my children, my health. I am now homeless, and I am limping."

Greece: Abet Hasman, the deputy mayor of Patras who recently passed away, left a message to be revealed only in his obituary&#8212;that, although born to Muslim parents in Jordan, he was "secretly baptized" a Christian (demonstrating how some Muslims who convert to Christianity, knowing the consequences of apostasy, choose secrecy).

Indonesia: A predominantly Christian neighborhood was attacked for several days by "unidentified persons," who set fire to homes and cars. Dozens of Christian families fled their homes, "many fear[ing] the involvement of Islamic extremist groups."

Iran: A prominent house church pastor remains behind bars, even as his family expresses concerns that he may die from continued abuse and beatings, leading to internal bleeding and other ailments; authorities refuse to give him medical treatment. Also, the attorney of Youssef Nadarkhani&#8212;the imprisoned Christian pastor who awaits execution for apostasy&#8212;was himself "convicted for his work defending human rights and is expected to begin serving his nine-year sentence in the near future." Meanwhile, in a letter attributed to him, the imprisoned pastor wrote: "I have surrendered myself to God's will...[and I] consider it as the day of exam and trial of my faith...[so that I may] prove my loyalty and sincerity to God."

Jordan: After the Jordanian Dubai Islamic Bank decreed that all females must wear the hijab, the Islamic veil or be terminated, it fired all female employees who refused to wear the hijab&#8212;mostly Christians, including one Christian woman who had worked there for 27 years. There are suspicions that this new policy was set to target and terminate the Christian employees, as it is they who are most likely to reject the hijab.

Lebanon: A 24-year-old woman, the daughter of a Shiite cleric, who was "physically and psychologically tortured by her father for converting to Christianity three years ago," managed to escape and be baptized by a Christian priest&#8212;who was himself then abducted and interrogated to disclose the whereabouts of the renegade woman. In like manner, Muslim assailants fired gunshots at the house of another priest and at a church -- "part of an escalating pattern of violence against local Catholics," in the words of the region's prelate.

Macedonia: After some Muslims were arrested in connection to a "series of murders of Christians," thousands of fellow Muslims demonstrated after Friday prayers, shouting slogans such as "death to Christians!," and calling for "jihad."

Mali: Ever since the government was overthrown in a coup, "the church in Mali faces being eradicated," especially in the north, "where rebels want to establish an independent Islamist state and drive Christians out&#8230;.there have been house to house searches for Christians who might be in hiding, church and Christian property has been looted or destroyed, and people tortured into revealing any Christian relatives."

Nigeria: Muslim gunmen set fire to a home in a Christian village and then opened fire on all who tried to escape the inferno, killing at least seven and wounding many others, in just one of dozens of attacks on Christians.

Sudan: Without reason, security officials closed down regional offices of the Sudan Council of Churches and a much needed church clinic for the poor; staff members were arrested and taken to an undisclosed location: "Their families are living in agony due to the uncertainty of their fate."

Syria: Jihadi gunmen evicted all the families of a Christian region, "taking over all the homes of the village, occupying the church and turning it to their base."

Uzbekistan: Police raided a Protestant house-church meeting, claiming "that a bomb was in the home." No bomb was found, only Christian literature which was confiscated. Subsequently, 14 members of the unregistered church were heavily fined&#8212;the equivalent of 10-60 times a monthly salary&#8212;for an "unsanctioned meeting in a private home." Between February and April, 28 Protestants were fined and four were issued warnings for the offence. Three Baptists were also fined for not declaring their personal Bibles while crossing the border from Kazakhstan into Uzbekistan. Fines and warnings were accompanied by the confiscation of religious literature.

About this Series

Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some&#8212;by no means all&#8212;of the instances of persecution that surface each month. It serves two purposes:

To document that which the mainstream media does not: the habitual, if not chronic, Muslim persecution of Christians.
To show that such persecution is not "random," but systematic and interrelated&#8212;that it is rooted in a worldview inspired by Sharia.
Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws that criminalize and punish with death to those who "offend" Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya (financial tribute expected from non-Muslims); overall expectations for Christians to behave like cowed dhimmis, or second-class, "tolerated" citizens; and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination.

Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales&#8212;from Morocco in the West, to India in the East, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims&#8212;it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam&#8212;whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

They are very lucky that we are not like them.

What would they say if we said "GOD WILLS IT", and killed all of them refusing to convert?

The abuses of Radical Islam are everywhere to be seen.  Unless you live under a Rock.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> They are very lucky that we are not like them.
> 
> What would they say if we said "GOD WILLS IT", and killed all of them refusing to convert?
> 
> The abuses of Radical Islam are everywhere to be seen.  Unless you live under a Rock.


Sounds really scary!!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

BBC NEWS | Africa | Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.
"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.
Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.
Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.
Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week.
Meanwhile, Islamists in the capital, Mogadishu have carried out a public flogging.

Islamists are becoming increasingly open in the capital, Mogadishu
Mogadishu is nominally under the control of government forces and their Ethiopian allies, who face frequent attacks by Islamist and nationalist insurgents.
The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in the city says the flogging was a show of strength.
He says two men accused of helping to kill a man and torture his mother, who they accused of theft, were each given 39 lashes in the north-eastern suburb of Suqa-hola.
The man who actually killed the alleged thief was released, after agreeing to pay his family 100 camels in compensation.
Before the flogging, hundreds of Islamist fighters performed a military parade, our reporter says.
Death threats
Cameras were banned from the stoning in Kismayo, but print and radio journalists who were allowed to attend estimated that the woman, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was 23 years old.

 People were saying this was not good for Sharia law, this was not good for human rights, this was not good for anything  
Witness
However, Amnesty said it had learned she was 13, and that her father had said she was raped by three men.
When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said.
Convicting a girl of 13 for adultery would be illegal under Islamic law.
A human rights activist in the town told the BBC on condition of anonymity that he had received death threats from the Islamic militia, who accuse him of spreading false information about the incident.
He denies having anything to with Amnesty's report.
'Crying'
Court authorities have said the woman came to them admitting her guilt.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME


More from Today programme
She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply, they said.
But a witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium.
"More than 1,000 people arrived there," he said.
"After two hours, the Islamic administration in Kismayo brought the lady to the place and when she came out she said: 'What do you want from me?'"
"They said: 'We will do what Allah has instructed us'. She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.'
"A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her."
'Checked by nurses'
The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful".
"People were saying this was not good for Sharia law, this was not good for human rights, this was not good for anything."
But no-one tried to stop the Islamist officials, who were armed, the witness said. He said one boy was shot in the confusion.
According to Amnesty International, nurses were sent to check during the stoning whether the victim was still alive. They removed her from the ground and declared that she was, before she was replaced so the stoning could continue.
The port of Kismayo was seized in August by a coalition of forces loyal to rebel leader Hassan Turki, and al-Shabab, the country's main radical Islamist insurgent organisation.
Mr Turki is on the US list of "financers of terrorism".
It was the first reported execution by stoning in the southern port city since Islamist insurgents captured it.
The BBC had a reporter in the area, but he was shot dead in Kismayo in June. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUHFfR8hWcA]Metallica - The Unforgiven - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > They are very lucky that we are not like them.
> ...



FO Rag


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

A 13 year old stoned to death for being RAPED.

I don't give a damn if they like me or not.  This shows their true colors.  And I could post examples of this all FING day long.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Hey Sunni man...........................

In the First Gulf War, what number called in Bingo made everyone tuck and run.................

I believe it was B52......................


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


What we have here is a regular keyboard Rambo.....lol


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



LOL

Are they killing Christians for not converting around the world Sunni Man?

Did they kill the 13 year old for being raped?

Do you believe in Sharia Law?

Do you want it in the U.S.?

Religion of Peace my arse.

Religion of Peace and a whole stack of dead bodies.

I don't Fing care what they think or you.  I've served over there.  My family has served over there, and you are nothing more than a BS mouthpiece of their cause.


----------



## deltex1 (Jul 7, 2013)

I hate academic arguments over why we fight.  All I want is when we fight we win quickly and in a manner that scares the crap out of any observer.  We have not done that since 1945.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

Natalie said:


> i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???



There are surely many poor, more rural soldiers in the military, but I think this is more common in our past wars, like World War II or Vietnam. Today's soldiers are very specialized, and also are all volunteers. So I think it would be unfair to nail them all down as uneducated farm boys. Point well taken though, as I'm sure there are still a number of them who are not educated, but that's only because they have chosen that particular career course.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> So what are the roots of that evil Skull?
> 
> Peanut head and the Shah.  Who gave him safe haven?
> 
> ...



I think it would be unfair to say that the wars in the Middle East are JUST about taking revenge against Saddam or Bin Laden or whoever, or that they're JUST about getting oil or other commodities. These issues are very complex, and I nor anyone else should not try to pretend like we know all the answers. However, it seems to me like there are few to no times where we are legitimately concerned about the populace of these actual countries. In other words, our politicians may say that we are fighting for the Iraqis, but we wouldn't have given a damn about them if we hadn't thought Saddam Hussein had harmed OUR people. We may say we are trying to improve Afghanistan's infrastructure, but we would have never done a thing about it if Osama Bin Laden hadn't attacked OUR people. Thus, our motives, at least in that way, seem rather selfish, and the moral obligations of our missions seem to me like an afterthought.

Also, saying that all Muslims hate all non-Muslims because they are non-believers is a bit too easy. Whatever teachings there may be in the Qur'an that hint at that, a Qur'an which I've read a lot of, the Qur'an just like the Bible or Torah has many passages which people choose to not take so literally. In reality, the three books, and the three religions, are surprisingly similar. Jesus Christ is one of the most quoted prophets in Islam.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> I hate academic arguments over why we fight.  All I want is when we fight we win quickly and in a manner that scares the crap out of any observer.  We have not done that since 1945.



I understand people's frustration over these kinds of discussions, as its a sensitive topic. However, if anything I think we owe it to our troops to make sure they are fighting and dying for reasonable causes. They are trained to simply obey their superiors, not think for themselves. Thus, it is the public's job to reflect on their missions and see if its worth it to lose whole generations and then pretend like they died "fighting for our freedoms", when in reality its possible they died for absolutely nothing.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.
> 
> Sambino, there are evil people in this world who really do want to harm us. We can't all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The issue with Afghanistan is that that the people there do not consider themselves to be from Afghanistan. They consider them part of the local tribes. This kind of thinking has allowed groups like Al Qaeda to set up camps easily to train people in order to attack us and our allies. I do not think nation building works but the only alternative is to go in and destroy the country every few years and that does not seem feasible economically or ethically.
> 
> So yes, we fight for your personally and for all Americans. You're welcome.



I can't argue with the fact that there are people who want to harm us, nor would I try to. We could look back at "why" they want to harm us, but that's another story. Let's assume we indeed have these enemies, namely terrorists, all over the world. To me, terrorism is just like any other guerrilla warfare. The goal is not absolute victory, battle by battle, but rather just to make the enemy bleed economically, socially, etc. It's a completely different war, and one that you cannot win with tanks and helicopters. The goal of terrorism is in the name; it's to "terrorize", to scare us so much that we send our brave men and women halfway around the world, waste billions of dollars, and lose most of our popularity with the international society while the "terrorists" sit in caves and laugh it up. We cannot defeat terror with bullets, because it's an emotion, just like love, fear, or anger. The instant we responded to 9/11, whether it's our two wars, taking off our shoes at airports, or not allowing large backpacks at parades, is the instant the terrorists won.

If your name means you really are a veteran, I certainly applaud your service, but if these are my views then I don't feel you are fighting for me, nor are you fighting for the best interests of any of the rest of us, and that is not your fault. It is the fault of a complete misconception of how to fight our enemies.

Anyways, this is simply my opinion, and I once again want to thank you for your service, because my despite my personal views I still appreciate just how much dedication it takes.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think I agree.
> ...



Sure Americans being killed infringes on that person's freedom, but if someone came into your backyard tomorrow who didn't speak your language, was carrying a big gun, and started yelling at you, I don't think you'd consider it "infringing upon his freedom" if you gunned him down. The man may have just been trying to help, but how could you know? You're just trying to protect your family from a mysterious man and his friends who have set up camp over the mountainside. Many of these things depend greatly on perspective, and personal reflection. I don't condone killing by either side, American or Taliban or whoever. However, we are sort of on their turf. 

9/11 was real but one must look at the reasons for 9/11 happening, some of them anyways. Osama Bin Laden didn't like that his home country of Saudi Arabia was in the back pocket of the U.S. government. He didn't like that after him and his fellow freedom fighters (now called the Taliban) "fought for our freedom" in Afghanistan against the Russians in the 80s and then we hung him out to dry. He didn't like many things, so he decided to make a statement that would change the world forever, and it did. I once again do not support his actions, but if anything it's frustrating that his violent actions cover up very real world problems.

The shoe bomber was a joke.

Many people love America, but the bigger you are the more enemies you have it seems.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 7, 2013)

Natalie said:


> i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???



I think most of them probably have a better education than you do.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 7, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.
> ...



You live in a country where you are allowed to disrespect soldiers and blather endlessly about the things you think of because you have too much time on your hands...and the REASON you have too much time on your hands is because you live a privileged, safe existence, made safe by the very military you show disdain for, in a place where you are able to afford the things you need.

In other words, just shut up. You're an ungrateful gnat who doesn't deserve the liberties and the protection that you smugly claim you have no use for.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



I don't see how any of what this person says makes it so they know nothing about foreign policy. Perhaps they just happen to reflect my own views of our policy decisions, but none of what they said seemed inaccurate, and neither is what you said. It just seems surprising to me that you say with such calm and nonchalance that our government simply does do what's best for us. Meaning, the two recent wars, the War on Terror, whatever it is, was all about our own personal security or interests abroad. I for one don't think it's fair to go killing people throughout the world just because we feel a little nervous about our personal security, just as it's not okay for you to walk down your block and kill your neighbor because you think he might be a danger to you.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



I would appreciate if you show me the same level of calm, respectful debate as I have shown this military veteran and that I would show to any other human being. That being said, I apologize if you are offended by my commentary. I'm not sure if you read what I actually wrote, but if anything I am concerned more than most for the sacrifices of our soldiers. Most Americans think that these men and women died fighting for something serious, something real, while I don't think most of them died for anything that applies to me personally, nor the majority of other Americans. Perhaps it's hard for me to appreciate the military when I myself hope to one day be a diplomat, as I feel once you kill the first person you've already lost. I guess I'm a bit biased, just like anyone else.

Anyways, if you want to critique my writing please do. If you want to just verbally berate me because you think I owe it to an anonymous soldier that I have the ability to go to a baseball game or go to the movies, I'd appreciate if you didn't. This thread was simply meant to spark interesting discussions, discussions that are important to me and that I would hope are just as important to you.


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> I hate academic arguments over why we fight.  All I want is when we fight we win quickly and in a manner that scares the crap out of any observer.  We have not done that since 1945.



Both Bush's did it in Iraq.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???
> ...



Agreed. Once again today's military is very specialized and technologically savvy. They have to be to operate such complicated machinery.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

Intense said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate academic arguments over why we fight.  All I want is when we fight we win quickly and in a manner that scares the crap out of any observer.  We have not done that since 1945.
> ...



I suppose it makes logical sense to want to win quickly, but I think "shock and awe" is where the problem lies, one of the problems anyways. It just seems like a joke that we would feel so threatened by a country when our military has the ability to destroy them in a matter of days. Are these the enemies we fear so much? Despite having not necessarily "won" our past two wars, the opposition was more-or-less a joke. In Afghanistan we fight 15 year old boys paid a few cents to fire sniper rifle shots at American positions, or goat herders that just want us to go away. 

Anyways, I don't think we should take pride in scaring people or killing people in the most "efficient" way possible.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 7, 2013)

We don't take pride in scaring people. We take pride in protecting people who need it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 7, 2013)

editec said:


> I think I agree.
> 
> No American fighting in Asia right now is defending any Americans' freedom.
> 
> Neither of those nations was ever a threat to my or any American's freedom.



Disagree.
Islamic jihadists are an obvious threat to the American people and their freedoms. Anyone who isn't aware of that just *really* hasn't been paying attention the last couple of decades.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think I agree.
> ...


Since 9/11 the only threat to American citizen's freedom has been the U.S. government.    ..


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 7, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Wrong. Jihadists attacks and attempted attacks continue through the present without reason to expect an end while jihadists continue to breathe.

But I can't say I'm sure that Obama's government doesn't also pose a threat.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think I agree.
> ...



"Jihad" simply an Arabic word for "struggle". There are certainly people who want to harm America, sometimes rightfully so, sometimes not. Yet a Jihad can be anything from "struggling" to get good grades or "struggling" to do your laundry. It is not the Islam religion itself that is the threat, but rather the people that interpret it in a certain way, namely Taliban or Al Qaeda or whoever. Christianity, given the proper _interpretation can be just as dangerous, or any other religion or ideology._


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> We don't take pride in scaring people. We take pride in protecting people who need it.



Sure, a point well taken. I didn't mean to make a blanket statement about the pride that the military takes in itself. That being said, Americans and surely military leaders themselves do take some sort of pride in being the most efficient, deadly force on the planet. I appreciate the idea that our military is trying to protect freedoms abroad. However, I still don't think that that's our primary reason for fighting abroad, and I also do not think we are often doing a very effective job. If we are fighting for freedom or liberty, there are other diplomatic, non-lethal ways of doing so. What is the point of obtaining freedom if it comes at the cost of your entire country's infrastructure? Is Iraq "free"? I suppose I just feel that a country's people must rise up themselves (i.e. the Arab Spring) for a revolution to really be genuine. We seem to hijack these various causes for our own purposes. The citizens of the world are fully capable of fighting for their own rights, against any odds.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2013)

Soldiers genuinely believe they are fighting for the right reason.

I have no issue with that.  In fact I hold the lives of our soldiers in such high regard that I am offended when our politicians send them to their death for dubious reasons as my father was sent to his death in the skies over Vietnam.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Soldiers genuinely believe they are fighting for the right reason.
> 
> I have no issue with that.  In fact I hold the lives of our soldiers in such high regard that I am offended when our politicians send them to their death for dubious reasons as my father was sent to his death in the skies over Vietnam.



Agreed. My criticism of their mission is out of respect, a greater respect for their lives than the politicians have for them. The men and women of the military are far too valuable to the future to be wasted on the battlefield.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Natalie said:


> i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???



You have much to learn.....


----------



## Natalie (Jul 7, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???
> ...



they get teached there skill in the servise they dont know to fix helicopers b4 they join and beside how many rich ppl have they child in the military???


----------



## Natalie (Jul 7, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I think most of them probably have a better education than you do.



um... so what???

do u want to tell me I am dumb??? go ahead but you hav to wait in line cos lots of other ppl r first lol


----------



## whitehall (Jul 7, 2013)

After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 7, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



I think what is needed is more dialogue in the US about such matters, not less. There is a current culture of detachment from world issues, and general distain for intellectual pursuit today, which is not a healthy development.

When sending men off to war, generally a strong motivater is needed, and so the term freedom has been waved about shamelessly over the years for various purpose. In fact, the reasons for the US going to war have been complex, and very often not about freedom at all, but as been stated here, about narrow national self-interest, geopolitical gain, and the support of corporate or partisan political interests. There are a few exceptions.

The Revolutionary War- nationalistic sentiment was combined with a desire to be free of tax and regulation, and hence increase individual profit and gain, and a desire for aboriginal land then denied the revolutionaries by the British, were key motivators.

The War of 1812- anger over the treatment of US seamen pressed into service for the RN morphed into a plan to seize the remaining British colonies in North America (whether the inhabitants there liked it or not).

The Mexican War- The US yearned for Mexico's northern territories, and they took them.

The Spanish American War- Again, it was the age of imperialism, everybody was doing it, and the young US wanted to get into the act. And so they did, and Spain was as good a target as any, an aging, weak, and little loved empire. The US secured the outposts in the Pacific and Caribbean they had hoped for.

WW1- People in Belguim at the time may have claimed it was about freedom, but few others would have, in  hindsight anyway. It was an imperial war, fought over basically nothing other than jockying for geopolitical advantage. The US at first attempted to stay out of it, and make the most of the commericial opportunities presented. The lion's share of US money went to Britian and France however, and it was too much to loose, which was a slight possibility by 1917, if the Germans won. And so they intervened.

WW2- Yes, freedom was at stake here. The US did fight for freedom, although they sat out the first two years, hoping for others to finish the job first.

Korea- Freedom in a manner of speaking. The war might not have happened however, if the US had not meddled grossly in Korea's affairs.

Vietnam- Perhaps the sadest examle here. A war fought because politicians had slept through there social studies classes in school. Again, the US could have avoided this war if they had accepted Ho Chi Minh's peace offer  of cooperation way back in '45.

Iraq 1&2- An extension of the Mid-East maneuvering that has gone on there since at least the '30s for the US. It was all about oil supplies, and Israel's lobbying.

Afghanistan- Something had to be done after 9/11, and it was clear the actual culprits might be a long time in coming to justice. Some explosions were necessary. Afghanistan was a good a target as any. It was a backwater run by reprehensible people, who had allowed other reprehensible people a sanctuary. And so some empty buildings were blown up. The real "base" of these folks is of course, everywhere- religious schools in Saudi Arabia, hotel rooms in Hamburg, flight training schools in Florida, villas in Pakistan. With the partial exception of the last, those aren't acceptable targets.

It is a tribal country stuck in the Middle Ages, which belatedly the US and others have had to admit, and withdraw from, claiming victory and a job well done, while of course it has not been.


If freedom were the only issue for the US in the world, they would be drawing up plans for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, arguably on of the least free countries in the world, insisting Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, and doing a number of other things that clearly it is not going to do.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

whitehall said:


> After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.



I think it's too simplistic to say that the goal of every terrorist is simply "jihad", or to kill every infidel or something. Just like our own troops, these men fight for many different reasons. America has no doubt made some mistakes and some enemies around the world. As stated in some of my other responses, I suppose I just don't think we should celebrate death, or "beating the shit" out of our enemies. If we are to celebrate victory, it should be seen as an unfortunate necessity rather than a source of pride. Obama has done very little different than George W. Bush would have done. He ramped up the drone strike program in Yemen and Pakistan, and did nothing to slow operations in Afghanistan. He's just as hawkish towards Iran too. So I don't see how Obama is inferior in that way to his predecessor. Also, I don't see any factual reason why you'd say all democrats are sub-educated. I for one don't believe in either party, but blanket statements like that are more harmful than helpful.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

Auteur said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Fully agree with everything you've stated. The U.S. shows much hypocrisy in who it chooses in its enemies, excluding as you stated countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, etc. Thus, this implies to me that our motives are more political than some self-righteous pursuit of freedom for all. World War II and some of those much earlier wars are the only ones that seemed necessary to me, the rest are each one big game putting countries back decades every time, win or lose. 

However, I'm not so sure about "empty buildings" being blown up in Afghanistan. A military recruiter for the AirForce tried that on me one time, saying it would be just like a video game and I would only be blowing up "empty buildings". The bombing campaign wasn't as intense as Iraq, but I have no doubt we intended to kill in whatever mission we partook in, not just turn a few laundry shops to rubble.

All in all, a very good point and I agree that we need more dialogue and not less, as these are all very important issues that more Americans and citizens of the world should take seriously.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 7, 2013)

It's a sad fact in life that only nerds, sissies, communists, socialists and generally sub-educated jerks waste time questioning the patriotism they will never understand.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



War is far too consequential and important to be left simply to military men. They are extremely specialized, and are trained more often to see things black and white and accomplish a specific task. Though Vietnam and Korea were massive failures, I agree, I also don't think a war without rules would have turned out very well. Also, Vietnam was a huge undergoing, we were just trying to fight a guerrilla war on their home turf with conventional methods, and that is where we failed. However, if we are to just get rid of the rules of war, shall we just throw out most of the doctrines laid out by the U.N.? No human rights? Allow infinite forms of torture? I think if our own troops were captured by the enemy, or Manhattan was being bombed, we'd think a bit differently.

An interesting note that I figured out recently, in the Geneva Accords the U.S. never signed the section forbidding "indiscriminate bombing" of cities in a war, so I guess our government is sort of thinking along the same lines as you are, if that's any comfort to you.

Oh, and about the training camps in Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, that's a good point but almost all the attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, and we never asked Saudi Arabia anything. Hell, we could have invaded them looking for Osama Bin Laden, since he is, after all, Saudi.

But your point about making enemies pay for what they did to us on 9/11 just creates a vicious cycle. One day a country, and I would hope the it's the U.S., is going to have to be the bigger person and stop the madness. We have to take a punch in the mouth and say "No, I will not respond in the way you want me to respond. I'm better than that." They can keep punching us and punching us, but they will not get what they want. The terrorists want your fear, they want to nag at the back of your brain every time you board an airplane or go to a parade. And, so far, they've succeeded in many ways.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 7, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think I agree.
> ...



No nation or state attacked us on 9/11.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 7, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > After 9-11 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan brought it to the enemy and America beat the shit out of them and killed the rambling jihad dream. The Obama administration inherited Afghanistan conflict and so far it seems that Afghanistan has become a stalemate but the stupid and sub-educated democrat base can't seem to come to it's senses and blame the freaking five years of Obama.
> ...



 The jihad aimed at the symbol of capitalism early in the Clinton administration and Bubba Bill dismissed the attack and a couple of years later ordered American bombers to destroy Yugoslavia. Meanwhile the same jihad terrorist network went to flight school in the US and we know what happened. America under Bush lashed out and destroyed the jihad organization to an extent that it has deteriorated to propaganda and threats of murder. Obama could have ended the stalemate in Afghanistan but instead his inaction has promoted attacks on American Military while the US Military has been subjected to high profile trials for things like pissing on the freaking enemy and Americans take casualties without being able to escalate the war. Didn't Vietnam teach democrats anything?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

whitehall said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Once again, taking random stabs at democrats is completely baseless. Vietnam was a mistake, sure enough, but to blame Democrats for the whole thing seems unfair. For the most part, the war had bi-partisan support. Also, do you not think it a bit inhumane to piss on your fallen enemy? Personally, I think with battle comes a sort of honor, a code of conduct. Yes, we will kill our enemies but we will also respect them in death and mourn the death of any human being, friend or enemy. Our soldiers and their militia are not so different; both feel very strongly about a particular point of view and fight for it. Who are we to judge right from wrong? Good from Evil? 

Or how about a sargeant suffering from PTSD to leave the base and kill two dozen civilians? Tribunals are an important aspect of the military system, and keep the greatest death-dealing organization in the world in check. 

I think our biggest failure, however, is a misinterpretation of both the problem and the solution, in terms of Islamic Jihad. First off, all the attacks on our soil, including the recent Boston bombing, have been self-radicalized men who were angry about various world issues. The Boston bomber himself said he did it to take revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn't Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and the more credit we give them, the more power we give them as well, we play into their hands. 

Our primary mistake is thinking that we can eradicate danger in the world. If someone wanted to kill you tomorrow, they would go to Big 5 Sporting Goods down the street, buy a shotgun, go to your house, and kill you before the police or military could do anything about it. If someone wanted to blow up a car bomb in Times Square, who could stop them? Our greatest weapon against the evils of this world is in our minds, it's to say that I'm not going to let your scare-tactics get to me and make me do something irrational. Fear isn't real, it's a choice. Right now, the terrorists are running our foreign policy without even having to do the hard work.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 7, 2013)

whitehall said:


> It's a sad fact in life that only nerds, sissies, communists, socialists and generally sub-educated jerks waste time questioning the patriotism they will never understand.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but this site is meant for more-or-less educated debate about serious topics, not random attacks on me or other people who post. 

If I'm a nerd, I consider that a compliment, as education and critical thinking is important. 

I'm not so sure what makes me a sissy. If I'm a sissy because I respect and love the humans of this world too much to want to kill them, well then yeah, I'm a sissy. 

I don't remember posting anything that implied a Communist ideology, though I do believe Communism is a good idea that has been poorly executed by a number of different regimes throughout the 20th century. It's a sort of utopian idea, and maybe an overly idealistic one. However, no, I'm not a Communist.

Socialism is an idea that many European countries follow, in areas like their health care and education. I personally see it as a very unifying, helpful ideology, and don't see why it should be considered an insult.

If I'm a nerd, I think it's pretty hard to be a nerd AND sub-educated. In fact, I take these discussions and my studies in International Relations and Religion very seriously.

My only problem with patriotism is that it is divisive. We take pride in the fact that our country is the richest and strongest, when we should be striving to make the world equal and not cheering the suffering of our enemies or competitors. I think it would be far more honorable and positive for us to have a day, as the world, where everyone in every country celebrates simple human existence. In that lies true unity, and true understanding between cultures.


----------



## Natalie (Jul 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> You have much to learn.....



do i??? i seen lots of the boys i grew up with go to the service cos theres nothing else for them to do no money for college no oppertunitys

how many boys whos daddys are millionairs and ceos of big companys are getting killed???

may be u can tell me what i try to learn about dead friends


----------



## Natalie (Jul 8, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.



i didn't say every1 i said the 1s dieing

i herd a lot of storys about what happens in iraq and the story never had a part where a general kick open a door and lead the charge in to a house may be I herd wrong but i don't think so

not evey1 is smart enough to go to colege or has enough money I think may be 3 guys I went to school with didn't join cos they had money to go to more school

an nonthing i said means i don't like r military i love them but there needs to be more of options for them like me my choise was be a waitress or a stripper thx some choice

and thx for whoeva neg rep me for having a diff opinon hate freedom of speach i guess


----------



## Auteur (Jul 8, 2013)

whitehall said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I believe you are correct that Democrats (or Republicans either) didn't learn the lessons of history. The US has blundered into two wars in recent years that were virtual reruns of Vietnam. There were misguided motives, no clear goals for an ending, and little understanding of the history and current culture and demographics of the country involved. 

A low level guerrilla war is very hard to extinguish, and almost impossible without getting the population on side. The US failed in Afghanistan because they supported corrupt politicians with no standing in the larger community. Warlords get cabinet posts, the opium crop continues, tribesmen do not understand the role of police or the rule of law, but are given posts where they are expected to do carry out these sorts of roles. They failed because they hoped for a military solution to a much larger problem. You can "escalate" all you want, and it isn't going to change the situation.

The US has not destroyed "Jihad", nor extinguished threats from terrorism. Killing terrorists and anyone how has the misfortune to be standing nearby simply means the killed will be replaced by angry survivors. There is no shortage of extremist views in the world. Just look at a few of the comments on this site. The best that anyone can do is to deal fairly with the world, and connect with the world community to stop criminality wherever possible. But there is no guarantee of safety, and killing anyone who is a Muslim and makes threatening statements is a sure way of extending conflict on into one's grandchildren's time.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 8, 2013)

No war since WWII has protected our freedom.  That is just the plain fact of the matter.  It could perhaps be argued that some elements of the "war on terror" has increased any given American's security.  On the other hand, the war as a whole has compromised our basic civil liberties.  Such a war can't be said to protect our freedom.


----------



## editec (Jul 8, 2013)

There isn't a nation on earth that is a threat to American freedom.

It takes enormous imagination to believe that our adventures in imperialism are somehow protecting US freedom.

US geopolitical hegemony, perhaps, but US freedom?

_Please!_


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2013)

Soon enough we won't have any freedom to protect.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

Natalie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You have much to learn.....
> ...




i had a II-S deferment when vietnam was hot. i dropped out and enlisted but a lot of my former classmates were in college really only for the deferment.

there weren't many rich kids in my artillery unit...none...and they were smart kids. fire direction ain't for dummies. they were just poor.

we can't let our wars be fought on the backs of our poorest americans. different time, but the same deal today. long story.

i am so very sorry about your friends.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2013)

Natalie said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie, not everyone in the military is "poor" and have no other choices. It's insulting and degrading to think that of our military.
> ...



It's important that YOU stay in school.  That way you will learn how to communicate with others.  Concentrate on subjects like spelling and grammar.  Otherwise you are quite correct, your choices are between being a stripper or a waitress.  IF you don't want to be limited to stripping or waitressing you will have to become worth more.   If your friends are anything like yourself, it is sad that they made decisions in their lives that led them to few options.   Some of those decisions are to be uneducated children that grow up into uneducated adults.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 8, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Truth is that over a dozen kids of congressmen or Senators have served in the military during this War on Terror. 

And according to the below source the majority of troops come from middle income families. I would post the graph but it's inserted in a document i cannot copy. 
It appears that the majority come from homes that make between 37,000 and 77,000 per year with the 50,000+ the highest.

Look at chart B-41

http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION POLICY/PopRep2011/summary/Summary.pdf


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 8, 2013)

its rw group-think/Orwellian code for attacking other countries physically & economically in order to open their markets to the banksters that run/own our govt.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie said:
> ...



I have no doubt that some kids of various congressmen have served, but thats a dozen or so kids of over 500 Congressmen. Not to belittle their sacrifice, but I would argue it's still pretty disproportionate, at least for the UPPER class.

But sure, I would not argue that there are a ton, if not most, middle class men serving in the military. I appreciate the fact you attached some statistics. My main argument is that the very rich seldom seem to go, not so much that the very poor always go. But that's another story. My main point is that the entire military system is a bad idea, not that the wrong people are going and that if the right people went I wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



Sort of off topic to the theme of the thread, but people do not always "make decisions" in their life that lead them down a particular path; often that path is laid out for them, either by their family situation or social class, or environment. I think it's pretty assumptive that a person's limitation to life as a stripper, waitress, construction worker, whatever is completely their fault. I'm not saying it's necessarily society's fault either, but you have to be considerate of other factors. Agree with your first point though, education is certainly important and in most places community college is at least relatively affordable if you want it bad enough. That being said, I think she communicated just fine, and had some solid points. Grammar isn't as important as simply getting a good point across, at least not in these discussions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



We have a volunteer military. I wouldn't have it any other way. but if you do the math (Which I saw a few years ago and can't find today) The congress kids as a group actually surpassed any other group you could come up with in percentage of those who served....

I knew rich and poor throughout my career, You never really had any clue other than the way some of them acted..... I went to give a re-enlistment talk to one young man (Part of the job) And found he had 3 paychecks thrown in his desk drawer. I chewed his ass out for the possible risk of theft and he showed me his check book with a $50,000 Balance. Seems his Dad deposited a couple grand a month into his account. his dad owns a Hotel on Miami beach. Military service in his family was traditional....

Of course I also had kids who were raised dirt poor. But the fact remains that most of the Military comes from most of the people. The middle.....


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.



In the last 100 years, what wars would you have supported, that you would have joined in the fight if you were able to at the time?

In the same light, as an imaginary president before the US became actively involved in each war you support, would you have given aid and support say to the Soviets in WW2 or the British in WW1?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



we can look at statistics and we can look at the situations behind the statistics...

here is from the introduction to your link...

*"Todays recruiting environment is excellent. For the last three years, the services have
experienced extraordinary recruiting success. Probably the most prominent factor has
been the persistently high unemployment rate, particularly for youth. The
unemployment rate for 16- to-19-year-olds has been about 25 percent for the last three
years, while the rate for young adults (20- to-24-year-olds) has been about 15 percent.*Given the scarcity of civilian job opportunities and a somewhat reduced requirement
for enlisted accessions, the quality of accessions (in terms of educational backgrounds
and ability test scores) increased in each of the past three years. In fact, FY11 accessions
reflect the highest quality of any year since the All-Volunteer Force began in 1973.

As the economy improves, however, it will be difficult to sustain this high quality.
Youth influencers have not been as likely to recommend military service as they were in
the 1980s and 1990s. Increasing numbers of bright young Americans are going to
college immediately after completing high school. Some commentators expect
budgetary problems to create pressures to stop increasing or even to reduce military
pay."

i think that says a lot.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > i dont think the best and brightes die i think the poor that have no other choice join and die why not think of better things for them like education???
> ...



so?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.




Then you don't understand a damn thing.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally.
> ...



If you want to critique me and correct me, explain why I "don't understand a damn thing". In that particular statement, I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly. That does not necessarily mean that there are not soldiers who would claim they are fighting for me, and power to them. All of this is my personal opinion though, so I don't see how I could not understand something that I'm not claiming I know all the answers to.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.
> ...



In the last 100 years, I would have probably only supported World War II, as Hitler was hell-bent on world domination and, for the most part, had the means to accomplish his goals. That being said, I doubt I would have joined the war-effort to fight personally (notwithstanding the draft), as I'm personally a pacifist and would sooner die than kill, that's just the way I am. 

As for your question about support, I regret to say I'm a bit of an isolationist. I think revolutions like the Syrian War or Afghanistan or whatnot must be fought by the people themselves. People would then reply to me that they don't have the means, and thus the U.S. has to fight for them, but I would argue that any people with enough motivation, unity, dedication can overcome a superior force. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have supported certain countries down the line, but I would certainly be hesitant to do so. The examples you mentioned for instance, at least the Russians, would probably be a country I would support in a conflict, but that would primarily be as a proxy war to fight against Hitler, not necessarily because I like the Russians or think they're a bunch of great guys. Today, however, I feel we have no place supporting, say, the Syrian rebels, as it's a conflict we don't fully understand. World War I was a completely overblown, European conflict that had no winner or loser in my opinion, it was complete destruction and destabilization of the region that effected decades to come. Thus, whether the U.S. fought or didn't fight, I think the outcome would have been just as consequential.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



A solid point. Whatever statistics may show, there are always underlying reasons behind the statistics that must be taken into account. Once again, as I stated in the original post, the motivation behind joining the military is far too complex to be nailed down to one perspective. There are plenty of soldiers that come from all sorts of backgrounds, but I think this is a less-important point compared to the broader implications of war and the military system. I think it's true though that, barring other circumstances like tradition or just a general interest in the military, poor economic situations and isolation from other job opportunities could definitely push people towards the military. Not necessarily the only factor though.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Agreed. Once again I'm not familiar with much of the statistics, but I also would think it's pretty easy to say, statistically that MOST of the military comes from MOST of the people. That is, they have the most chance of going to the military if they're the largest portion of society. But sure, things like tradition or other reasons certainly have to be taken into account, and that's why it's far too difficult to make blanket statements regarding soldier motivation. I'd still be curious to know how many soldiers are concerned or familiar with the politics of the conflicts they partake in versus how many are simply trying to learn particular ideals, have no other options in life, or are just doing it or their families. What were your experiences with this like if you don't mind my asking? Or did people simply not talk about it?


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Good  answers.  I don't agree with much of it though.

I try to hold all countries to the same standard--especially their leaders.

Because the end product of WW2 was that it made the world safe for communism, I would not have been so buddy-buddy with the commie psychopath Stalin as FDR was.  I would have given not a nickel in aid to the monster at any time.

On a moral basis, I see that Stalin was far worse than Hitler prior to 1941.  Also, based on territories grabbed by each prior to that time, Stalin comes out far worse.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



True on all points. To be fair, I was simply trying to present myself as someone that wasn't COMPLETELY against aid to other countries that were suffering against an invasion like the Nazi one. Also, my reasoning that I would fight Hitler THROUGH supporting Stalin was purely a hypothetical reason that I think a president like FDR would use, not necessarily my own personal view. I don't have any particular love for Stalin or the Russian army, as you're right that statistically Stalin was just as bad. That being said, I don't think Communism was the main consequence of World War II, Communism isn't the reason I wouldn't support Stalin, and I don't think Communism itself is a particularly evil ideology. It's simply been hijacked by a number of other ruthless regimes throughout the century and then presented as true Communism, when it is nothing of the sort.  

You're right though, every leader must be held to the same standard, which is a good lesson for the U.S.'s current foreign policy, advocating democracy in some countries while allowing human rights violations in many of our allies' countries, simply based on U.S. interest at the particular time. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, or Morocco, all currently still monarchies, we simply don't want to rock the boat and mess up our relationship by arguing for more liberties for their citizens. In Iran, on the other hand, we have no problem criticizing their Islamic theocracy, because we're on bad terms with them anyways and can use their supposed human rights violations to paint them as monsters. Anyways, just a side point, but lessons from World War II and earlier definitely apply to today.

Do you disagree with any other points made? Just out of curiosity. I understand most of what I write is pretty subjective and just based on my own personal world view.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 8, 2013)

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill 


Nuff said............


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



_I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally._

Say it all you like but-if you are American-your statement is simply untrue. Your money in the form of taxes collected by your elected government pays the soldier's paycheck and all equipment and expenses. And your elected government determines if, when, where, how, and why warfare takes place. You may not enjoy it but-if you think you have a right to share in the rights and freedoms of American citizens-you must also share in the moral responsibility of what it takes to maintain them. That's not optional. I may not like the President and I may not have voted for him but that doesn't change the fact that he currently holds that position. Freedom isn't free. 

_I simply meant that my particular views are that killing, no matter what the reason, is wrong, and that I regret that the lives of these soldiers are being wasted needlessly_

How long do you think this Country would last without a military ready to kill on an instant's notice and able to do their job well? If the lives of soldiers are being wasted needlessly do you deny your part of the responsibility for that as well? I think you need to make an effort to deal with reality. The world is what it is; not we would like it to be.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 8, 2013)

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."


----------



## Natalie (Jul 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > USNavyVet said:
> ...



school is over for me and colege is not an option what good would school do me ne way???

worth more? thats intresting cos i thot ppl where worth sumthing just cos they ppl geuss im wrong

wat desison do u think they make??? were to be born? how rich daddy will be??? not alot of desion to make there


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...




I don't teach for free, but it seems that a reasonably intelligent adult wouldn't need this spelled out for him anyway.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

Natalie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie said:
> ...





From the way you write, it seems that school was over for you sometime before the 3rd Grade.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



A couple good points, though I assure you I'm aware of my and other citizens' role in funding the military, I'm not so naive as to not realize that. Also, in my original post I stated that Iraqis or Afghan citizens dying is doing nothing protect my freedom (in my opinion), so I don't agree with whatever moral responsibility I have to support our military. Just because I'm an American, i still reserve a right to disagree with not only the allocation of our military forces, but also their usage period. Even if I am to say that I have certain fundamental responsibilities as an American, my responsibility as a human being of this Earth trumps my role as an American. If I feel America is doing something seriously wrong in our foreign policy, I'm going to say something about it.

In terms of your second statement, the U.S. government is too focused on the fact that people want to kill us and not enough on WHY they want to kill us. Surely, we will always have enemies, just like any individual or any other country. That being said, it seems to that we often fight our enemies because they want to kill us, and our enemies often want to kill us because we fight them. Sooner or later someone will have to be the bigger person and stop the never-ending violence, and if we are all to assume that America is the bastion of liberty and freedom, I see no reason why it can't be us. There are plenty of countries in this world who have survived quite some time without a major military and without going to war. Why are we so special?

How am I responsible for the soldiers needlessly dying? I'm not saying I'm not, like for instance once again my taxes do go towards funding their missions. I was just curious if you had any other reasons behind that.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It seems to me like you and others are getting far too worked up over this person's typing, and are not paying enough attention to the substance of her writing. Obviously it's just opinion, but if you want to critique her, focus on the writing and not her spelling. It really, really does not matter, especially not on this website. One-sentence zingers do nothing to aid in this educational debate about the military and other issues.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I don't see what use there is in denying me a simple request. All I wanted was for you to explain your critique of my writing, whether or not you think I'm an "intelligent adult" is irrelevant. Assume I'm an idiot child for all I care, I just wanted some feedback.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
> 
> John Stuart Mill
> 
> ...



A good quote. Personally I think just as honorable as being willing to fight for something is being willing to die for something. I, and I would assume many other pacifists and people who don't believe in killing are certainly willing to die. I don't think it's "miserable" for someone to be willing to face death without fighting back, and I think the fact that a person being willing to die shows they're completely selfless, and not interested in self-preservation. As for the last part of the quote, I can't stop the military from fighting, but I feel free enough (whatever credit you want to give to them for that freedom) and don't necessarily consider them "better men" than myself simply because they fight and I do not. One day, war will have to stop, and with the great strides our world has made in the past century, I think that time could come fairly soon with the right people in charge and the right dedication to non-violent protest and peace.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.



Oh how I always love when somebody starts a thread that they claim is "not intended to disrespect Veterans", then turns around and does exactly that.

And maybe you should consider that many of those that are the "best and brightest" of your generation are maybe that way because they made the choice to place their country and others in front of themselves.  Think about it.



sambino510 said:


> July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.



Actually, Veteran's Day is the day set aside to honor Veterans.  Memorial Day is set aside to remember those who have fallen.  And Independence Day is to celebrate all of America, including those that serve.  The military normally takes part, because normally it is our job (or that of a Veteran) to carry the flag which represents our country, which we have all served for.

And Huey Helicopters?  I don't think I have seen one of those flying over that was military in over 20 years.



sambino510 said:


> As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.



No, it was not about "revenge", it was about eliminating AQ as a threat.  Period.  By the time he was killed, AQ had largely become impotent and fractured because the infrastructure of the organization had been destroyed.  Even though OBL was still in hiding, the organization he had spent years created was dead and gone, and in it's place a fractured in-cohesive batch of groups calling themselves "al-Qaeda XXXX" had appeared.  ANd he was increasingly frustrated because they pretty much ignored him and did whatever they wanted to do.

As for "Nation Building", I think that is something we should have been doing 20 years ago.  I long have believed that the biggest disgrace that we did to Afghanistan was after helping them throw out the Soviets, we did absolutely nothing to help them rebuild their destroyed nation.  We should have moved in and helped them put things back in order instead of allowing them to fall into a decade of civil war.



sambino510 said:


> So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people?



And that is perfectly fine with me to be honest.

Unlike some people, I have extreme sympathy for people who through only the accident of where (and who) they were born, have to suffer cruelty at the hands of others.  Be it the Afghans, the Kurds, the Bosnians, even those in Darfur.  And I find it rather disgusting that people can simply shrug and say "It's not my problem", and willingly ignore such issues simply because they are "Not Americans".

If you do not feel it is our place to be there, then feel free to not join the military.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to join.



sambino510 said:


> Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.



OK, now we get to the real meat of the issue.  And this just screams the fact that you do not understand squat about the military.

This "politics of their actual mission" is pure bilgewater.  Plain and simple, nothing else but.  While I am on the high-side of being "politically aware", I am also strongly non-partisan.  This is because I strongly believe that it is against the very idea of the military in our nation to be "Political" (at least while they are in uniform).

And this belief against partisanship for me is very neutral.  Want to turn me against somebody in a debate?  Let them refer to the past president as "Junior", or even the current one as "Hussein".  I may or may not agree with whoever the President is, or their beliefs and policies.  But if you disagree, at least have the decency to be respectful.

And those in the military do not just "obey orders".  In fact, there is absolutely no punishment for refusing to obey an order (and you can in fact get a Court Martial for obeying the wrong one).

And in closing, consider this:

You in a later post stated that the only war in the last century you could have supported was WWII.  And then you went on about Hitler.  Why is that?  Myself, the real enemy in that war was always Japan.  And not because of Pearl Harbor, but the Philippines.  They invaded and occupied an American Territory, killing countless American Civilians, turning the women into prostitutes for their Army.  That was the real reason for me being involved in WWII.

And I guess you had no problem with South Korea being invaded by North Korea.

Or Kuwait being conquered by Iraq.

Or in trying to end a bloody civil war in former Yugoslavia, where the Muslims were being slaughtered.

Or in trying to end an invasion and civi war in Lebanon.

Or in trying to end a civil war in SOmalia.

And I can go on and on.  Myself, I find apathy towards others simply because they are not "Americans" rather disgusting.  I care about all people, not just those who happen to have born or moved to this country.


----------



## Natalie (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



a presonal attack insteed of rly respond to me whats wrong no ansers???

if u rly wanna know mostly i post on my brakes at work so i dont have alot of time to make good spelling an i am not good at it ne way so why bother?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie said:
> ...




It really does matter. And now we've found something else you don't understand.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

Natalie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie said:
> ...





Is English your native language?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I think the fact that a person being willing to die shows they're completely selfless, and not interested in self-preservation..




Anyone "not interested in self-preservation" is committing an act of violence against humanity itself.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
> ...



First off, thank you for your well thought out post. Let me see if I can perhaps explain my personal views a little bit better, as it's always hard to fully present my opinions in an online post.

In my statement about the soldiers "obeying orders", I was simply stating what has always been presented to me as fact, and perhaps it was a bit stereotypical, so I apologize. I'm no military expert, and don't necessarily plan on being one. 

You can be political without being partisan; that statement was not at all related to Democrats and Republicans. By "politics" I mean WORLD politics. That is, do soldiers take into account or understand the history of the nation they are in, the reasons the war is taking place, the different parties involved (such as Sunni and Shia Muslims, different organizations, etc.). The wars we fight today are far different than ones like World War II. We are trying to connect with the people, and I think for the soldiers to understand a lot of their culture, their language, or their history could go a long way. Once again, I don't know how much training average soldiers get in this, it just seems like a good idea. We have to fight a psychological and ideological battle with our enemies just as much as a physical one (if we are to fight them at all).

I don't know if you were referring to me as disrespectful in terms of name-calling, but I'm fairly certain I didn't call any presidents any names, nor anyone posting on this site.

My statements about WWII were completely on the fly, and fail to present the full picture of my personal views. Hitler was surely a bad person; few would deny this. I don't think he was any less dangerous than Japan. Very few would deny too that the Japanese empire was a great danger to the world. However, for someone who says we should not only defend Americans in the world, but also Somalians, Yugoslavians, and so on, it surprises me that you would say Japan's biggest crime was invading an American territory. They invaded dozens of other islands in the Pacific, not to mention the entire country of China. Are we to say that only the invasion of the Phillipines and Hawaii were the tipping point? I'm not sure if this is your view, and it probably isn't, it's just a thought. Either way, I would argue that, objectively, the U.S. government at that time mainly decided to go to war because of Pearl Harbor.

But about the Philippines, it was us who took that territory from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in the first place at the end of the 19th century. Sure, we claimed we were liberating them from Spanish colonization, but we certainly weren't so nice to them either. Also, the Philippines were actually granted independence in 1934, in the Tydings-Mcduffie Act. It just wasn't made official until much later because the agreement stated it wouldn't go into effect for ten years. So, in principle at least, I'd say they were more-or-less an independent nation, at least so much in that Filipinos were from 1934 on not considered American nationals, and they had self government.

I promise you with all my heart, my opinion that we shouldn't get involved in other peoples' conflicts around the world has nothing to do with the fact they are not Americans. I struggle all the time when people ask me whether I support U.S. involvement in ending these conflicts around the world. In fact, I see no problem with involvement, to a degree, but I do not condone military action because I once again do not believe in killing as an effective cure for our world's problems. The conflicts you have listed are atrocities to be sure, but if we respond with violence then it will only lead to more violence down the line. War is a band-aid, not a vaccine.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 8, 2013)

Natalie said:


> a presonal attack insteed of rly respond to me whats wrong no ansers???
> 
> if u rly wanna know mostly i post on my brakes at work so i dont have alot of time to make good spelling an i am not good at it ne way so why bother?



Well, good thing you have not decided to go into stripping then.  There is little more disappointing then an unenthusiastic and apathetic stripper.

And no, this is not intended as an attack or a criticism, simply to make people (specifically you) think and consider.

I admit I am not the greatest in the world when it comes to English, but I am constantly working to improve myself, in this and many other areas.  And no, I am not some super-brain, I barely graduated High School, and that was 30 years ago.  But I am always seeking to improve myself, and my posts are one way I have been doing that.

I suggest that instead of just shrugging and saying "I am not good at it, so why bother", you make yourself get good at it.  I first started to do some serious writing about 20 years ago, and some of my earliest attempts make me cringe today when I look back upon them.  But I have constantly worked to improve myself, in addition to finding my own style and trying to perfect it constantly.

After all, where do you want to be in another 20 years?  If you want to be the same place that you are now, then just continue as you are doing.  If you want to be in a better position, then improve yourself.

Not an attack, an honest attempt to encourage and motivate you to improve yourself (with a little humorous-sarcasm added in).


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 8, 2013)

_"A couple good points, though I assure you I'm aware of my and other citizens' role in funding the military, I'm not so naive as to not realize that. Also, in my original post I stated that Iraqis or Afghan citizens dying is doing nothing protect my freedom (in my opinion), so I don't agree with whatever moral responsibility I have to support our military. Just because I'm an American, i still reserve a right to disagree with not only the allocation of our military forces, but also their usage period. Even if I am to say that I have certain fundamental responsibilities as an American, my responsibility as a human being of this Earth trumps my role as an American. If I feel America is doing something seriously wrong in our foreign policy, I'm going to say something about it."_

You have every right to have your own opinions and to disagree all you like. I haven't said otherwise. The point you are missing is that your moral responsibility remains exactly the same irregardless of whether we agree on the same course of action or not. Just because we're all in the same boat doesn't mean that you get to steer or be captain just because you have an opinion on where it should go or how to get there. 

_Even if I am to say that I have certain fundamental responsibilities as an American, my responsibility as a human being of this Earth trumps my role as an American_

If so you are an ungrateful asshole who doesn't deserve American citizenship. You do NOT have any right to put my Country, my family, or my rights at risk because of your fantasies of Utopia. Grow up.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't see any of your statements but the very last portion. Let me respond to some of the others. I still do not see how I was disrespecting veterans or currently enlisted soldiers with my statements. I have just as much concern, if not moreso, for their lives as any of the current politicians and generals that control their fate. I just think they are not dying in a cause that is worth fighting, and that is simply my opinion. Their choices are theirs' to make.

I was simply trying to paint a picture with my references to Memorial day and July 4th. I'm aware July 4th is not a military holiday and that they only participate because of tradition. I misspoke about Memorial Day and Veterans day differences so I apologize. It wasn't the heart of my post.

However, I promise you there was a Huey flying over my local parade, during the NRA float. Perhaps in one way or another it was controlled by them and not the actual military, but once again those little details aren't so relevant to the bigger issues.

As in keeping with my personal views, I once again simply do not support violence, and thus our mission to kill Osama Bin Laden or destroy Al Qaeda just isn't one I support. Once again, simply my opinion and the military and government will make their own choices. If someone put me in a room with Osama Bin Laden, and gave me a gun, I wouldn't shoot. If anything, we should cry, and mourn that a human being was driven to such horrible acts, and aim to improve this world so that people will no longer have a reason to commit such atrocities. Call me an idealist, but these are my views.

I agree with you about nation-building, but it's a very complex issue and I'm not sure our current U.S. military is equipped to be successful at it. It's difficult to win the hearts and minds of the people with a gun on your hip.

I have absolute full sympathy for people that were born into very unfortunate circumstances, don't get me wrong. Once again, the fact they are not American is irrelevant. But I know that there are ways of combating evil behavior around the world without a bullet or a missile. If we fight fire with fire, it only continues the vicious cycle.

I'm fully aware I have no obligation to join the military, so no need to remind me of that. I'm simply stating my views that it's unfortunate the countries of this world feel they need these huge, deadly forces.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Once again, I encourage you to explain why I do not understand and why grammar is important in this forum. I, just like the rest of you, completely understood the point she was trying to convey. If one day she chooses to improve her grammar, good for her. If not, I do not hold her as inferior.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _"A couple good points, though I assure you I'm aware of my and other citizens' role in funding the military, I'm not so naive as to not realize that. Also, in my original post I stated that Iraqis or Afghan citizens dying is doing nothing protect my freedom (in my opinion), so I don't agree with whatever moral responsibility I have to support our military. Just because I'm an American, i still reserve a right to disagree with not only the allocation of our military forces, but also their usage period. Even if I am to say that I have certain fundamental responsibilities as an American, my responsibility as a human being of this Earth trumps my role as an American. If I feel America is doing something seriously wrong in our foreign policy, I'm going to say something about it."_
> 
> You have every right to have your own opinions and to disagree all you like. I haven't said otherwise. The point you are missing is that your moral responsibility remains exactly the same irregardless of whether we agree on the same course of action or not. Just because we're all in the same boat doesn't mean that you get to steer or be captain just because you have an opinion on where it should go or how to get there.
> 
> ...



I have no intention of steering the boat, and have no control over your life. I'm just stating my opinions with the hopes of breeding interesting discussion. I also do feel I have a moral responsibility, but that responsibility, in my mind, is to end violence in the world. I don't believe in a moral killing. Perhaps a necessary killing, but never moral. 

Just because I hold myself accountable on a global scale rather than on an American scale doesn't mean I'm not grateful. Personally, I think our current politicians are putting the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of tomorrow at risk by perpetuating the idea that war is the answer to the world's problems. Once again though, just my opinion, and I appreciate your commentary as your views are certainly not bad ones, just different from mine. No problem there.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact that a person being willing to die shows they're completely selfless, and not interested in self-preservation..
> ...



An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 8, 2013)

_An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make. _

Is it? What if someone decides to rape and torture you to death as your Arab buddies are so fond of doing?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



small people care more about the way a person says something than what they have to say.


----------



## Natalie (Jul 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



does it rly matter???

if u jus want to make fun of me go ahead i dont care u prolly cant come up with ne thing i dont here b4 so go ahead lol


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 8, 2013)

OK, I am going to fracture this a bit, to get some things out of the way early.

And yes, I am in the military now.  I am 48 years old, served in 2 branches for over 16 years now, and have served under every President since the first Reagan administration.

And while I am a "political individual", I am very careful to "keep it away from the flagpole".  This is something most of us do, because not only does politics have no place in the military (no more then it does in your civilian employment), it can be detrimental (getting along with your Sergeant Major can be really bad if he finds out that the POLITICIAN that he adores you think is a horses-ass, or if he thinks one you rever is a horses-ass).



sambino510 said:


> I don't know if you were referring to me as disrespectful in terms of name-calling, but I'm fairly certain I didn't call any presidents any names, nor anyone posting on this site.



No, that was not aimed at you at all, just an example of how I view such individuals.  If somebody has to resort to such petty behavior, it is just rude.  I try very hard to treat everybody respectfully, especially those I disagree with.  I admit I may get a bit sarcastic at times, but it is intended as humor, not insult (80% of the time, I have no patience or kindness for bigots, racists, or idiots of that ilk).



sambino510 said:


> In my statement about the soldiers "obeying orders", I was simply stating what has always been presented to me as fact, and perhaps it was a bit stereotypical, so I apologize. I'm no military expert, and don't necessarily plan on being one.



This is a common misconception.  No, we are not mindless robots.  We are not killing machines, even if we have been trained to kill (I spent 10 years in the Marine Corps, Infantry).  Fighting is something we may have to do, but that is our job.  We no more look forward to it then a cop in pulling out his gun and shooting somebody.  It is part of our job, and if we are called upon to do it we want to do it right the first time, before we or our buddies gets hurt.

Actually, almost everybody in the military is no different then anybody else.  Sure, we have our own "culture", like calling each other by their last names, saluting, and all the rest.  But it really is not much different then any other organization when you see what is going on.

And as I said, you can't get in trouble for refusing an order.  Many times during my career I have refused them, confident in knowing that the actual charge is "Disobedience to a * Lawful* Order".  And most of us actually question orders almost any day, it is actually encouraged (especially if you can think of a better way to do something).  And if somebody gives an order that is not Lawful or bad, then they face possible Court Martial, dismissal from the military, and even death.



sambino510 said:


> By "politics" I mean WORLD politics. That is, do soldiers take into account or understand the history of the nation they are in, the reasons the war is taking place, the different parties involved (such as Sunni and Shia Muslims, different organizations, etc.).



Actually, that is taught to us prior to deploying.  And most of us get many awareness classes before, during, and even after deployment.  I would say that most in the military are much more aware of such things then the majority of civilians.

Case in point, I have seen a great many civilians insist that Afghanistan is in the "Middle East", or that Iranians are "Arabs".  Both are grossly incorrect, and I am very aware of the differences (and a great many others, you will never see me confuse al-Fatah with Hamas.  I am well aware of the differences between the two organizations (which once again I doubt most civilians could say).

Most of us are very aware of such things, because it is not just some bit of information but because it could potentially impact us in a very real way.



sambino510 said:


> The wars we fight today are far different than ones like World War II. We are trying to connect with the people, and I think for the soldiers to understand a lot of their culture, their language, or their history could go a long way. Once again, I don't know how much training average soldiers get in this, it just seems like a good idea. We have to fight a psychological and ideological battle with our enemies just as much as a physical one (if we are to fight them at all).



Actually, they are really not all that different.  Most of WWII was really attempting to liberate various areas that our enemies had conquered and occupied.  And most of the wars since then have been the exact same thing.

And one of the lessons from World War I was that you can't just knock out a country, walk away, then expect things to be "Happily Ever After".  You have to help them rebuild afterwards, or all you will do is guarantee that in another generation an even worse bastard may come along and restart it all over again as an act of vengeance.

My idea is that if you have to fight a war, make it as short, fast, and violent as possible.  Knock them down to the ground and pound the dogsnot out of them, both as an object lesson to them, but to others that may have the same idea.  Then once he is lying bleeding and unconscious, help somebody else rebuild things in a different way in the hopes it is never needed again.

To me, a short-fast-violent war is much less costly (in the terms of innocent civilians) then one of those low-boiling ones that festers for a decade or more.



sambino510 said:


> However, for someone who says we should not only defend Americans in the world, but also Somalians, Yugoslavians, and so on, it surprises me that you would say Japan's biggest crime was invading an American territory. They invaded dozens of other islands in the Pacific, not to mention the entire country of China.



And I am well aware of this.  However, at the time our country was very isolationist, and refused to get involved in anything that did not directly start the US (Japan had even attacked us earlier, but it was largely ignored).

We probably would have stayed neutral even longer if they had only gone after the Dutch and UK territories, and left all US ones alone.  Japanese attacks upon Indonesia, Hong Kong, and AUSNZ would probably have been largely ignored, if not for the fact that we were attacked at the same time.

But as far as direct US involvement, I see the Philippines as much more important then Pearl Harbor.  If they had simply attacked our fleet and left without attacking and taking over the Philippines, we _might_ even have had a short war then both went our separate ways (not likely, but possible).  But for some reason, most people when talking about December 1941 tend to forget that the people living in the Philippines were US citizens, as much as those living in California or Hawaii.



sambino510 said:


> But about the Philippines, it was us who took that territory from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in the first place at the end of the 19th century. Sure, we claimed we were liberating them from Spanish colonization, but we certainly weren't so nice to them either. Also, the Philippines were actually granted independence in 1934, in the Tydings-Mcduffie Act. It just wasn't made official until much later because the agreement stated it wouldn't go into effect for ten years. So, in principle at least, I'd say they were more-or-less an independent nation, at least so much in that Filipinos were from 1934 on not considered American nationals, and they had self government.



Yes, the same war we obtained Cuba in (which we also granted independence to).

As for their treatment, are you even aware who our major enemy was in the Philippine Wars?

Well, they were not the majority of Pilipino citizens.  Most of the trouble came from religious extremist groups, like the Pulahan (blend f mythology and Catholicism), the Moros (fundamentalist Muslims), and the Sultanate of Sulu Dar al-Islam (yet another fundamentalist Islamic group).

The worst of them all was probably the Moros.  They wanted nothing short of the expulsion, conversion, or death of all Catholics in the country, and the creation of an Islamic nation.  

And no, the Tydings-Mcduffie Act was not independence.  It created the framework for Philippine self-determination, nothing else.  It gave benchmarks that they would need to fulfill if they chose independence, which are actually not to far off from the steps they would have needed if they wanted to become a state.  The choice was entirely theirs, as it is now in Puerto Rico (which is increasingly trying to attain statehood).

And of major importance, the Tydings-Mcduffie Act when it comes to citizenship was declared Unconstitutional in 1940.  Most of it was allowed to stand (such as allowing the Philippines to call a Constitutional Convention and determine their own future), but the citizenship issue was tossed out.

And to be technically correct, they were properly "US Nationals" or "residents", not "Citizens".  But tens of thousands made the choice to become US citizens before, during and after independence.

In fact, to this day there is a program most are not aware of, and that is the recruiting of Philippine Citizens into the US military (predominantly the Navy).  For over 100 years the Navy has traditionally allowed individuals from the Philippines to enlist (and later become US Citizens), and the competition for these positions are very competitive.



sambino510 said:


> I promise you with all my heart, my opinion that we shouldn't get involved in other peoples' conflicts around the world has nothing to do with the fact they are not Americans. I struggle all the time when people ask me whether I support U.S. involvement in ending these conflicts around the world. In fact, I see no problem with involvement, to a degree, but I do not condone military action because I once again do not believe in killing as an effective cure for our world's problems. The conflicts you have listed are atrocities to be sure, but if we respond with violence then it will only lead to more violence down the line. War is a band-aid, not a vaccine.



I see, so instead we just sit back and watch the slaughter continue.

Trust me, Saddam would not have left Kuwait unless he was forced out.  The Serbians would not have stopped slaughtering the Muslims unless they were forced to do so.  Nobody seriously stopped the slaughter in Somalia and Darfur, and it still continues to this day, 20 years later.

And one thing for sure, when you put a bullet in the head of enough genocidal maniacs, either they learn to not behave that way, or you run out of genocidal maniacs.  And unless somebody puts an end to the atrocities through force, they will never stop.

At least until the people being slaughtered are no longer.  And to me that is most definitely not a solution.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 8, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make.



And if somebody then comes up and puts a gun to your head after killing your family, then it is my right if I choose to step in and put a bullet into their brain housing group instead.

Because I would rather die fighting for others, then simply sit back and whine that it is so horrible that the Myopioans are being slaughtered, and that somebody should do something about it.

My choice was to potentially put myself in harm's way, so that hopefully everybody else can sleep better at night.

As you said it yourself, that is how I decided to live my life, protecting and defending others.  And I do not define "others" simply as US citizens, but everybody else.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make.
> ...



Once again, I define "others" in the same way. And all those things are certainly your choice to make. I would hope you do not still feel I am disrespecting the military, or the choices you've made, as I promise that even if I disagree with your views I very much respect you and your dedication to this topic. My views on killing might not be logical or practical, and I understand that; I guess they're a bit more philosophical (not to sound too dramatic). But most people hold your view that they will kill in self-defense and especially in the defense of others, and that's perfectly reasonable.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> OK, I am going to fracture this a bit, to get some things out of the way early.
> 
> And yes, I am in the military now.  I am 48 years old, served in 2 branches for over 16 years now, and have served under every President since the first Reagan administration.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the history lesson, as although I am "mostly" familiar with such aspects of world history, I've also only just learned them. I'm also impressed with the training you talked about that soldiers receive, and am very glad to hear that that's part of the process. I hope I didn't offend with my somewhat stereotypical viewpoints, I'm a bit naive in terms of the inner workings of the military. I judge the macro, not so much the micro, and maybe that's my fault. In terms of putting a "bullet in the head" of wrongdoers, that's certainly a solution that has worked and will most likely continue to work down the line. However, I don't see how we are any different from the maniacs at that point. Sure, in issues like Somalia we could say from our perspective they are the obvious wrongdoers and are slaughtering civilians. In their opinion, they're doing what they think is right. I think it's presumptive for the U.S. government to always assume we're the shining example for all others to follow. I guess I just think a change must come at some point, and this change won't come until we fight our battles in different ways. That being said, it's easy for me to say this sitting comfortably as a regular citizen. As President or a general, it would be hard for me to make such statements. I realize my statements are far from realistic, but they are still my own and I understand the criticism you or others have of me.

All that being said, I once again thank you for your viewpoints, and your insistence on responding to all of my statements. This is a very important topic to me and I appreciate any feedback. Much love and respect.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 8, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make. _
> 
> Is it? What if someone decides to rape and torture you to death as your Arab buddies are so fond of doing?



I don't see what a person's ethnicity has to do with their choices, or how "Arab" necessarily relates to rape or torture. There are no doubt cases of rape by Arabs, but not disproportionate to whites, blacks, Latinos, anybody. Also, what that I've said implies I'm friends with them? I'm not saying I don't like them, but I have no more or less respect for Arabs than I do for Caucasians. However, to answer your question, yes, I'd die being raped and tortured to death before I took up arms.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make. _
> ...



Yeah? Please feel free to tell that to all the POW's that have been treated so well by their terrorist captors. And didn't our ambassador's corpse look so peaceful in that picture with his pants around his ankles? 
Philosophy? Don't flatter yourself. I suspect you simply are unable to appreciate the precious gifts other Americans have sacrificed so much to give you. Just a coward with the moral sense of a spoiled child who lives somewhere in a fantasy world where unicorns fart rainbows. I've wasted enough time here.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Natalie appears to be putting on a pretty good act. But then that's just my opinion..I doubt her English, spelling, and grammar is as bad as she makes it......


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



My ideology is probably different than yours.  I dislike socialism in all its forms---especially the end product of communism.  At the end of WW2 in 1945, Communism gained far more ground than capitalism.  Communism was the big winner.  The land deals US Presidents and Churchhill made with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam were inexsusable.  FDR warrents greater responisibility for this as he was very enanamoured the ideas of communism---having enacted many like programs over the years.

Because Islam is first a form of government with various kings, warlords and other brutes keeping the uneducated masses under their boots---I consider all Islamic nations to have misfit status.  They can never truely be Westernized unless they convert to Christianity.

Having a powerful leader than keeps his nose clean is probably the best any of these nations can do.  Because crude oil is so important to the West, best to let strategic countries like Saudia Arabia alone with their kings or dictators.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _An interesting way of putting it, but I think a human has a right to choose how they want to live their life, as well as how they want to one day die. If I choose that I'll die peacefully rather than die fighting, that's my choice to make. _
> ...



That's odd.  You believe it is right for nations to use deadly force against those who attack them during a war, but don't believe it is right for you to do the same in your own home?

Are you saying that if a pair of large thugs broke into your home and were beginning to rape and torture the helpless women and children inside, you would not pick up a hypothetical loaded gun next to you and defend them?  Are you so much of a pacifist or anti-gun you would cut off your nose to spite your face?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Whatever I've said about a country reacting to with deadly force is only what I would probably have to do hypothetically as President. If it was up to me and I didn't have hundreds of millions of lives on the line, I wouldn't react at all. For instance, after 9/11, if it wouldn't have gotten me impeached and completely ruined public opinion of me, I wouldn't have gone off to war to take out Al Qaeda. I think nations perhaps have a "right" to react in whatever way they see fit, but I don't agree with deadly force as a means of solving a problem. I pray that I'm never forced to make that choice (the hypothetical situation where people break into my house), but yeah, in theory I'm that much of a pacifist. That being said, in a given situation who knows how me or another person would react. In all likelihood, I'd pick up the gun.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



Socialism, or especially Communism, has certainly been mis-used under various dictatorships throughout history, but I don't think "necessarily" it was the ideology itself that made the governments unsuccessful; these leaders simply weren't very good people. Communism itself seems to me to be sort of utopian and therefore not very realistic. Just my perspective. Socialism though I've always thought is present all over Europe today, in areas like their health care or education (vague aspects of socialism anyways), but maybe I'm wrong in classifying it as such.

In terms of Islam, I've studied Islam for quite some time now and I don't see why, in principle, it caters any more to a dictatorship than Christianity or Judaism. Christianity has also had many kings over the years. None of these religions are all so different from one another, there are simply different, radical or non-radical interpretations of them. Once again, leaders can hijack certain ideologies for their own gain, but it's not the religion itself that I see as the problem. In terms of Saudi Arabia, I fail to see how, morally, we can advocate for more rights for Iranians, who "technically" have a democracy already (however well that works or doesn't work), while we completely ignore the civilians of our oil buddies or military allies like Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, or Saudi Arabia.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



I never said POW's are treated well, but I don't think there's any definite proof that we treat our POW's much better. It's war, it's a dirty business. I assume you're referring to Christopher Stephens who died in Lybia. The last thing I'd want to do is speak for him, but I would assume, him being a diplomat, that he would sooner die than take up a rifle against whoever killed him. I have no idea how true that is, but as a diplomat (which is one day what I hope to be), I think it's important to have that mind-set. Anyways, thank you for all your input on this post; I hope I have not wasted your time too completely, or offended you all that much. Much respect and love, despite our differences.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



That's just a normal human response.

What I find detestable is our some of our current socaialist leaders, who are guarded by SS men armed to the teeth with guns they want banned for any honest citizen to defend even their own homes with.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



I suppose you could classify it as a normal human response, but I suppose I'm a bit of an extreme idealist in the way that I think those "normal human responses" create a "norm" of violence. That is, war and violence are simply accepted as natural human behaviors, as necessities. I hold the life of some gangbanger raiding my house as equal to my life or the life of my loved ones. (Once again, very easy to say without being married or having children yet.) I can almost guarantee you I'd fight, but I'd struggle with it mentally both at the time and down the line.

I don't see any evidence that the government is trying to COMPLETELY ban guns. Personally, I think the larger weapons are a bit unnecessary when defending one's home, unless you're trying to say that the government will one day attack us and we have to defend against them. For the average criminal raiding your home, I think a handgun or shotgun would do just fine. But I suppose the problem lies in the simple idea of gun CONTROL, and that's why everyone is frustrated. I agree with you in some ways, in that getting a few guns off the street isn't going to solve any problems. In principle though, I think both sides are getting too worked up. I doubt the legislation will even pass though.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Natalie said:
> ...



As far as these discussions go you are right.   Cyber chicken scratches would be sufficient.   However, if an individual's choices are between a decent job and waitressing or stripping, lack of communication skills is crucial.

When I see a young girl saying that her choices to be waitress or a stripper and then goes forward into proving that, perhaps a well placed comment that she is absolutely correct might give pause and a step on another path.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Your ideals on equality are of little use in the real world unless you want to be stepped on.

If all people deserve equal treatment, then there should also be no limits on what they can do.  Really there would be no right and no wrong.  There should also be no consequences for anyones actions.

Expecting the police or the government to step in and take care of all conflict is not workable anywhere on the planet.

As far as gun control in the US, there are legions of liberals who like Piers Morgan on CNN believe the no guns should be in the hands of private citizens.  Less radical ones would at least like to have gun laws as they do in the UK.  Know that liberals like Obama and Schumer don't hate guns, they just don't want them in the hands of the common people they want full control of.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I never said POW's are treated well, but I don't think there's any definite proof that we treat our POW's much better.



The POWs we hold are under constant monitoring, not only by our Government, but by the International Red Crescent.  They get visitations, religious services, and are held in conditions no different then other jails.

They get medical care, religious services, and no threats are made of them, they are not forced to give videotaped confessions, or anything else of the kind.

Now tell me, how many American POWs enjoy that kind of conditions?

Well, in over 10 years of fighting in Afghanistan, they are holding exactly 1 POW, Bowe Bergdahl.  ALl others ever captured were executed and dumped into the garbage.  And do you think that Sergeant Bargdahl has had a single visit by the International Red Crescent?

No, I don't think so either.  So please do not take this as offensive, but STFU unless you know what you are talking about.  POWs are something I take very-very seriously.  We go well out of our way to go beyond what is required by international treaties.  Those we are fighting use them for buttwipe and happily behead those they capture after torturing them.  Then dumping them in the trash, or a ditch, or burning them in the middle of the street.

Bowe Bergdahl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahmed Kousay al-Taie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karbala provincial headquarters raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said POW's are treated well, but I don't think there's any definite proof that we treat our POW's much better.
> ...



Well since you chose to be offended when I said please do not be offended by my opinion on veterans, I feel free to choose to be offended when you tell me to shut the fuck up. Granted, I'm not offended, as obviously I've misspoken in some way that has once again misrepresented my knowledge or my views (a common habit of mine). I also once again ask your forgiveness for anything I say that is untrue about the military. I simply speak from random knowledge I've attained over time through books, articles, and word of mouth, so the image is a bit fractured. 

I'm well aware of our policies towards POWs, and know that we try very hard to adhere to cultural and religious norms. That being said, there are certainly incidents, though isolated, which come up, such as urinating on the dead body of one of our enemies. There are also plenty of incidents of various U.S. soldiers being beheaded or dragged through the streets; I can't deny this. But sure, if statistically you want to make the argument that we treat our POWs better than they treat their POWs, I won't or can't stop you. I simply choose not to judge right from wrong by the numbers. Whether you're beheading someone or indefinitely detaining someone, I just think neither side has the moral high ground. I applaud the U.S. military's efforts to treat prisoners humanely, and denounce any cases of our enemies treating our POW's inhumanely, but war is war is war. 

The terrorists or whoever we are fighting believe they are doing the right thing. We believe we are doing the right thing. Hitler believed he was doing the right thing. Ho Chi Minh believed he was doing the right thing. I have serious doubt there was ever an "evil" person in the history of the human race, at least not the stereotypical evil genius's portrayed in movies that love being evil just for the fun of it. People may do "evil" things, but they themselves do not think what they are doing is wrong. We all have to find unity in the fact that despite our quite varied methods, we want the same damn thing; a better world. I don't care if someone is a terrorist or a preacher, I may not agree with the methodology but I most likely agree with the ultimate goal (within reason). The ends don't necessarily justify the means, but it's still very, very important to take into account.

I may not agree with you about your various ideologies, but I can at least find a way to love you and understand you for your ultimate goals, as well as anyone else, no matter how radical or unreasonable they may seem.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



It's surely not realistic for there to be a completely anarchic world with no consequences. I personally have a hard time believing in right and wrong sometimes, but I still believe in limitation. Maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrit in that way, but nonetheless that's my view.

I also agree that it's not reasonable to expect the police or government to intervene in conflict. However, I for one do not believe it is necessarily the U.S.'s place to intervene in conflicts around the world. There have been plenty of major conflicts or issues throughout history resolved without U.S. help; today is no different. We can be a shining example to others, but that does not necessarily mean putting boots on the ground.

In terms of gun control, we could go on and on about the debate. I must say I lean more towards your view and see no reason why the common man can't own a gun. Once again, however, I cite the fact that they are doing in terms of legislation in order to restrict your right to carry a handgun. All I've heard about primarily is background checks and assault weapon bans, the former of which I agree with and the latter of which I feel will do no good. I'm just tired of a society whose policy is centered around fear. The gun control people fear the common man with a gun, and the gun advocates fear their house will be robbed or their daughter will be attacked, or something of the sort. This fear breeds irrational behavior, and irrational decision-making by both sides. 

Tomorrow someone could get pissed off at work, go to their nearby high school, and kill forty children before the policeman stationed across campus could do anything about it. In the Arizona theater mass murder, if someone had, say, had a gun in that situation to stop the killer, I think multiple people pulling out guns and shooting in pitch black darkness might not be the best solution to an already chaotic situation. Killing is so, so easy, and it's a miracle that it doesn't happen even more; a true testament, I think, to human restraint and non-violence.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Sure, in the real world I'm aware of the endless benefits good grammar and education in general can bring. I was just frustrated that people seemed to be ignoring the content of her writing. Your point is one well taken.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Well since you chose to be offended when I said please do not be offended by my opinion on veterans, I feel free to choose to be offended when you tell me to shut the fuck up. Granted, I'm not offended, as obviously I've misspoken in some way that has once again misrepresented my knowledge or my views (a common habit of mine). I also once again ask your forgiveness for anything I say that is untrue about the military. I simply speak from random knowledge I've attained over time through books, articles, and word of mouth, so the image is a bit fractured.



One thing you have to understand, there are very few things that actually "push my buttons".  And you just happened to touch upon one of them.  Racism is another one.  But POWs is right there also, and I proudly wear my POW-MIA patch on the right shoulder of my leather jacket.  

But my blood does start to boil when people whine that we are being "inhumane" when somebody puts a pair of panties on the head of a prisoner, and at the same time ignoring a slew of our own young men who were tortured and beheaded.  

One thing I encourage people to do is to do research, not just talk from what others tell them.  Simply repeating what you have been told by others is not the action of a person, that is the action of a sheep.  Please, don't be a sheep.

One thing you will discover about me is that I challenge people to think.  I also challenge them to do research, and to discover things for themselves.  I even challenge people to question what I say, and invite them to find the facts for themselves.  



sambino510 said:


> I'm well aware of our policies towards POWs, and know that we try very hard to adhere to cultural and religious norms. That being said, there are certainly incidents, though isolated, which come up, such as urinating on the dead body of one of our enemies. There are also plenty of incidents of various U.S. soldiers being beheaded or dragged through the streets; I can't deny this. But sure, if statistically you want to make the argument that we treat our POWs better than they treat their POWs, I won't or can't stop you. I simply choose not to judge right from wrong by the numbers.



Well, how about these numbers:

Number of POWs held by US during the war:  779
Number Released:  205
Number executed:  0

Number of Coalition POWs taken in Afghanistan:  25
Number released:  0
Number executed:  24
Number held:  1

Kind of hard to argue with those numbers.  And of the 11 confirmed alive when captured in Iraq, every single one was executed, none came home alive.



sambino510 said:


> Whether you're beheading someone or indefinitely detaining someone, I just think neither side has the moral high ground. I applaud the U.S. military's efforts to treat prisoners humanely, and denounce any cases of our enemies treating our POW's inhumanely, but war is war is war.



No, war is not war is not war.  The US and most nations we have fought against have tried to uphold the Laws of Land Warfare as existed at that time.  But there are also exceptions in this, like Japan.  North Vietnam was kind of uneven in their treatment, but that also varied depending on if the person was captured by the conventional NVA, or the guerrilla Viet Cong.  NVA tended to follow the rules, the VC rarely did.

We do have laws when it comes to war, and we follow them quite closely.  You will not see hollowpoint slugs used on the battlefield by US forces, nor will you see flame weapons, chemical weapons, nor heavy machine guns used against personnel (however they may be used against the building or vehicle that personnel are inside of).  We also do not use trip detonated landmines, nor do we use landmines in an offensive manner.

And the beheadings are not exactly remarkable in this area.  The same thing happened to untold number of Soviets captured during their war as well.



sambino510 said:


> The terrorists or whoever we are fighting believe they are doing the right thing. We believe we are doing the right thing. Hitler believed he was doing the right thing. Ho Chi Minh believed he was doing the right thing.



I however do believe in evil, and the names you mention are all very different.

As cruel as Hitler was to his own people and those he conquered, his forces were generally followers of the Geneva Convention.  Uncle Ho was the same way for the most part, both in their treatment of French prisoners, as well as others (most of the atrocities were VC, not the North Vietnamese Army).

And I really could not care less if they think they are "doing the right thing" or not.  Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by killing millions of his own citizens, but that does not excuse him for his crimes to humanity.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Wow,  anti gun and race card at the same time.....

And If i was in command of a 30 man infantry Platoon i certainly would worry about a village of 1100 people knowing that probably 700 or better were armed. Even with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.....


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...




The first point you don't understand has been explained to you well enough by others here. If you can't grasp what they have told you, then you won't grasp more than that. As for the second point, unless that other poster is quite new to the English language or has a very serious learning disability, he or she is utterly lacking in self-respect. No one gets as far as the minimum mandated by our compulsory educational system - no matter how bad the school - without being capable of expressing him or herself better than that. No one is perfect, and "even a monkey sometimes falls from the tree" as they say, but that degree of disregard for how one presents oneself is deserving of disdain. All of this is likely moot, as the poster in question is probably someone's sock putting on a show with the whole stupid act.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 9, 2013)

_Auteur:

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away. _

In point of fact, yes, I am a combat veteran and I think your opinion is wrong to the point of being laughable. What in the world makes you think that the military would not oppose a tyranny as readily as the rest of the people?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> If one day she chooses to improve her grammar, good for her. If not, I do not hold her as inferior.




Then you do her a disservice.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government".



Actually, the majority of those in my family that own guns have done military service.  Not only that, but my 4 maile cousins and myself, we have all served.  1 4 years in the Navy, 1 6 years in the Marines, 2 20+ years in the Marines, and myself 10 years Marines and 6+ in the Army (still serving).

And trust me, what you mention is anything *but* ludicrous.  You apparently have absolutely no concept of how a domestic insurgency can start and spread.  You only need a small core of individuals with some training or skills (hunting skills are almost as valuable in this circumstance).  Then you start with a bunch of old junk, and improve from those you kill.

Just look at the original Red Dawn, or our own Revolutionary War.  Both are good examples of exactly how this works.  Also in Libya last year, and in Syria this year.  Do you think the rebels *started* with military rifles, grenade launchers and RPGs?  No, they took them from their dead enemies as the movement grew.

And do not forget, most of us who served have experience in training and leading others.  Give me 30 individuals and I can train them in a lot of sophisticated Infantry tactics (that was my career for 10 years).  I can make somebody a fighter, but I can't make a weapon.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _Auteur:
> 
> The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.
> 
> ...



Then you have negated your own arguement. If the military is going to do it, then the contribution of a bunch of unorganized, gun waving extremists is only going to complicate matters for them. They don't need you, to put it bluntly. If you were planning a crucial military operation, would you want a bunch of untrained, untested, unorganized, ill-equipped, uncertain mobs off on your left flank somewhere, intending to do something, perhaps in coordination with you, perhaps not? Of course not.

In fact the only contribution of wide spread gun ownership is what is produced currently: mass shootings, one of the highest rates in the world, and the untold human misery that comes from this. While you are living out your John Wayne fantasy, others are paying the price.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government".
> ...



My good man, you must be joking. At least I hope you are. Have you not read your own countries history? The Revolutionary War was won due to the decisive intervention of France and Spain at critical points, and to  a lessor degree because the war was not supported in Britain generally, as it was thought to be a war on brothers (which it was essentially). If not for that, it might of stretched on for decades, or forever.

Libya was only won due to massive intervention by NATO forces, which had overwhelming superiority over local forces. Even then it was a close call at some points. Without that, the rebels would have lost.

Syria today is a standoff, even though some very sophisticated weapons have made their way to the rebels. And they are fighting a relatively small, modest, ill motivated military force.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Well since you chose to be offended when I said please do not be offended by my opinion on veterans, I feel free to choose to be offended when you tell me to shut the fuck up. Granted, I'm not offended, as obviously I've misspoken in some way that has once again misrepresented my knowledge or my views (a common habit of mine). I also once again ask your forgiveness for anything I say that is untrue about the military. I simply speak from random knowledge I've attained over time through books, articles, and word of mouth, so the image is a bit fractured.
> ...



Well I once again apologize for pushing your buttons. That was not my intention and these are obviously topics which can get the blood boiling for a number of different people. However, I want to assure you that although I made the point that I hear a number of things from others, I do not just regurgitate random information like a mindless robot. I'm not a "sheep"; I'm a 20 year old college student studying international diplomacy trying to establish his world view. I read a lot, I study deep into many various topics, and try not to misspeak but it's inevitable when I'm only just now learning about things.

I assure you I'm aware of the various statistics you've mentioned, at least in principle, not necessarily the specific numbers. I know the terrorists, whether it's Taliban or whoever, are not necessarily good people. I just choose not to see them as lesser or inferior to our military, me, or anyone else. I think we're either all right, or we're all wrong in the way we all handle our problems.

In terms of laws of warfare, I read something the other day and I'm sure you'd be one to know this. I'm not sure if this is correct but it looked as if the U.S. never signed a portion of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting indiscriminate bombing. Is this true? I don't mean this as some "in your face" comment, I'm literally just asking for clarification. There was also another one forbidding the attack on cultural monuments, but that's far less important.

I'm also aware the names mentioned are very different, I was simply trying to name a number of various leaders throughout the past century who most consider were evil or bad, and how much of that depends on perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Granted, almost everyone certainly thinks Hitler was an evil person, but I just think there's something to the fact that all these men acted with the best intentions. I don't applaud their actions, but once again, I think that still matters.

I have a funny feeling me and you will never convince each other of a different viewpoint, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not trying to bring you over to the pacifist side or some crap like that, I respect your views and think they're all the rational, "normal" way of thinking. The differences between us are the differences between a military man and a diplomatic man; simply two different occupations and two different ways of solving a problem, neither one necessarily the wrong way of doing it.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



Baloney. You would call in an airstrike or an artillery strike, and that would be the end of that. Such things would not be an alternative for a civil population armed with rifles and shotguns.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _Auteur:
> ...



Though I agree with most of what you said, I think the gun control people are living just as much of a fantasy. I see no reason why they would advocate the removal of assault weapons from the market when handguns are the leading killer, especially with gang wars in places like Chicago or Oakland. They're far more practical and easy to conceal. We are far too fixated on mass shootings for the "shock" effect and not concerned enough with the average murder. That doesn't mean I don't think anything should be done, but Sandy Hook seems to have focused the debates on more unorthodox weaponry and not on conventional ones.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _Auteur:
> ...



The fact is that strict control does not reduce the murder rate and that is especially true of tyrannies under which governments tend to conduct their own mass murders and untold misery for fun and profit.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government".
> ...



I agree with this. An insurgency can make a huge impact on a superior force with the right strategies and understanding of warfare. That doesn't even necessarily mean picking up superior weaponry over time, though that surely occurs. I would take the recent terrorist organizations as an example. 9/11 has had a profound control on foreign policy and on our mindset as a society in general, and they did it with a couple of box cutters and some flight school training. So I think despite the fact I do believe the U.S. military would squash most potential uprisings, I think a revolution is definitely not an impossibility (for whatever reason that may happen. After all, this is not Egypt.)


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



You are unreasonably impressed by high tech. equipment. Put an arrow through a pilot and his days of making airstrikes are over.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 9, 2013)

Auteur said:


> My good man, you must be joking. At least I hope you are. Have you not read your own countries history? The Revolutionary War was won due to the decisive intervention of France and Spain at critical points, and to  a lessor degree because the war was not supported in Britain generally, as it was thought to be a war on brothers (which it was essentially). If not for that, it might of stretched on for decades, or forever.
> 
> Libya was only won due to massive intervention by NATO forces, which had overwhelming superiority over local forces. Even then it was a close call at some points. Without that, the rebels would have lost.
> 
> Syria today is a standoff, even though some very sophisticated weapons have made their way to the rebels. And they are fighting a relatively small, modest, ill motivated military force.



Yes, actually I know my history quite well.  And notice, I did not say "win", but "began".  Great big difference between the two.

The Revolution started in 1775, the French did not get seriously involved until 1778, 3 years later.  Libya's Civil War started in January, NATO did not get involved until March (and aircraft do *not* win wars, only boots on the ground do).  The Syrian Civil War has been going for over 2 years now.

Oh, and do not think that the Libyan Civil War would have been lost without NATO.  More and more of Qadaffy Duck's own forces were turning against him, and it would likely still be going on today without NATO.  They just ended it sooner, they did not in and of themselves end the war.

So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about.  And what I said matches that.  It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what an insurgency actually is, how it starts and how it works.

Myself, I have decades devoted to military history, plus over 15 years in uniform.  What exactly is your expertise may I ask?  Because you have apparently shot down 2 experienced veterans, with no apparent reason as to what your credibility is.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 9, 2013)

I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



I agree. Any gun control program should include all weapons, especially handguns.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



1) Strict gun control does reduce the murder rate. What are the death rates from guns in places like Britain, Canada, or other very similar countries that differ in that they control guns? And please don't tell me that gun violence is still high in places like Chicago. How much trouble is it to drive to Chicago from Texas with some guns for sale?

2) Yes, some extreme dictatorships do awful things. And they tend to get away with them until a superior force of arms comes along. With today's technology, that's not going to happen with a rag-tag mob of militas with squirrel guns.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



That's quite an archer- placing an arrow 20,000 feet in the air, and through titanium metal.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > My good man, you must be joking. At least I hope you are. Have you not read your own countries history? The Revolutionary War was won due to the decisive intervention of France and Spain at critical points, and to  a lessor degree because the war was not supported in Britain generally, as it was thought to be a war on brothers (which it was essentially). If not for that, it might of stretched on for decades, or forever.
> ...



That's right, the intervention of European powers came later, and that's what ended it. Britain was then facing a world war, with two powerful adversaries, and a populace at home that didn't support the war in the colonies. These were critical issues in the Revolutionary War, although ones not always popular with Americans.



Mushroom said:


> Oh, and do not think that the Libyan Civil War would have been lost without NATO.  More and more of Qadaffy Duck's own forces were turning against him, and it would likely still be going on today without NATO.  They just ended it sooner, they did not in and of themselves end the war.



NATO intervened because it seemed the fall of Bengazi was near, and with it a bloodbath that would have been unsavory for the world community to watch. The only chance the rebels had would have been massive defections of the military, along with their arms, to the other side. This would have been highly unlikely due to the tribal nature of Libya, and also the then vested interests of those in positions of power within the military, and not least the fear of retribution for those that defected too late, or to the wrong people. Without this they probably would have lost.



Mushroom said:


> [
> So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about.  And what I said matches that.  It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what an insurgency actually is, how it starts and how it works.
> 
> Myself, I have decades devoted to military history, plus over 15 years in uniform.  What exactly is your expertise may I ask?  Because you have apparently shot down 2 experienced veterans, with no apparent reason as to what your credibility is.



Being a veteran helps, but it does not necessarily coincide with a study of history or geopolitics. And American history does not necessarily coincide with that of the rest of the world, as we have seen by reading these pages.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 9, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.



And so killing unsuspecting animals is a qualifyer for taking on tanks, helicopter gunships, precision guided weapons, satellite surveillence, cruise missiles, not to mention all the intelligence and police functions of a modern state? Deer could only wish they had such backing. You are talking rubbish.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 10, 2013)

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.
> ...



Who's to say what side would have what weapons? And all you listed require living people to function.
Deer don't _need_ such backing to be hard to kill.
You are the one dishing out the rubbish.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 10, 2013)

A side note to everyone posting replies; try and avoid any personal attacks. This is a place for intellectual debate, not blatant statements like "you're wrong" or "you're full of shit". This is a sensitive, important topic and we all have very differing views about it, none of them necessarily "wrong". Just something to keep in mind. Thanks to everyone for all the responses, over 1,200 views and about 150 replies in just a few days is pretty incredible.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 10, 2013)

Auteur said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



How many thousands of little villages are there that would fit that description? You going to blow all of them up? Our military is vastly outnumbered by private citizens who own guns. Not to mention the military members who would join with the civilians... Of course this all depends upon the reason for the actions to begin with.........
My gun will be on the side of the constitution.......


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 10, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue.  You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war?  No.  But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another.  From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply.  Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15.  Those machines suck down  gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance.  They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door.  My guns are used for target practice or hunting.  They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest  citizens who fear for their lives there.  In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year.  If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 10, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

 The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 10, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



I only stomp on those who have it coming to them.  The clean debate zone is a great place for those who like to play nice.

The facts are the facts.  Just because they don't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside is no reason not to discuss them---as long as there is some measure of respect.

The better one understands the world around him, the better one can cope.  You can't judge a person on their outside appearance.  I work with all types of people about every day and don't have a problem with it.  That is unless they smell really bad---like this one  kid (White) this morning who about knocked me  over once I opened the door.  But you can look at groups of people in certain areas, see what they have been doing, and use common sense.  All of Oaklnad isn't as bad as the areas where all the murders have been going on.  I would hope you know walking around them isn't wise.

Looking at all the factors that influence crime over the years I have been able to put 2 and 2 together and see what all high crime areas have in common---as I already stated.  Even if all that I said was bull, ask yourself why did crime go up about 350% in the mid-1960's?


(click to enlarge)

Did the gun ownership rates go up 350%?
Did the guns suddenly become 350% more effective in just a few years?
Did Blacks and Hispanics themselves suddenly increase 350% in numbers?
Did poverty increase that much or did the economy shrink that much then?

What happened then?

The criminal justice system and laws became liberalized.  Criminals were able to run amok in areas with weak Leftist leadership----as they do to this day in places like Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta and so on.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 10, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



Not to worry sambino, I suspect I will remain three dimensional throughout the next few pages.

There is no serious gun debate in the civilized world, outside of the US, and there only among a segment of the population. This isn't a flippant statement, but a question that begs deeper analysis.

You seem to place great weight on the violence of  racial minorities, and lax laws. Yet take a look at big cities in similar societies, such as London, Toronto, or Vancouver. London is certainly one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the globe, with minorities abundant, including blacks from former colonies. Toronto and Vancouver now have nearly half their populations represented in identifiable minorities. They also have criminal gangs.  And I think you could not dispute that these cities (and their senior governments) have laws that generally go much easier on criminals than is so in the US, which still has the death penalty, and where nearly one percent of its total population is incarcerated at any one time.

Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far.

Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not.

It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.

As for taking on the military, it may be instructive to consider that most Americans, at least in recent years, have tended to either opt out of political matters altogether, or else tend to back authorities in power, with few questions asked. Only about 50% of the populaton even bothers to vote, and those that do are content with a very limited choice. They can vote for the right-wing, business oriented party, or, they can vote for the extremist, right-wing, business oriented party. There is no voice from the left, and scarcely any criticism of the increasing construction of a corporate dominated society.

Some rather extreme events have already taken place, such as the invasion of another country for naked geopolical gain, and the revelation of extensive monitoring and spying on citizens, and a vast redistribution of national wealth (upwards). This has not stired the populace to even get out and vote, or read up on political events. How many do you really think would pick up a gun, and face down a tank?

This military/civil conflict debate is absurd anyway, as those that aspire for power have much more subtle tools to get what they want, and in fact are using them. Lobbyists and the financially elite hold ridiculus amounts of power in Washington today, and far from inciting militias to mobilize, apathy reigns across the land.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 10, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



Well what do Republican mayors or leaders do that is different from Democrat ones? Specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just be curious to know. Once again, I'm personally Independent so I have no strong feelings either way. Also, what are your personal solutions to these problems of rampant crime in these cities? 

I'm also aware of the very, very important time period of the 1960s but not so very sure what gun violence has to do with things like the Civil Rights Act, nor do I know why there would be a huge boom in ethnic groups, though that's certainly possible I suppose. Was there another moment or piece of legislation that was more decisive during that time period?

In terms of your statistics, why would gun ownership go up and why would guns become more effective? Once again, just looking for a little insight.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 10, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent.  It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is.  I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw]F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube[/ame]

Second, were the laws and legislation of the time.  Yes the Civil Rights laws were a big factor, but more so were rulings from Leftist judges, starting mainly with the Warren Court in the late 1950's with their disasterous Miranda laws.  Police forces had their hands tied more and more.  The liberal courts use of unlimited appeals, making prisons more comfortable and anit-death penalty laws all gave great aid and comfort to the criminal community.

Back before these laws took effect, an abusive loudmouth gangster in the hood would have been beaten or sometimes killed once he got back to the police station if he fought the cops.  Police brutality did help create order in many areas that later exploded with violence after the  mid-1960's.

Third, the culture of welfare dependancy, gangs and believing that "It's not my fault" all combine in these high crime areas to allow criminals to escape justice.  Conviction rates are horribly low in all the high crime areas.  DA's in these cities do their best to suppress this information.  Criminals will  do more crime and more violence when there is a good chance they will not have to do time for it.

The ignorant and dishonest people in this thread (who shall remain nameless) will give their great thesis that more guns = more crime.  Notice how they cherry pick murder rates for Western countries like the UK with few guns, then surmise that gun control laws keep the planet safe for everyone.  They fail to bring up gun statistics from the many other countries in Europe that have more guns and less crime---like Switzerland.  About one home in four there have a fully automatic assault rifle in them.  Crime is much lower there than the UK.  Go figure.  They will also mix in gun suicides in with homicides and call them "gun deaths" to support their work.  In the US, the areas with the most guns per household like Wyoming and the Dakotas also have about the lowest violent crime and murder rates.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 10, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



Whatever statistics you want to throw out there, there are always the stories behind the numbers. Non-white ethnic groups, whether it's African Americans, Latinos, whoever, are the disenfranchised, forgotten races of America, at least for many, many years. Certainly their experiences today can hardly be compared to those of the early part of the 20th century, but even now, their former struggles still resonate. They may have gangs, may be the most violent races statistically, but that is for a whole plethora of reasons, not because their brains work any different than ours or because their races just love to kill and commit crimes. There are plenty of white people in jails serving sentences too, whether it's for murder or drug offenses or who knows what. 

I see Miranda laws as an important checks and balances on the criminal justice system. The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilante cops running around dispensing street justice thinking they're the heroes of America. Times have changed, and though it might be harder to detain and prosecute criminals, it SHOULD be difficult to effect someone's life in such a profound way. I refuse to go back to the times before the great progress made in the 1960s just because, statistically, things seemed to have been better in the realm of gun violence.

Also, police brutality is not the answer. I doubt that was the point you were trying to make, but if cops must beat a black man to death in the basement of a police HQ to create order, I'll take anarchy until we can find a real solution.

Welfare dependency I wouldn't say is necessarily a "culture". There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but those people are the exception to the rule that there ARE poor people in this country and there ARE people who need things like food stamps and unemployment benefits until they can get back on their feet. If we do not help them, I doubt that will do much to improve crime rates. Gangs in my mind are a result of urban youth not having very good influences. Their gang members or groups become a family to replace a family they might not have, and their actions of stealing and killing a rite of passage. I certainly don't condone any of this, but the long-term cure for this epidemic is NOT imprisonment and it is NOT simply crime and punishment. You have to fight it at the source, and create better opportunities through better schools and better support programs. Many urban cities are lacking in these areas.

In terms of your claim that others on this site are tampering with the statistics in order to prove a point, I don't see that at all. They're simply citing what they feel supports their argument, not necessarily omitting other facts. I see no conspiracy or dishonesty behind statistics they cite, they simply feel they're right in the same way that you feel you're right. Indeed, there are truths to both sides of the spectrum, that some countries have done better with no gun laws and others have done better with lots of gun laws. Switzerland is a good example of the former; Australia the latter. However, each country is unique, and there is no cure-all that should apply to every major country in the world. Thus, we have to try different things in America and see what works, because obviously what we're doing right now is not working. If we are not to advocate for gun CONTROL, then we have to advocate for SOMETHING to be done. I once again ask you for your personal view of what should be done if guns are not controlled; should we adapt a strategy like Switzerland? One like Australia? Or something else?


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 10, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Whatever statistics you want to throw out there, there are always the stories behind the numbers. Non-white ethnic groups, whether it's African Americans, Latinos, whoever, are the disenfranchised, forgotten races of America, at least for many, many years. Certainly their experiences today can hardly be compared to those of the early part of the 20th century, but even now, their former struggles still resonate. They may have gangs, may be the most violent races statistically, but that is for a whole plethora of reasons, not because their brains work any different than ours or because their races just love to kill and commit crimes. There are plenty of white people in jails serving sentences too, whether it's for murder or drug offenses or who knows what.
> 
> I see Miranda laws as an important checks and balances on the criminal justice system. The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilante cops running around dispensing street justice thinking they're the heroes of America. Times have changed, and though it might be harder to detain and prosecute criminals, it SHOULD be difficult to effect someone's life in such a profound way. I refuse to go back to the times before the great progress made in the 1960s just because, statistically, things seemed to have been better in the realm of gun violence.
> 
> ...



As far as my ideas for fixing crime:

As a hypothetical mayor or city coucilman of let's say Chicago, I'd do away with all the useless gun control laws.  I would have the police patrol as the military does in at least squads of about 12+  24/7 in all the worst areas in a random fashion.  Police would also carrry handheld video cameras.

I would also parade all arrested individuals, 16 and up, in front of the public in the form of a website with the details of their arrests and prior records.  All trials would be open to the public except with the rape of minors.

I belive we should have all the gun control laws the Founding Fathers had back in 1789.  Basically, none.  I do not support judical review, or activism of any sort.  All gun control laws should  be thrown in the trash dumpster.  I would treat violent criminals like the Founders would have back in the day.  Hang the worst offenders right away, and all repeat violent felons after their 3rd + trip through the prison system.  Appeals should never, ever go past 6 months before the trap door opens.

Crime will always be higher in large cities with large ethnic enclaves of the usual suspects, but I see no excuse for it to be higher than it was before 1960.  That is the baseline.

The sorry laws that were put in around 50 years ago may seem so great and so righteous, but have done far more to increase crime than about anything else.

We don't need a system like the Swiss or Aussies, we need to go back to the criminal laws we had at least 55 years ago.  We can expect certain groups to act differently, but they should all be treated the same under the law.  No sacred cows.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 10, 2013)

_Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far._

Right. It is a simple attempt to confuse the issue through misdirection. You lump good things, bad things, and accidents together and present it like it is meaningful. It isn't. The results do not speak to murder rates or crime.

_Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not._

Well, don't be bashful, feel free to present those statistics you claim exist. I say you're dreaming. 

It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.

And that may the *only* way some folks-small women and old folks come to mind- may have of defending themselves and/or those they love from large powerful criminals armed with an ax or club. I think that's a good thing and that to deny someone the only viable option for defense is in itself criminal as it aids and abets crime.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."
> 
> First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent.  It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is.  I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:
> 
> ...


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?



Wow, love how this has turned into something completely different from what it started as.  But that does tend to happen in here, sorry Sambino.

But what about other cities Auteur, like say Kennesaw, Georgia.  A semi-rural town in Georgia, 11% live below the poverty line, provides free Internet in the city parks, and in 30 years has had the population explode by over 600%.

Oh, and has the lowest crime rates in the nation.  Violent crime is 85% below national average, property crime 45-55% below national average.

Crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia (GA): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics

Of course, Kennesaw passed a law back in 1982 requiring all households that are not prohibited by law to possess a firearm.  And while people still try to say that the law (which is not enforced) had nothing to do with the reduction in crime, they still can't explain it any other way.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far._
> 
> Right. It is a simple attempt to confuse the issue through misdirection. You lump good things, bad things, and accidents together and present it like it is meaningful. It isn't. The results do not speak to murder rates or crime.




There is nothing confusing at all if you take a closer look at the stats. Gun deaths are higher in the US than in other modern, advanced democracies, usually by an extremely high margin. Those that have higher rates of gun deaths are usually countries that are a sociological mess, such as Brazil, Central America, or similar.




9thIDdoc said:


> _Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not._
> 
> Well, don't be bashful, feel free to present those statistics you claim exist. I say you're dreaming.




I though we left you guardin' the constitution Mr 9. If you now have time on your hands, you can look them up, and present your findings here.




9thIDdoc said:


> It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.
> 
> And that may the *only* way some folks-small women and old folks come to mind- may have of defending themselves and/or those they love from large powerful criminals armed with an ax or club. I think that's a good thing and that to deny someone the only viable option for defense is in itself criminal as it aids and abets crime.




Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way. 

And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 11, 2013)

_Of course they are the same thing Mr S. If your wife, or child, or friend killed themselves with a readily available gun, would it be any less painful than if they had been killed by homicide or by accident?_

What you might find "painful" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Nobody died and made you king with the right to overrule anyone else's personal decisions.  

_Deaths due to the availability of guns: that is the issue here._

No, that is what you would *like *to make an issue. You brought up gun control and there is no good reason to assume that in this country strict gun control laws have any effect other than to increase rates of violent crime and the numbers of innocent victims. Those in favor of such laws are simply pro-crime.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?
> ...



Poor and semi-rural? Its a commuter suburb of Atlanta, is it not? Anyway, the LA Times takes a more balanced look:


_The ordinance amounted to a pro-2nd Amendment rebuttal to Morton Grove, Ill., which had just banned handguns within its city limits. Because the Kennesaw City Council did not impose penalties, or order enforcement, the law remains mostly symbolic_

_Today, Kennesaw maintains a low crime rate, but not remarkably so, compared with other Georgia towns of similar size. It reported 21 violent crimes in 2011, according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics database. That put it well below Douglasville, which recorded 179 violent crimes, but above Milton (14 violent crimes) and Peachtree City (eight violent crimes)._

_In Kennesaw, the city's regular spokesman on the gun issue doesn't make any big claims. "It's hard to say what impact the ordinance itself may have," Police Lt. Craig Graydon said. "It seems to help some, but we're not sure how much impact it has overall on crime."_

More or fewer guns? The experts are divided - Los Angeles Times


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 11, 2013)

_Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way. 

And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force_

None of this disproves anything I have said nor does it change the fact that many people who otherwise would have had no or poor chance successfully defend themselves with weapons every day . I am just unable to believe that anyone who has been in the military would not prefer to prefer to be armed than unarmed if involved in combat. Silly idea.

And, once again, no honest person uses the meaningless term "gun deaths".


----------



## numan (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> ...what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of nightmare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.


An instructive example is the situation in Nazi-occupied France. After D-Day, when the German army was disorganized and on the run, armed resistance and attack by the Partisan forces was a significant factor in driving the Germans out -- especially in Paris. 

*But before then, for four long years, the civilian opposition to the invaders was insignificant*, and the French Resistance was merely a minor annoyance to the Nazis -- and the Nazi resources were primitive compared to those of the present US military machine. 

And it certainly was not the case that the French Resistance lacked arms and organization -- the Allies provided as much of both as they thought practicable. It's just that the Allies were much more realistic than the loony-tune, ignorant "militias" in the perennially unsophisticated USA.
.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."
> ...


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
> 
> July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.
> 
> ...



Enjoying your summer vacation little one?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
> ...



Actually I'm in college and taking summer classes, so I don't have a vacation, but I appreciate your concern. How's your summer? Also, just  because I'm young doesn't mean I or my opinion should be belittled due to my age. If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.


----------



## numan (Jul 11, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.



Why should he, if the swine knows that he can get your goat?

.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Poor and semi-rural? Its a commuter suburb of Atlanta, is it not?



Only within the last decade.  Yes, the "urban sprawl" in Atlanta is spreading, but it is only within the last decade that it has started to include Kennesaw (like only in the last 2 decades has Palmdale been considered a commuter suburb of LA).



Auteur said:


> _Today, Kennesaw maintains a low crime rate, but not remarkably so, compared with other Georgia towns of similar size. It reported 21 violent crimes in 2011, according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics database. That put it well below Douglasville, which recorded 179 violent crimes, but above Milton (14 violent crimes) and Peachtree City (eight violent crimes)._



Interesting cities that were picked however.

Milton is a rather rich community, incorporated only 7 years ago, and having an average income roughly double that of Kennesaw.

Peachtree also has an average income that is double that of Kennesaw.  In fact, it is quite a "rich area", because of such employers as Panasonic, TDK and NCR.  Many people in fact tend to think of the town and it's "Golf Cart Gridlock", not exactly a problem in the ghettos that I am aware of.

Ah yes, and Douglasville.  While cities such as Peachtree have above normal marriage rates (70%) and incomes, Douglasville does not.  An average income that is 20-25% lower then Kennesaw, considered an attached subburb of Atlanta, and a married couple rate of only 41%, it is not surprising that it has more crime, a lot more crime.

This is why I have never taken the LA Times very seriously, even when I lived there.  They are taking statistics from a ghetto, and 2 White Bread Yuppie neighborhoods as comparisons for crime rates, not exactly honest when you look at it with knowledge.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 11, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.



That is actually pretty simple.  Sell things for more then it costs you to make them.  Sell what is needed elsewhere, and buy what you need for the best price possible.

And if you have a supply of something absolutely worthless, try to make it the new fad, so that everybody will be screaming to buy them.

Oh, and don't let your money get to valuable, because then nobody can afford to buy your products.  But do not let it be to worthless either, or you risk loosing control of your own businesses.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



I was just wondering, your age and inexperience speaks volumes from the OP, thats all.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2013)

numan said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.
> ...



Nobodies kicking dicks out of your mouth buddy, relax.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.
> 
> As for Miranda---it isn't needed.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.



It may not be needed by you, but it is needed by that dumb schmuck who falls afoul of sloppy or biased police work, and doesn't understand that he has rights, and doesn't have to cede them to anyone wearing a uniform. This is an important aspect of universal freedom and democracy, concepts you claim (correct me if I am wrong) to support.



Survivalist said:


> [
> As for higher Black violence, that's just the way it is.  Humans fall under the same laws of nature that all animals do.  Besides the obivous physical differences, intelligence and behavior can be inherited traits that follow ethnic groups.



Intelligence is not a trait that follows ethnic groups. You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you? Some dysfunctional traits can be inherited, but not across the board of a racial group.




Survivalist said:


> [
> There are all kinds of snakes, but the Black Mambas are the most aggressive and dangerous.  Their brains are hardly different than the others.  To think that the environment or things like "racism" are the primary causes of Black violence is like someone believing the earth was flat 400 years ago.  Anyone now publically saying anything other than the PC line will be burned at the stake.  If "racism is the primary cause of Black ills, then why is every country in Sub-Saharan Africa a basket case?  Evil Westerners haven't controlled most of them for over 50 years.



To begin with, black people are not snakes, although you may think so. There are multiple and complex reasons why people or social groups act violently. Blacks in the US have a history of slavery, lynchings, and discrimination, which no doubt goes into the mix. But these are social, psychological, and economic problems, not ones of race. Your own president is black. He is also a professor of law, and an articulate speaker. Are you going to tell us the white DNA in his system overcame the inferior black DNA?

Up until the '60s, in the US south "white" violence was over the top, with blacks being lynched just for fun, and on some occasions white activists were killed too, for having the nerve to suggest human rights had a place here. Are you going to tell us this was just traits within the white southerners DNA, or, where the reasons here more complex?

As for Africa- you're right. It is a mess. And so is Central America, Russia, Brazil, and a number of other places. The reasons for this could fill a book. The simplistic answer is to guess that if these folks look different, then they are different. Doing some background reading will disabuse you of this idea.



Survivalist said:


> Ask anyone here if they are worried more about other people killing themselves with guns, or other people killing them with any weapon...in other words...are they more worried about crime?  And sucicide are not considered crimes.  The "gun deaths" stats you gun-phobes dish out are designed to mislead.



Implicit in your statement is the idea that if someone kills themselves, then it is of no account- write them off. A death is a death, and if it can be prevented, that's generally good. This is the point. Are you aware, by the way, that a great many US military vets have killed themselves? Do you figure they count, or not?



Survivalist said:


> [
> What good are all the laws if the people living in the hood and other high crime areas don't obey them?   Show me some conviction rate data for Detroit, Chicago or any other gangland.



Nearly one percent of the US population is incarcerated. That's massively higher than any comparible country.



Survivalist said:


> As for the areas I cherry-picked, look at the colored graphs below.  It would be more accurate to have the maps done city or county, but I'm limited to the studies done.
> 
> On the green map, the darker the area, the more guns per household (done by Harvard gun grabbers BTW).  One the Red map the darker states are states with the most violent crimes.  Notice how in almost every case the more guns = the less violent crime.  Go figure.
> 
> ...




You have made the classic error in interpreting statistics. Because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily imply cause. I get up and shave every morning, and every morning the sun comes up. Using your logic, I could say  my shaving causes the sun to come up. Get the picture?



Survivalist said:


> As for violent crime, not "gun deaths" the Swiss are always far below the UK.



Yep. But gun deaths per captia are far higher in Switzerland. We can guess the reason.



Survivalist said:


> [
> One last thing to chew on.  Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?



I feel much more secure where I am, in a country where violence is downplayed, and gun ownership severly restricted.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

numan said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > ...what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of nightmare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.
> ...



A German general in the occupation forces in 1940, when told by a junior officer that the various police forces around the country were still in possession of small arms, exclaimed that he didn't give a damn about the police, or small arms.

There is a huge difference between a bunch of people with some guns and a few rounds of ammo, and an organized military force.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way.
> 
> And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force_
> 
> ...



Look, you were in the infantry, if we can go by your avatar, yes? When you went out in the field, did you study intelligence first? Check your maps? Test fire weapons? Put on helmets and flack vests? Assign arcs of responsibility? Pre-plan movements through suspect areas? Keep in radio contact? Use techniques like fire and movement? And if you did all these,did you then think you had a guarantee of not getting shot? Of course not.

Fast forward to today, and your little old lady with the handgun in her purse. How many of these precautions do you think she will be taking on her trip to the mall? When an event is very rare, we tend to not be ready for it when it comes. That thug that comes up beside your example will probably be unseen, and not only rob her, but also take her gun, to be used in further crimes.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Poor and semi-rural? Its a commuter suburb of Atlanta, is it not?
> ...



First of all, no one really knows how many actually have guns in this city, as that has not been checked. Further, even the chief of police there stated that conclusions here are difficult to draw.


----------



## usmcstinger (Jul 11, 2013)

Guys like you would soil themselves at the thought of serving in our Armed Forces.

Honor Duty Country is something you will never understand.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way.
> ...



So...because the hypothetical little old lady _might_ not be prepared you would deny her any possibility of being prepared? Were you in military intelligence?
You might note that things don't always go down the way the scumbag (who may well be drunk, stoned, clumsy, and/or stupid) intends. Not all criminals are masterminds.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 11, 2013)

Auteur said:


> First of all, no one really knows how many actually have guns in this city, as that has not been checked. Further, even the chief of police there stated that conclusions here are difficult to draw.



And you are right.  However, the fact that it was not known which homeowners had guns and which did not caused a lot of criminals to move on to other areas.  The fact that many crimes are far below national averages shows that the "careerist" type criminals simply prefer to do their crimes in areas in which there is less change of finding an armed homeowner.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 11, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, no one really knows how many actually have guns in this city, as that has not been checked. Further, even the chief of police there stated that conclusions here are difficult to draw.
> ...



I can assure you mushroom, as someone who has had no small amount of contact with the criminal justice system, and the attempted rehabilitation of criminals, that most do not think, at least very far. They are driven by drugs, or by simplistic ideas of the quick fix to get rich, or to make it through the next day, week, or month. Few read the papers, and fewer still sit in contemplation of the potential rewards and dangers of their enterprises. Most are young men, pumped with testosterone, and the urgings of their fellows, whos disapproval they would be wounded by. Their actions tend to be short sighted, and based on comic book style imaginings of how life is.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> Guys like you would soil themselves at the thought of serving in our Armed Forces.
> 
> Honor Duty Country is something you will never understand.



I assume this reply was directed at me and my original post. Though I do not take the fact that I would "soil myself" if I was in the military as an insult, my decision to not participate is not out of fear; its out of an unwillingness to kill or commit violent acts. Power to everyone who DOES choose to join the military, I have no problem with them. I just think it's regrettable there's a need for it. Diplomats and military men are each important, and I've simply chosen to be the former, and I don't see any thing wrong with my decision or your decision. No need for insults though, I've got nothing but love and respect for the armed forces.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm very relaxed. Did you plan on contributing to a discussion or just talk about dicks and talk to me like I'm some kid?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Fair enough. I would not argue with the fact I haven't experienced much, and I regret that. I still would not assume that some 80 year old is full of wisdom, or that a 15 year old isn't. That's all I'm saying. Just because I'm 20 doesn't mean I can't do some writing and see how people feel about an important issue.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 11, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.
> ...



Well global economics is a pretty extensive topic, but I was just using it as an example to prove a point, not necessarily say how simple or complex it is.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 12, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Guys like you would soil themselves at the thought of serving in our Armed Forces.
> ...



You would shit your pants.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 12, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Once again I have to take issue with the fact you seem to describe certain ethnic groups as inferior to others. I understand me and you just have different viewpoints, but here's my view on why Africa is a "basket case"; one must look at the history.
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



You're right, I'm not cut out for the military. It's just not out of fear. I don't know how many times I have to admit that.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 12, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Well at least you admit it.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 12, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> [
> 
> You're right, I'm not cut out for the military. It's just not out of fear. .




From what you've demonstrated here, it would seem to be out of a lack of character and intelligence.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 12, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And extreme naivety.


----------



## numan (Jul 12, 2013)

'

And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.

.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I think it's unfair to say that anyone who chooses not to pick up a weapon for their country is an idiot or has no character. We could go back and forth forever about this, but we all seem to have a differences and my age has obviously become unnecessarily important. It's a pointless argument so I'll just say one last time that I respect the troops decision to serve and I just choose not to. Simple as that.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



What am I naive about? Specifically?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.
> 
> .



I have absolutely no idea what about me just screams Tourette's, but sure, if you say so.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 12, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.
> ...



From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK.  The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there.  I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety.  If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else.  Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me.  The risk of that happening would be far  greater than  for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10.  As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant.  Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going  there is often kidnapped or killed.  Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then.  Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents.  Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.


----------



## numan (Jul 12, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.
> ...


No, no, you nitwit, it is the guys who are badgering you who are the verbal diarrhoea Tourette's victims!!

You are either very modest, or are having trouble with your reading comprehension!!!

.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

numan said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Ah, my apologies, obviously completely misunderstood that.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 12, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



I doubt peoples' concern about people committing suicide has to do with the fact that they're worried about them falling on them. Maybe a bit of sarcasm in your statement, I'm not sure. Forgive me if I've missed the point.

I'd be curious to see scientific, biological differences between Black, White, Asian, and other races that  could support your findings. The statistics you list,accurate or inaccurate I do not know, have all sorts of influences, none of them necessarily reflecting a natural inclination for African people to live more violent lives. They have an infinite number of influences; upbringing, culture, and yes environment come to mind. 

If we are to look at the world from your statistics' perspective, where white, Western countries have less killings, then I don't see how that explains the white barbarians from hundreds of years ago. Wouldn't they naturally exhibit less of a tendency towards violent behavior than their black counterparts? Maybe I'm going to deep with this, but there's all sorts of examples of white people committing violent acts, from the British empire and Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic Wars, NONE of them necessarily biological. 

I believe it's true that, on average, most brains are indeed some sort of blank slate to a degree. Then a family's upbringing, or lack there of, as well as culture trains them in various ways and teaches them different behaviors. I have no degree in science, but this seems rather logical. The method of measuring skulls for brain capacity and all that nonsense is, I hope, a thing of the past. Any person of any race is capable of any thing with the right environment and lifestyle.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 12, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Absolutely, they are not. And that is the point. If criminals wisely considered their plans, they would not commit crimes. But they do. Deterrence does not work, for the most part, because so many crimes are impulsive, ill thought out, urged on in a drug haze, the effect of mental illness, or extreme emotional distress, or simply a low IQ.

Consider this: the US has some of the most draconian laws in the western world. A murderer can receive the death penalty, or spend his/her entire life in prison. In Canada, short of extreme circumstances, the most a murderer is likely to spend behind bars is 22 years. And in many cases, it is much less than this. So one would expect that the murder rate in Canada would be higher, as there is less deterrance. But this is not the case, the rate in Canada is much lower.

What does this tell us? Threats do not work. The prospect of a gun in a handbag, or car glover compartment, is not actually a deterrant, going by the statistics. All it does is ratchet up the level of violence and death in a society. It pushes our communities to resemble a infantry outpost, rather than  a rational place for human beings. You we in the military. Is this what you want for you society? Your kids?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 12, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> And an inability to understand that his interlocutors are unprincipled sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome.
> 
> .




Did you ever wrap up your thread on how you disdain all human beings, champ?


----------



## Auteur (Jul 12, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well, lets review the posts on this thread. Sambino had been able to assemble some reasoned arguements, and furthermore do it without insult to anyone.

Others here have contributed nothing, but a few testosterone soaked pledges to the flag, adolescent one liners, or hillbilly style versions of history.

Do you have anything to add, besides a few indolent pecks on your cell phone?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 12, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...




If your tender sensibilities aren't up to it, you can go read another thread, princess.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 12, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK.  The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there.  I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.



Close, but no cigar. Actually I'm from an even more rabid den of Liberal/Commie/faggot extremists, but one you probably have not heard of.

By the way, if you had read the last few posts, you would have my views on "bad people".




Survivalist said:


> Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety.  If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else.  Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me.  The risk of that happening would be far  greater than  for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.



When I talk about gun deaths, I'm talking about the responsibility of a community in deciding what is best- and what is safe- for its members. If people are killing each other, then it is an issue, and one that should be explored. If people are killing themselves, then that is also an issue that should be explored. For the vast majority of those that do so, do it for dysfunctional (and fixable) reasons. I also note that as a "vet" you have discounted your fellows that have been so troubled as to put a gun to their head.




Survivalist said:


> Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):
> 
> http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf
> 
> ...



Mr S- this is getting tiresome. You present charts but do not understand the interpretation of them. For an example, the stats on Africa present a mixed view. The worst crime is in the southern portion. Are we surprised? South Africa, the inheritor of apartheid and racism, is in a rather bad state, as any that was set up along fascist lines would be, even some years down the road.

Actually some of the most disturbing stats come from Latin America. Remember the Munroe Doctrine? It said: this land is my land, and don't f--- with white people. This sentiment has carried on until very recent times, producing all manner of mayhem in such said area. You perhaps don't remember marines wading ashore in the Dominican Republic, or Grenada, or many before, in order to make the region safe for US interests. Such turmoil takes a while to wind down. Even the "white" folks in Europe took a while to settle down. The Treaty of Versailles generated all sorts of angst, and also the biggest blood lettting in modern times. Just their DNA? Don't think so Mr S.

If you want to compare a territory that is in rough and preliminary stages of its infancy, why don't we have a look at the "white" folks in the US, in the 1770's and 1780's. The united empire loyalists (perhaps a third or more of the population), where beaten, robbed, killed, raped, and expelled. Why? They were perceived, at the time, to belong to another tribe, with different loyalties. Sounds almost like Africa, doesn't it? Of course, these are things you will not find in an American text.

Don't want to talk about Africa? Then how about N Ireland, where a vicious civil war raged for decades, tribe against tribe? Or the Red Brigades? Or the Yugoslav ethnic cleansing? Or for that matter the white Israeli ethnic cleansing?

When a region is locked into a cycle of violence, and atrocities occur, it tends to ratchet ever upwards, until armageddon is reached (1945 for example) or someone intervenes (Yugoslavia 1990s for example). Your own country has gone through such spasms.




Survivalist said:


> Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.



We have already dealt with this. There are more homicides per capita in the UK, but of the homicides in Switzerland, an overwhelming number are due to guns. Just think if they didn't have all those guns in houses in Switzerland- what a record they would have!



Survivalist said:


> Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.
> 
> The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then.  Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.
> 
> ...



It's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own  previous secretary of defense, Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time. Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.

Yes, some things are inherited, but intelligence is an extremely complex subject, and one that cannot be attributed to race, or to inheritance.

And as for Obama, yes he is half white, half black. In your books that should be a handicap, yes? Yet he has a Phd. Do you? He taught law at a university. Have you? He can speak for hours in an articulate manner. You're struggling on these minimal pages. What's the story? Are you letting down your race?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 12, 2013)

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



_Absolutely, they are not. And that is the point._

True. *MY* point. You have simply reworded my response to your assertion that criminals are just too fiendishly cunning to allow people a chance of defending themselves. Try to decide which side of the issue you want to argue. 

_ Deterrence does not work,.._

Of course it does. Shooting is an excellent deterrent. Shoot a criminal dead and he will never commit another crime. 100% guaranteed. In fact I've found that just the sight of a firearm often convinces people that a change of plans is in order.


_ It pushes our communities to resemble a infantry outpost, rather than  a rational place for human beings. You we in the military. Is this what you want for you society? Your kids?_

Absolutely if that is what is required. I believe people have a moral responsibility to protect their family and themselves from all threats and that a person who is not reasonably prepared to do so is essentially worthless and should not be allowed to marry or have children. I do NOT wish to be part of a culture of sheep just waiting to be the victim of any wolf that wonders by. And I will not be. 
My children received weapons training almost from birth. Now both my Son and my Grandson have brought home much venison and other wild game for the table. My Son normally carries a .45 as do I.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 12, 2013)

USNavyVet said:


> [...]
> 
> Sambino, there are evil people in this world who really do want to harm us.[...]


Why?  

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.  

And do you think our devastation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, concluding with an unlawful invasion and occupation, is the way to make friends of and influence Islamic people?  Remember, Iraq represented no threat to us.  The Iraqi people did nothing to us.  And the bombing of Baghdad was not a celebratory fireworks display.  A lot of little children were killed in their cribs when the Bush dynasty engineered that crime -- and it was done in our names.  Yours and mine.

So to the Iraqi people, and to an increasing number of Islamics who empathize with them, we are evil.  _The Great Satan_ they call us.  And can you blame them for wanting to harm us?

We made a lot of friends in Vietnam, too.  



> We can't all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The issue with Afghanistan is that that the people there do not consider themselves to be from Afghanistan. They consider them part of the local tribes. This kind of thinking has allowed groups like Al Qaeda to set up camps easily to train people in order to attack us and our allies.


I wonder why.



> I do not think nation building works but the only alternative is to go in and destroy the country every few years and that does not seem feasible economically or ethically.


"Nation-building" is a euphemism for facilitating the interests of the oil industry. 



> So yes, we fight for your personally and for all Americans. You're welcome.


The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945.

Semper Fi.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 12, 2013)

_The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945._

Untrue.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 13, 2013)

Auteur said:


> [...]
> 
> t's not magic Mr S- it's called psychology and physiology, two subjects you might find interesting if you were to consult you local librarian on them (i'd recomment you do). Your own  previous secretary of defense, *Colin Powell, rose above meager beginings to become a top advisor in government, and one that (as it turns out) was much brighter and ethical than his fellows in government at the time.* Many top scientists and researchers today come from races other than white.
> 
> [...]


Colin Powell, you say.  Quite a choice as a model of ethics.  Colin Powell is best described as George W. Bush's _house ******!_ 

Colin Powell richly deserves to be tried and ceremoniously hanged alongside the master who coaxed and induced him to betray not only his Nation but the soldiers who trusted him and whom he deliberately and knowingly sent to be killed or maimed in Iraq.  

Colin Powell was not a PFC clerk at some supply depot.  He was the Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff who directed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm and presided over destruction of the Iraqi army.  No one was in a better position than he to know exactly what kind of weapons Saddam Hussein had and did not have access to.  Not even that greasy bastard, Tenet.  Colin Powell methodically and cynically lied to the UN and to the world.  He did it because master Bush had made him Secretary of State.  And no one is more responsible for what happened as the result of his artful lying, because no one else would have been believed or so fatefully trusted.  







You clearly are an intelligent person.  Are you so preoccupied with racial considerations you are willing to casually overlook this man's disgraceful treachery?


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Though I agree with much of what you said, I would have to say that Colin Powell remains one of the more intelligent members of that administration. He eventually came out and admitted that he was mis-led by intelligence services and apologized for his role in what went on back then. This could just be an attempt to save face, but I can appreciate a man who knows how to apologize nonetheless. Now, he seems very realistic about some of the impossibilities of the two wars, and it's hard to believe that was him a decade ago. That being said, I still do not think Colin Powell is some shining example to the black race. I think the person who brought his name up simply wanted to demonstrate his success in life in order to prove the point that not all black people are naturally unsuccessful.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> _The last time any member of the U.S. Armed Forces fired a shot or shed blood in defense of the American Nation and its people was in 1945._
> 
> Untrue.



Why do you think it's untrue? I would agree that it's untrue only because many soldiers would "say" they're fighting in defense of our nation. Their own personal motivation and feelings about their mission is their own business. However, whether they're really fighting in defense of the average citizen's freedom is debatable, as stated in my original post. I think it's pretty fair to say that Japan and Germany had a much more real threat to America and the rest of the world than Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan, thus WWII carries a bit more weight than the other, smaller conflicts.

 A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned. I think even our government officials would say that the mission there is not for the average American citizen, but if anything is to improve the life of the Afghan people. So if anything, I say we should change the motto to "defending the freedom of people abroad", not "defending the freedom of Americans".


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 13, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK.  The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there.  I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.
> ...



Yes, I like satire.  Western Whites developed virtually all modern weapons.  The simple gun made all other swords, clubs, and other edged weapons obsolete.  Guns are a kinder, gentler weapon than using ancient weapons to bash-in or split open enemies.  Western colonialists were able to basically walk over Stone Age cultures all over the planet.  Just because it wasn't a fair fight does not let the Sone Age peoples off the hook.  They were doing the same thing to each other, holding and gaining territory through warfare long before the Whites came along.  Given the "savage" behavior of Zulus, Aztecs, Yaquies, Arabs, Mongols, etc., etc....Ancient Europeans like the Vikings were far less brutal in most cases.  The Western code of Honor was the basis of the Geneva Convention.

Now if you go to college at some intolerant, liberal instiution like UC Berkeley, DON'T bring any of the following up in any class or face crucifiction and bad grades. It is taboo in such liberal cultures:

From the best data available, an objective person knows that hereditiy is the main influence on what a person's IQ, personality and behavior will develop into.  I'd say heredity is at least 80% of it.  There are no "Tarzan Studies" with Whites being raised by anything but some Native Americans as small children, but there are others:

Minnesota Twin Family Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twins reared apart:

In 1979, Thomas Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees

The meat of the last study showed that Black children adopted by two very intelligent White parents only moved their average IQ's of 85 to about 91.  Whites avg 100.

If intelligence is inherited, so it personality and tendancies toward violent behavior.  Yes Whites like all other peoples have been brutal in wars over the years, but how violent have they been to each other Lately?  Is the IRA fighting in Northern Ireland the best anyone can come up with in the last 60 years?

Keep in mind that Ecomonics, Sociology and Psycology are not pure sciences.  Not like Mathmatics where 1+1 always equals 2, they are very, very subjective and politically influenced.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 13, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



My point was not to defend Powell's role in the Bush administration, but to point out that race is not a decider of intelligence or ability. I thought our right-wing fellow poster might more easily relate to an example a little closer to his heart than more liberal examples. To Powell's credit though, I think he did have second thoughts after the facts. Better late than never.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned.




That's because your mental and moral limitations are quite severe.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 13, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Yes, I like satire.  Western Whites developed virtually all modern weapons.



Actually, gunpowder and guns originated in China. They tended to use such more for firework displays. The technology migrated to Europe, where they tended to use the fireworks on each other. Hmm, does that mean they were more primitive?

So too with the compass (China), the lateen sail (Arabs), the helicopter (Russians), and endless other examples that take us up to today, when US astronauts need Russian facilities to get to and from the space station, and all manner of weapons systems are manufactured all over the world, not only in "white" countries.




Survivalist said:


> The simple gun made all other swords, clubs, and other edged weapons obsolete.  Guns are a kinder, gentler weapon than using ancient weapons to bash-in or split open enemies.  Western colonialists were able to basically walk over Stone Age cultures all over the planet.  Just because it wasn't a fair fight does not let the Sone Age peoples off the hook.  They were doing the same thing to each other, holding and gaining territory through warfare long before the Whites came along.  Given the "savage" behavior of Zulus, Aztecs, Yaquies, Arabs, Mongols, etc., etc....Ancient Europeans like the Vikings were far less brutal in most cases.  The Western code of Honor was the basis of the Geneva Convention.



The Geneva Convention...violated how many times during white on white conflict? Hint- it's more than you can count on your fingers and toes.



Survivalist said:


> Now if you go to college at some intolerant, liberal instiution like UC Berkeley, DON'T bring any of the following up in any class or face crucifiction and bad grades. It is taboo in such liberal cultures:
> 
> From the best data available, an objective person knows that hereditiy is the main influence on what a person's IQ, personality and behavior will develop into.  I'd say heredity is at least 80% of it.  There are no "Tarzan Studies" with Whites being raised by anything but some Native Americans as small children, but there are others:
> 
> ...



A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is  bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.

Get the picture? Blacks have a tatoo also- one they can't take off. It affects there interactions with others (well, some others....) It's called environmental influences, and it is what is missing from your so called "studies".



Survivalist said:


> If intelligence is inherited, so it personality and tendancies toward violent behavior.  Yes Whites like all other peoples have been brutal in wars over the years, but how violent have they been to each other Lately?  Is the IRA fighting in Northern Ireland the best anyone can come up with in the last 60 years?



You are at least keeping your sense of humour here Mr S. Have you forgotten that your own country has just finished rampaging through two countries?



Survivalist said:


> Keep in mind that Ecomonics, Sociology and Psycology are not pure sciences.  Not like Mathmatics where 1+1 always equals 2, they are very, very subjective and politically influenced.


----------



## numan (Jul 13, 2013)

Auteur said:


> If you want to compare a territory that is in rough and preliminary stages of its infancy, why don't we have a look at the "white" folks in the US, in the 1770's and 1780's. The united empire loyalists (perhaps a third or more of the population), where beaten, robbed, killed, raped, and expelled. Why? They were perceived, at the time, to belong to another tribe, with different loyalties. Sounds almost like Africa, doesn't it? Of course, these are things you will not find in an American text.


You're darned tootin'!! It is a rare American who can look objectively at the Insurrectionary Terrorists of the Continental Congress (which would be beter compared to a meeting of Mafiosi dons dividing up territories for their criminal activities). These sinister "Founding Fathers" would never have been successful without the aid of France, a meddling  European country -- just as African countries have suffered misrule by their worst elements  due to outside meddling by Neo-Colonialst exploiters.
.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned.
> ...



If my moral compass keeps me from celebrating the death of ANY human being, even my so-called enemies, then I fail to see how that could be classified as "limited". Limited in my mind are those who are only concerned with their supposed friends or comrades and not with the human race as a whole. 

Nor does it reflect a lack of intelligence, as you continue to claim. Our strategies to end the violence aren't working; they're perpetuating the problem. Forgive me if I feel a change is in order, one where positive energy combats negative energy and fire doesn't fight fire.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...



Once again we are obviously very far apart on our world view and view of race, and that's fine. I doubt you will be convinced that all races are biologically equal, or that I'll be convinced that they're not. I still appreciate the debate. Your point that white people have not done anything violent in the past 60 years is both irrelevant and untrue in my opinion. It's irrelevant because no matter what time of history a race commits violent acts, it still proves that psychologically they are capable of it. It's untrue because there are indeed wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. that are all demonstrations of white violence, no matter what our purposes behind it were. What stands out to me was the Vietnam war, where soldiers would raid villages like My Lai and burn them down, rape the women, and kill most of the villagers. That sounds like pretty violent behavior to me, and that was only 50 years ago. 

If a black child is adopted by white parents, that doesn't mean they are A. good parents or B. he is necessarily in an environment to learn and improve. You can't put a tax attorney and a pharmacist together and say they're automatically going to produce a good child. 

In my opinion IQ is just as "subjective" as the other sciences you state, and is not at all an omniscient factor when trying to judge someone's intellectual ability. Your theory that these sciences are influenced by political factors, though not necessarily untrue, seems a little paranoid. If we are to assume they are influenced by politics, I would argue it's many more sciences than just those few.

Whether my perspective is right or yours is, I fail to see how it's productive to speak of certain races as superior or inferior to others. It's divisive and it's the Old World's way of thinking. Whether it was slaves in the field or the Chinese building our railroads, white people have always looked at these other races as inferior savages, who were at best disciplined and obedient enough to help us build up our country. If there is any proven, universal biological science to prove to me that some races are inferior, I would probably choose to ignore it, and continue viewing them all as equals in order to promote more unity. Otherwise, we're absolutely destined to repeat the same mistakes of the past.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 13, 2013)

MikeK said:


> According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.



Yea, and according to Der Paper Hanger, the Jews in Germany and Europe were slaughtered because of their crimes as a parasitic race that destroyed others.

Should we take that serious as well?

And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca.  His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...O_oOehJPjHRqrbYEoh37w&oq=mecca&mra=ls&t=m&z=6


----------



## numan (Jul 13, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.


You ignorant racist, aboriginals of Papua New Guinea have already earned PhDs in nuclear physics !!

Someone like you is not worthy to shine their shoes !!

.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.
> ...



Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.

 Our support of Israel can piss off any number of people.

I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.

This all being said, I would never say there is a justification for killing other humans. However, a man's reasoning behind his actions is still a factor to be taken into account. I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever. And he was right. Terrorism isn't about killing the most people possible. Whether you can kill one, a hundred, or a thousand, it's the after effects that matter. 

I state once more that however much we wanted to stop these people and hunt them down around the globe, it is our response itself that has lost the War on Terror. They wanted us to go rampaging through the Middle East, they wanted us to live in fear and have our backpacks searched at all major parades and other events. They wanted us to not be allowed to bring large liquids on planes. I don't agree with any particular part of their ideology, but I still think their successful attack on 9/11 had a profound psychological effect, on all of us. I say once again that the only way to defeat these people is in the mind.


----------



## numan (Jul 13, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever.


Don't be so ready to join the mass-media driven stampede that "shocked and awed" the unthinking, brainwashed sheeple in America. What real evidence is there that a handful of Islamic fanatics pulled off that job?

There is better evidence that it was a "black operation" by a traitorous cabal inside the American government. Study the ACTUAL EVIDENCE on both sides and make up your own mind.

You can start on the "Conspiracy" forum on this very site -- if you can ignore  the tendentious, emotional red herrings of the trolls, and just look at the real facts.
.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

numan said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever.
> ...



I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking  credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.


----------



## numan (Jul 13, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking  credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.


Oh, how naive and trusting you are, Sambino!!

You had better look at that "ample evidence" again!! You will find that, upon close inspection, it evaporates like dry ice!!

"Al Qaeda is taking credit for it" Really? Does Al Qaeda even exist -- other than as a CIA Potemkin Village to scare the rubes?

"Killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war seems a little elaborate." 

You had better read a little history of the past hundred years. Over and over, _millions_ of people have been killed to make profits for interested parties.

.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 13, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.
> ...



It may surprise you to know that before the '60s, Americans had generally good relations with the Arab world, and the idea of a clash between the two would have seemed highly unlikely. So what happened? Did a number of psychopaths suddenly rise up out of nowhere and target Americans? Some significant events did happen, and they caused huge resentments in that part of the world. The obtuseness of many Americans to anything that does not paint their country as ideal is one of the reasons for the ongoing threat of extremists. When other countries engage in double dealing and geopolitical hardball, Americans can be outraged, yet when their own government does so, they can't or won't see it. Those at the butt end do see it though, and suffer the effects.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

numan said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking  credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.
> ...



I assure you, though I'm not quite on the same level as yourself, I'm very skeptical of all media and our government in general, probably moreso than the average person. I'm also very aware of the nefarious actions of our government and the governments of the past. Thus, I get a bit frustrated when people consider me naive or out of touch with reality; that's not the case. I also have read a lot of history, and know that many people have been killed to promote political interests, just for the record. 

I'm obviously not intelligent enough to understand how the evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attack is fabricated, so could you attempt to explain it to me? I'm once again not claiming you're wrong, I just simply don't understand that point of view and am looking for a bit of clarification.


----------



## numan (Jul 13, 2013)

'

I am heartened by your words, Sambino, they indicate that you have not been entirely taken in by the brainwashing endemic in the USA.

Just remember, no matter how bad you think the government -- and the people controlling it -- are, the truth and the reality is  that they are far worse than you can even conceive.

.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 13, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.
> ...


By the time the Allied armies brought an early end to the proposed _Thousand Year Reich_ Europe was running out of Jews and the popular claim is those Nazis had managed to wipe out millions of them.  So evidently _they_ took their motivation rather seriously.  Why shouldn't we?

And if the U.S. had taken bin Laden's 1998 admonition seriously, withdrew our support of Israel and removed our military base from the Islamic Holy Land, the World Trade Center would still be standing and there would be 3,000 more Americans enjoying their lives.  



> And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca.  His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.


(Excerpt)

_Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) &#8212; many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia"._

United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Close)

I'm neither inclined to or academically capable of arguing about the geography of the Islamic Holy Land, which I am content to think of as _Mecca._  The fact remains our military presence there pissed off the Muslims and was in part the motivation for the 9/11 attack.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 13, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.


I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as _Mecca_) but you probably can find out via Google.  I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.

It also will interest you to know that shortly after learning who was responsible for the 9/11attack Bush quietly removed the offending _bin Sultan_ airbase from Saudi Arabia and he pressured Arial Sharon to remove the offending settlements from the Gaza region.  Those were the two demands bin Laden had repeatedly made during the end of Clinton's term and the beginning of Bush's. 

While Napolitano will assuringly claim the TSA-type Homeland Security extremes and NSA surveillance programs are protecting us, it was Bush's action in removing the airbase and inducing Sharon to remove the expanding Gaza settlers (at U.S. expense) which accounts for why there have been no major terrorist attacks against us since 9/11.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

MikeK said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.
> ...



I agree with this. It seems too often our government associates the wrong thing as the reason for why we have been able to prevent terrorism since 9/11, whether it's fractured leadership due to the drone program or surveillance programs. Interesting note about Bush though, I wasn't aware of that at all. Obviously he can't be given all the credit for preventing attacks, but fascinating nonetheless. At least he got the memo eventually.

In terms of Osama Bin Laden's demands at the end of the 90s, I can understand how Clinton and whoever else didn't want to bow to his wishes. That being said, an increased amount of dialogue and negotiations could have gone a long way, and yes, perhaps prevented 9/11.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people. I use this example a lot in my writing but who is going to stop a "terrorist" from going to a school in your hometown and shooting up the place? One lone policeman with a gun? How about car bombs? You can't just inspect every car in a metropolitan area. It's interesting that terrorists, whether self-radicalized or not, have not taken advantage of these opportunities more often. Our country could be in complete chaos. (Not that I hope for any of that to happen.)


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

Just a general message to everyone. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I have a couple other posts which haven't gotten as many replies as I'd like (any for that matter). I don't mean to sound all self-centered, just looking for more interesting conversation from all of you about a couple different topics after the success of this post, namely Iran and the Drone Program. I'll also try to read other people's posts too, as I've been too focused on posting my own stuff and posting replies to my own threads. Anyways, would appreciate more useful feedback. Here's the links.

The Drone Program

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/301898-the-drone-program.html

Several Iranian Issues

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/301079-several-iranian-issues.html


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 13, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.



Well if you want to get really specific about it this thread could belong in any number of forums, including racial issues, gun control, conspiracy, politics, whatever. There's no reason we can't have broad discussions in a military forum, as politics and conspiracy theories can directly effect troop allocation. Granted, I'm no conspiracy theorist. Just a thought.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.



Well, you have to realize that this is something I have long thought was our #2 most boneheaded mistake in the 20th century.  Right behind throwing Uncle Ho under the bus after the end of WWII.  I have long thought we should have told the French "OK, you can move back into Indochina, but _only_ with a 5 year plan for granting them their freedom."

Much as we did with the Philippines.  The stupidest thing we did was to not protest when they tried to become a Colonial Power again after being destroyed after WWII.

And not helping rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War was #2.  However, you also have to remember that the largest opponent of the Taliban (and the individual that Al-Qaeda assassinated right before 9-11 was the leader of the Northern Alliance, which was primarily made up of the Mujahedeen that the US supported (the US did not support AQ or the Taliban).



sambino510 said:


> I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking  credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.



Not to mention that was not the first attack on the WTC by OBL.  For some reason everybody seems to forget the 1993 attack.

If this is some kind of conspiracy, it dates back through at least 3 Presidential Administrations, and that simply become implausible to the extreme.



Auteur said:


> It may surprise you to know that before the '60s, Americans had generally good relations with the Arab world, and the idea of a clash between the two would have seemed highly unlikely. So what happened? Did a number of psychopaths suddenly rise up out of nowhere and target Americans?



Prior to the 1960's, the ME was largely considered by most to be the "armpit of the world", only wanted by lunatics, Arabs and Jews.  In fact, that land was considered so worthless by most that controlled it that other then a few choice locations (the Nile, Jerusalem, etc) nobody really cared what went on there, or what they thought.

And the "Arabs" largely did not care what the rest of the world thought.  They primarily wanted to just be left alone.  Until the discovery of oil, they mostly used European Powers against European Powers, knowing that eventually they would leave and things would return to normal.

And there is no "sudden rise" of terrorism.  It has been in place since the end of WWII, it simply did not touch the US much because we really did not have many assets over there (other then our relationship with the Shah).

And actually if you look at the 1960's and 1970's, we were quite opposed with most Arab nations.  Are you aware that during the Arab-Israeli Wars, we supported the only 2 nations that were not attackers?  For all of the vinegar spread now by Iran, that nation never took part in the wars against Israel.  Our relations at the time were much less cordial with those opposed to Israel, and those are generally the ones we get along with best today.



MikeK said:


> I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as _Mecca_) but you probably can find out via Google.  I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.



I am sorry, Saudi Arabia is not the "Islamic Holy Land".  And Saudi Arabia is also not "Mecca".  You really need to try and bother to learn a little about Islam, because you are coming off like an ignorant Isamophobe at the moment.

And yes, we maintained a presence at KKMC, *because Saudi Arabia Asked Us To*.  That was because of how Saudi Arabia felt about the Iraqi No Fly Zone, which they were one of the main petitioners to the UN to extend indefinitely.

And without an air base in Saudi Arabia, we could not have maintained an almost decade long UN mandate active.

It is not like we just moved in and refused to go.  Saudi Arabia by their own choice became the home of the Coalition and UN forces that was enforcing the UN No Fly Zone.  At any time Saudi Arabia could have withdrawn their support for this UN mission, and we would have left.  But they kept them in place, because they had legitimate reasons to fear Iraq.



sambino510 said:


> I agree with this. It seems too often our government associates the wrong thing as the reason for why we have been able to prevent terrorism since 9/11, whether it's fractured leadership due to the drone program or surveillance programs.



We have been able to curtail terrorist attacks, but certainly not "prevent" it.  We have largely been able to largely prevent it from striking directly on US soil, but not eliminated it (not even on US soil).

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the very short attention spans of Americans.  Just today I was talking to my roomie (who is in her 60's), and she had absolutely forgotten that the WTC had been attacked in 1993.  And she said she had never heard of the Millennium Plot, and had also forgotten about the plot against Fort Dix.

And there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of attacks elsewhere around the world, from Mahadobhi Temple to Israel.

We in reality have not done a lot to stop "terrorism".  Other then very rare instances that never really impacted the US, and is still does not today.  Most of those that die from it live in that area.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.
> ...



The problem is that there are some here that are.  And they will jump at any opportunity to jump on the CT bandwagon, and try to win over converts to the "Church of the Illuminati".


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 14, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.
> ...



Totally agree with what you've said. Our abandonment of Afghanistan and Vietnam was an incredible mistake in foreign policy, similar to our lack of aid to Europe following World War I. What was that you mentioned about the Philippines becoming a colonial power though? Not sure I understood that point.

I agree too that we haven't really stopped terrorism, I was simply stating that if we are to assume that we HAVE stopped terrorism then these programs often get too much credit.

Funny that I, too, forgot about previous attacks on the WTC. That does seem to blow a whole in the conspiracy theories.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 14, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Prior to the 1960's, the ME was largely considered by most to be the "armpit of the world", only wanted by lunatics, Arabs and Jews.  In fact, that land was considered so worthless by most that controlled it that other then a few choice locations (the Nile, Jerusalem, etc) nobody really cared what went on there, or what they thought.
> 
> And the "Arabs" largely did not care what the rest of the world thought.  They primarily wanted to just be left alone.  Until the discovery of oil, they mostly used European Powers against European Powers, knowing that eventually they would leave and things would return to normal.
> 
> ...



The events that started off the split we see today between the Arab world and the US were the cold war division of the region, with the Soviets arming  Arab states such as Egypt and Syria, and more importantly, America's strong tilt towards Israel, starting with the Nixon administration, and Henry Kissinger, in the mid '60s. This was quite a shift from the decade previous, where Eisenhower told Britain, France, and Israel to get out of Egypt during the Suez War of 1956.

Israel is seen as a violent interloper in the region, and ongoing, unquestioning US support has served to harden feelings over the years. The cold war divisions have evaporated, but the Israel/Arab dispute has festered and caused ever more extremism.

Before '79, the US was a strong supporter of the Iranian (not actually Arab) administration, but here again, the US had sown the seeds of future discontent. The CIA backed overthrow of a democratic government in 1953, and the support of what was seen as a repressive dictatorship by many in that country, meant that animosity would surface after the revolution.

It has been the continual emphasis on narrow, short term self interest, rather than strategic well being, ethical considerations, and, as you suggest yourself, a cavalier reading of history that has gotten the US into so many troubles since 1945.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 14, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is  bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 14, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Once again we are obviously very far apart on our world view and view of race, and that's fine. I doubt you will be convinced that all races are biologically equal, or that I'll be convinced that they're not. I still appreciate the debate. Your point that white people have not done anything violent in the past 60 years is both irrelevant and untrue in my opinion. It's irrelevant because no matter what time of history a race commits violent acts, it still proves that psychologically they are capable of it. It's untrue because there are indeed wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. that are all demonstrations of white violence, no matter what our purposes behind it were. What stands out to me was the Vietnam war, where soldiers would raid villages like My Lai and burn them down, rape the women, and kill most of the villagers. That sounds like pretty violent behavior to me, and that was only 50 years ago.
> ...


----------



## numan (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people....
> 
> Our country could be in complete chaos.


Our country _IS_ in complete chaos. People with chaotic minds just don't notice.

Why would our rulers create more attacks? They got the totalitarian "Patriot" Act they wanted.

By the way, if you manage to live through most of this century, you will not think that there were few terrorist attacks.
.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 14, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 14, 2013)

numan said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people....
> ...



I use the phrase "terrorist attacks", but what I really mean is crime in general. With the economy in shambles and so many people pissed off about social change, how is there not more crime? Many, many people have guns, and have enough pent up rage to use them, so why are there not more home robberies? Murders? It's just amazing to me, and really I think it's testament to a natural human tendency towards NON-violence if anything. 

You're sadly right however that terrorism is not going away any time soon, I just think it will be more common in Iraq and Afghanistan and such and not so much in America.


----------



## numan (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> You're sadly right however that terrorism is not going away any time soon, I just think it will be more common in Iraq and Afghanistan and such and not so much in America.


That will depend on whether the Military-Industrial Complex can profit more by tearing apart and then re-building Iraq and Afghanistan, or whether they can profit more by tearing apart and re-building the USA.

.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 14, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> [...]
> 
> Though I agree with much of what you said, I would have to say that Colin Powell remains one of the more intelligent members of that administration. He eventually came out and admitted that he was mis-led by intelligence services and apologized for his role in what went on back then. This could just be an attempt to save face, but I can appreciate a man who knows how to apologize nonetheless. Now, he seems very realistic about some of the impossibilities of the two wars, and it's hard to believe that was him a decade ago. That being said, I still do not think Colin Powell is some shining example to the black race. I think the person who brought his name up simply wanted to demonstrate his success in life in order to prove the point that not all black people are naturally unsuccessful.


You seem impressed by the fact that Powell apologized for what he did, which in the final analysis was to consciously prostitute his reputation by betraying the trust of this Nation in order to facilitate the invasion of a non-aggressive country.  You address this issue as if he were apologizing for causing a minor traffic accident.  

What Powell did is absolutely unforgivable.  He is directly responsible for one of the most egregious mass crimes of the century -- for which he remains wholly unpunished and free to enjoy his retirement.  

How many American deaths and maiming resulted from the Iraq invasion?  How many innocent Iraqi deaths and maiming resulted from it?  How much has it cost us in terms of treasure and national reputation?   What has it cost our allies?   What has it cost the Iraqi people?  

That sonofabitch apologizes for enabling it -- and you think that's pretty good?   He should be apologizing on a scaffold with a noose around his neck.  Then it might have some meaning.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 14, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> [...]
> 
> I am sorry, Saudi Arabia is not the "Islamic Holy Land".  And Saudi Arabia is also not "Mecca".  You really need to try and bother to learn a little about Islam, because you are coming off like an ignorant Isamophobe at the moment.
> 
> [...]


(Excerpt)


_Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina)  many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia"._

United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Close)

If you think of yourself as a scholar on mid-East affairs and Islamic geography I make no such claim nor have I any such academic awareness -- or interest.  I readily admit to being relatively ignorant about such details.  What I do know is what I derive from credible sources, which is what I've put forth, such as Osama bin Laden instigated the 9/11 attack because of our support of Israel and because of the presence of our troops on what he referred to as the Islamic Holy Land.  And my source of that information is the horse's mouth.  

Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS

That aside I would like you to tell me what (specifically) I've said that suggests (to you) I am an "Islamophobe?"  Normally I am denounced as an anti-Semite because I advocate withdrawal of U.S. support of Israel.  So what has conveyed this ethnicity-based impression to you.

PS:  Are you a negro?


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 14, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> We manufacture enemies better than any other country on the planet.



True. True.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 14, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 15, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > There is of course an irony here, in that you deny the environment having a major effect on minorities, yet here you are, locked up behind your guns and gates, a product of your own experiences and perceptions of the world.
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 15, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## numan (Jul 15, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine.


So -- you live in a walled, gated fortress, armed to the teeth, with armed guards ceaselessly prowling the perimeter, attack dogs at the ready -- all this you need to "survive"?

What, pray tell, is the difference between this and living in a prison?

I could hardly think of a more damning indictment of the utter failure of America -- both as a government and as a society -- than the feudal fortress "war of all against all" that you imagine to be a reasonable way to live.

I have long maintained that the America of the Constitution and the chaotic society initiated by the Insurrectionary Terrorists of 1776 was an unmitigated disaster for the development of America -- but your description of armed, frightened fortresses struggling to "survive" far surpasses even the most vitriolic criticisms of the USA that I have ever imagined.

.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 15, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not also base your opinions on the same thing? We all are influenced by such things, and form our views through hear-say, books, education, experiences, whatever. I'm no different from you, and like you said I cannot assume you know what you're talking about and you can't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or vice versa. We're just different.
> ...


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 15, 2013)

numan said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I live next to a small swamp, but as a survivalist, I live in a subdivision with an armed guard, alarm system and barking dog and some guns locked-up as backup---as you could imagine.
> ...



Just trying to point out that as a survivalist, I have to defend "my cred."

Actually, this neighborhood is only an armed fortress mainly because I figure 8  out of 10 homes here have at least one gun in them.  The fence is wooden, and all the entrances are left open during the day.  At night, a guard checks the license plates and keeps out (hopefully) any undesirables.

At least in our area, we have walking trails and families can safety walk with their babies with little fear---at all---even after dark.  We have a pretty easygoing life here actually.

However, in the hood 20 kicks away, years of broken socialistic policies  have allowed the players there to set up open air narcotics dealerships.  Home invasions, carjackings and the various thefts, rapes, assaults are just part of daily life there.  People do live in real fear over there, and don't walk with their kids after dark.

Just like in the bad areas of London and Birmigham in the UK, the criminals know the government, laws and police are so weak and laughable that they can run amok with little fear of being caught.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 15, 2013)

I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but  disaster for the average citizen.

Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.

I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.


----------



## numan (Jul 15, 2013)

Auteur said:


> I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.


Ain't it the truth?

Except, the USA is more and more a de-industrializing power -- and what industries that remain are more and more War Industries.

That certainly does not bode well for the future -- especially considering how susceptible Americans are to being brainwashed, and following policies which are disastrous to themselves.

.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
> 
> July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.
> 
> ...



unlike a lot of other posters arounf here,you sense soemthing is wrong with our country and are starting to wake up abaout this.

thats exactly what our military is doing,fighting for americas interests abroad trying to take over the nations of other countries in their phony war on terror,thats what most the world rightfully hates us and americans as well  rightfully so because the american sheeple arent doing anything about it and are allowing it to go on.whats the LAMESTREAM media is not reporting is how the american soldiers have been using innocent women and children as target practice shooting them when they are just going out there to try and rescue innocents and give tme first aid attention who were shot just for walking the streets. soldiers have come forward and confessed this but you dont here a peep about this from the LAMESTREAM media.it gets covered up.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 15, 2013)

Auteur said:


> I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but  disaster for the average citizen.
> 
> Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.
> 
> I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.



I'm not much of a racist.  Just this morning I helped fix up 5 Blacks, 4 Hispanic kids, 1 Asian and only 1 White.  Wouldn't be able to do much holed up in bunker.  Certainly wouldn't pay the bills.

I'm for better understanding people and their problems so they can be better served.  Since I belive in "fairness" I don't support liberalist or communistic ideas like income redistribution, affirmative action (racist as it comes), unlimited welfare or weak criminal laws.  The liberal would rather see 1,000 career criminals set free to do 1,000 more crimes, than see one career criminal  get wrongly punished for one of the few crimes he didn't get away with.

I'm a capitalist, not a communist.  Individuals are given the oppertunity to rise or fall based on their own actions.  People are not just ants on some classless anthill.  My impression of you is like one of those NKVD/KGB types who suspects anyone and everyone that their paranoid and ruthless leaders suspect of not holding the party line.  You would make an excellent teacher at a commie re-education camp.  In the mean  time you can think up another program to keep crime lower in Canada other than the failed gun buyback program.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 15, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 15, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
> ...



I appreciate the positive feedback to my writing. That being said I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose. it happens quite a bit "on accident" in bombings and the like I'm sure), but they are generally well trained and those instances are the exceptions to the rule. I do agree with much of what you said, I would just be careful about making accusations about the "average" soldier.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I appreciate the positive feedback to my writing. That being said I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose. it happens quite a bit "on accident" in bombings and the like I'm sure), but they are generally well trained and those instances are the exceptions to the rule. I do agree with much of what you said, I would just be careful about making accusations about the "average" soldier.



[sarcasm]
Oh no, actually we do this all the time.  It is SOP when we are in theatre to fire a few rounds at the nearest child to make sure that our barrel is properly clean and our weapon is sighted in.  And if a child is not available, a grandmother works just as well (but less challenging because they are larger and move slower).

We are also eagerly preparing for the day we can do this right inside the US.  Like when the President gives the word, and we can throw away that pesky Constitution and start taking away peoples guns in home invasions prior to the UN arriving in force to take over the government.
[/sarcasm]

And the really sad thing is, there are people who actually believe what I just wrote.


----------



## numan (Jul 15, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> ...I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose....


I think you are not able to judge rightly how brainwashed and conditioned soldiers are by their governments. Nor do I think you can judge how irrational people can become under stress -- especially prolonged stress.

Moreover, the military is often a haven for sociopaths -- and _especially,_ how often sociopaths become private military contractors.

.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 15, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but  disaster for the average citizen.
> ...



Fixed them up? Are you a doctor? What did you do for these inferior humans?



Survivalist said:


> [
> I'm for better understanding people and their problems so they can be better served.  Since I belive in "fairness" I don't support liberalist or communistic ideas like income redistribution,



Then you don't believe in fairness. The reasons income is distributed as it is are complex, and in many cases have little or nothing to do with personal attributes or effort. Furthermore, ethical or not, economic well being in the modern world rests on goverment regulation of the economy, and interventions in the market place. All accept this today, except for the right wing in America. Does this tell you something?




Survivalist said:


> [
> affirmative action (racist as it comes), unlimited welfare or weak criminal laws.  The liberal would rather see 1,000 career criminals set free to do 1,000 more crimes, than see one career criminal  get wrongly punished for one of the few crimes he didn't get away with.



Hyperbole. In fact, the US has some of the most draconian laws in the world, including some reprehensible nations. They haven't worked.



Survivalist said:


> [
> I'm a capitalist, not a communist.  Individuals are given the opportunity to rise or fall based on their own actions.  People are not just ants on some classless anthill.



You haven't keep up with your reading Mr S. Social mobility, that is, the movement of individual through the socioeconomic strata of their societies (famously celebrated in the US) is in fact higher now in places like (small s socialist) Europe, for all their troubles. The US is becoming an ever more classist and divided society, with extreme polarization of wealth. Increasingly, people rise and fall, as you put it, by merit of who they know, who their parents were, and how much money they start with.



Survivalist said:


> [
> My impression of you is like one of those NKVD/KGB types who suspects anyone and everyone that their paranoid and ruthless leaders suspect of not holding the party line.  You would make an excellent teacher at a commie re-education camp.  In the mean  time you can think up another program to keep crime lower in Canada other than the failed gun buyback program.



Thanks for endorsing my teaching abilities. I'm not sure what you mean by the gun buyback program. Rifles and shotguns here are (controversially) legal under some strict guidelines, handguns are virtually unknown, outside of police, military, and certain security roles.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 15, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate the positive feedback to my writing. That being said I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose. it happens quite a bit "on accident" in bombings and the like I'm sure), but they are generally well trained and those instances are the exceptions to the rule. I do agree with much of what you said, I would just be careful about making accusations about the "average" soldier.
> ...



Haha yeah I mean it's funny on the one hand but on the other hand it's a pretty serious misconception. Like I said, incidents happen but to think this is how the average soldier operates is pretty ludicrous, and insulting to the average soldier's integrity.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Haha yeah I mean it's funny on the one hand but on the other hand it's a pretty serious misconception. Like I said, incidents happen but to think this is how the average soldier operates is pretty ludicrous, and insulting to the average soldier's integrity.



Those are generally people who are so politically biased that they would not know a neutral thought if it smacked them upside the head with a sledge hammer.  Either they are Far Left and see the military as butchers and murderers who eat children.  Or they are Far Right and see the military as mindless minions of The State who will blindly follow any orders given, including taking away their guns and turning control of the country over to the UN, ZOG, or whatever boogieman their diseased mind imagines.

The reality is that those in the military are generally just like anybody else for the most part.  Neither better or worse, we simply made the choice to serve our country for 3+ years.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 16, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Haha yeah I mean it's funny on the one hand but on the other hand it's a pretty serious misconception. Like I said, incidents happen but to think this is how the average soldier operates is pretty ludicrous, and insulting to the average soldier's integrity.
> ...



I agree. Although I fundamentally disagree with the military, I hold absolutely nothing against soldiers themselves and greatly respect their sacrifice. Similar to how you choose to respect the president regardless of his actions, I think it's important to show the troops the same respect.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 16, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I agree. Although I fundamentally disagree with the military, I hold absolutely nothing against soldiers themselves and greatly respect their sacrifice. Similar to how you choose to respect the president regardless of his actions, I think it's important to show the troops the same respect.


Who chooses to respect a President regardless of his actions?  I certainly do not.  A President either earns respect or he shouldn't be so regarded.  

I respected FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, because those men respected the Office and conducted it with dignity and with sincere concern for the best interests of the People who elected them.  Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and the deceitful faker we have today are a different breed.  

It appears the Office of President has become fundamentally corrupted by the influence of an occupying shadow government consisting of super-rich corporatists-- and those who are _selected_ to inhabit that Office are compliant.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 16, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 16, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



Actually, I'm a haristylist.  Me and my gay friends work on all hair types of all peoples.  Actually, as a survivalist, I try to keep my personal details classified---like you.

I support the wonderful criminal justice laws as they were before Miranda.  I've already said this.  Those laws worked.  The more liberals laws haven't.  Three strikes laws are an improvement, but it is stupid to wharehouse millions of inmates in prison.  Hanging the worst, violent felons is the way to go.

Among the other failed ideas on gun control:

Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure' - Canada - CBC News


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 16, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## Auteur (Jul 16, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Actually, I'm a haristylist.  Me and my gay friends work on all hair types of all peoples.  Actually, as a survivalist, I try to keep my personal details classified---like you.



I'll drop in for  a trim, if I'm ever doing a tour of white survivialist fortresses in the swampland of the US south.



Survivalist said:


> I support the wonderful criminal justice laws as they were before Miranda.  I've already said this.  Those laws worked.  The more liberals laws haven't.  Three strikes laws are an improvement, but it is stupid to wharehouse millions of inmates in prison.  Hanging the worst, violent felons is the way to go.



The graphs you previously presented show a curve that is similar to other juristictions, in that the line parallels the rise of the baby boom generation. The average age of society dropped after WW2, and just recently has begun to clime again. Sociologists speculate that as it is mostly young men that commit crimes, the more youthful society is, the more crimes comitted. As society ages, so too rates drop off (as they are doing).



Survivalist said:


> Among the other failed ideas on gun control:
> 
> Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure' - Canada - CBC News



When quoting from the net, it is important to examine sources. Trudeau is an inmature young man who is currently trying to pander votes from the right wing segment of Canadian society. Soliciting the opinions of Canadian chiefs of police, for example, will give you a different stance.

And at any rate no one here is discounting gun control, the controversy is over one specific program that has had famous cost overruns. Guns, particularly handguns, are still tightly controlled. And not surprisingly, gun deaths are much less here than in the US.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Although I fundamentally disagree with the military, I hold absolutely nothing against soldiers themselves and greatly respect their sacrifice. Similar to how you choose to respect the president regardless of his actions, I think it's important to show the troops the same respect.
> ...



Of course, that is your _opinion_, and opinions are like...  well, you know how that saying goes.

There is an old saying in the military, it goes "Respect the rank if not the man".  I may think that Staff Sergeant Smith and Lieutenant Jones are both dumber then the south bound end of a north bound horse, but I will still give them the respect their rank and position warrants.  I do not have to like them, I do not even have to respect them as individuals, but I *will* treat them with the dignity and respect of that office or position.

And I treat the President the same way, regardless of who's ass happens to be sitting in that chair.

That is because I consider myself a professional, and I have taken an oath many times swearing that I would uphold and defend the Constitution, and under that document the President has legally been appointed to that position.

I may think a President is a moron, I may even say he is a moron, but I will not denigrate him nor his position simply for "cheap political points".  Same as an Officer may give me an order I do not like.

But most civilians operate on little more then a mob mentality, and I really do not expect much better from most civilians to be honest.  Nothing personal, that has just been my experience is all.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 16, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > Try not to ignore the diplomatic nature with which I place my comments. That is, I do not present anything as fact, and I admit I, as well as others, have my biases and that even if I do like SOME things about Ho Chi Minh, not whoever the hell "Uncle Ho" is, I do not agree with the violence. I am simply, like you said, holding everyone, and that includes the U.S., to the same standard. I am not some naive child who couldn't possibly know anything about the world. I have very, very much to learn, but I do not see Ho Chi Minh as a hero in the same way I don't see John F. Kennedy as a hero, or most presidents for that matter. They have some good ideas, and some bad ideas; their commonality is that they all believe committing violent acts in order to achieve peace, which I fundamentally disagree with.
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 16, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## numan (Jul 16, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> There is an old saying in the military, it goes "Respect the rank if not the man".


The usual military imbecility and corruption.
To Hell with the rank, and flush the position down the toilet.
Only the character of the *man* is worth anything.



> But most civilians operate on little more then a mob mentality, and I really do not expect much better from most civilians to be honest.


Hah!! And the Officer Class of the US military are corrupt, time-serving, back-stabbers!!

Read Colin Powell's Autobiography to understand that!!
He broke the Code of Silence.

Dumbo Powell  was too stupid to realize how much he was revealing!!!

.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 16, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > Survivalist said:
> ...


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 17, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 17, 2013)

numan said:


> Hah!! And the Officer Class of the US military are corrupt, time-serving, back-stabbers!!



OK, so you have a bigoted and false belief of what the military is, an irrational hatred of those in the military, and whitewash everybody into that.  Based only upon your prejudices and preconcieved beliefs.

Noted, and filed away as "*extremely* biased political individuals with closed minds".


----------



## MikeK (Jul 17, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> Saying fantastic things such as liking Ho Chi Mihn in a military forum will get you unwanted attention, but you come off as a very fair minded person.
> 
> Remeber watching the Wizard of Oz when the Wizard said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?"  That is the same thing the major media is telling you today.  I have been looking behind the curtain for awhile now.  Here is a basic summary of who controlls what you see and think:
> 
> ...


This is important information.  Thanks for posting it.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 17, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Of course, that is your _opinion_, and opinions are like...  well, you know how that saying goes.
> 
> There is an old saying in the military, it goes "Respect the rank if not the man".  I may think that Staff Sergeant Smith and Lieutenant Jones are both dumber then the south bound end of a north bound horse, but I will still give them the respect their rank and position warrants.  I do not have to like them, I do not even have to respect them as individuals, but I *will* treat them with the dignity and respect of that office or position.
> 
> [...]


That's because you've exchanged your Constitutional freedoms for an enlistment bonus and free room and board.  So don't boast about something you have no control over.  You have no choice but to obey the orders of nitwits and to salute moral inferiors and exalted scoundrels (like Colin Powell) or they will march you off to the brig and torture you for a few months.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 17, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> CNN is one of the worst if you ask me. I wouldn't say their information is necessarily biased, but they're concerned most with just getting SOME story out there so that they're the first ones, rather than getting the RIGHT story out there. In terms of NY times, I read them too but they're no less biased than anyone else I'd argue; they pretty much stick to the party line. Back when the Iraq war was ramping up they spouted all the information just like everyone else.



Yes, this is so. It is very slim pickings in the US media. I find the difference between Canadian or European media, and US equivalents, to be quite shocking. Here journalists will tear into politicians, second guess everything they say, and ridicule foolish ideas. In the US, many subjects are now virtually off limits. Few tough questions are asked about Iraq or afghanistan, about the power of the corporate lobby in Washington, about the migration of wealth and power into ever fewer hands, about the dysfunctional relationship with Israel, and others. I have to laugh when I hear the silly claim that the media is run by "liberals" (what the rest of the world would call center-left social democrats).


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 17, 2013)

MikeK said:


> That's because you've exchanged your Constitutional freedoms for an enlistment bonus and free room and board.  So don't boast about something you have no control over.  You have no choice but to obey the orders of nitwits and to salute moral inferiors and exalted scoundrels (like Colin Powell) or they will march you off to the brig and torture you for a few months.



Say what?

Well, out of the 5 times I chose to raise my hand, I only got that bonus twice.  I have long told anybody that enlists/reenlists for a bonus, they are idiots.  And I was married every single time I reenlisted, so what "free room and board" are you talking about?

I pretty much had to live in the worst parts of town, because it was the only place I could afford to live.  Compton, East El Paso, Richlands, Central Vallejo, pretty much all garbage neighborhoods.  This is because the "housing allowance" is largely a joke, based upon economic conditions years earlier (I still laugh remembering them telling me in North Carolina I could rent a 2 bedroom house for $350, that would not even get a craphole 1 bedroom apartment).

And that chow hall ain't free my friend if you are married.  As much as it cost, I choose to pay an extra buck and go to Burger King.

ROFL, and no, you are not "marched off to the brig".  People who can't follow orders are simply kicked out.  To go to "the brig", you have to do something really serious, like theft, assault, or some other crime that is rated as a felony.

And most bases do not have brigs anymore, have not had them for over a decade.  Most military inmates for terms of less then 1 year are held in County Jails.  For example, if you need to go to "the brig" at either Fort Bliss or Holloman Air Force Base, you are actually incarcerated at the Otero County Jail in New Mexico.

But I would love to hear more about US military prisoners being tortured.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 17, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you've exchanged your Constitutional freedoms for an enlistment bonus and free room and board.  So don't boast about something you have no control over.  You have no choice but to obey the orders of nitwits and to salute moral inferiors and exalted scoundrels (like Colin Powell) or they will march you off to the brig and torture you for a few months.
> ...


For that you'd need to go back to Parris Island of the fifties and beyond -- or any Marine Corps brig of that era.  

It appears the U.S. military has changed a bit since my time.  But I'm quite sure the same rules apply to obeying orders and demonstrating submissive respect to anything that shines.  Because a military cannot function within its essential purpose without such requirements.


----------



## numan (Jul 18, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> And most bases do not have brigs anymore, have not had them for over a decade.


I see your point. What need for brigs when the entire military is a vast system of gulag concentration camps where the inmates are dosed with poisonous chemicals and poisonous brainwashing.



> But I would love to hear more about US military prisoners being tortured.


*Bradley Manning.*

.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 18, 2013)

numan said:


> I see your point. What need for brigs when the entire military is a vast system of gulag concentration camps where the inmates are dosed with poisonous chemicals and poisonous brainwashing.
> 
> *Bradley Manning.*



Concentration camp?  Inmates?  Sheesh, get off the pipe already.  It is obvious you know absolutely nothing about the military.

And Bradley Manning?  The guy who is in jail awaiting trial for breaking the law?  Let's see, the closest I have heard of him being tortured is that he is on suicide watch and in solitary.

Well, the first is reasonable.  As for the second, that is for his own protection.

Much as child molesters and cops are segregated in prison for their own protection, the same goes for PFC Manning.  What do you think his life expectancy would be in the "General Population"?  If he was not in solitary, we would not be awaiting his trial because he would already be dead at the hands of other inmates.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 18, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > I see your point. What need for brigs when the entire military is a vast system of gulag concentration camps where the inmates are dosed with poisonous chemicals and poisonous brainwashing.
> ...



I personally don't know a whole lot about the Bradley Manning situation, but why would other inmates want to kill him? I agree with having him on suicide watch, but I'm just curious why he's in danger of being killed.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 18, 2013)

numan said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > And most bases do not have brigs anymore, have not had them for over a decade.
> ...



I've agreed with a lot of what you've said here and appreciate you giving me some positive feedback. However, these accusations against the AVERAGE military soldier seem baseless and a bit offensive, as well as completely off topic. There are many nefarious things the military does in its missions (I would argue) but the soldiers themselves can't be blamed. They are not brainwashed with "chemicals". Anyways, my point being you can state your opinion but comments making generalizations about the military tend to draw some flak.


----------



## sambino510 (Jul 18, 2013)

Auteur said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > CNN is one of the worst if you ask me. I wouldn't say their information is necessarily biased, but they're concerned most with just getting SOME story out there so that they're the first ones, rather than getting the RIGHT story out there. In terms of NY times, I read them too but they're no less biased than anyone else I'd argue; they pretty much stick to the party line. Back when the Iraq war was ramping up they spouted all the information just like everyone else.
> ...



Probably my biggest frustration about the media is indeed the "Israel" aspect. Once you bring that up though, people start thinking you're an anti-semite, or one of those crazy Jew-haters who think the media is owned by Jewish companies or something. Nobody asks questions about WHY Israel is our ally or WHY we should give them money.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 18, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > I see your point. What need for brigs when the entire military is a vast system of gulag concentration camps where the inmates are dosed with poisonous chemicals and poisonous brainwashing.
> ...


My understanding of solitary confinement on suicide watch is a totally barren cell, i.e., nothing but an open steel toilet and flat steel cot which is welded to the wall and covered by a 2" hard-rubber mattress.  The inmate is stripped naked (to preclude fabrication of a strangling implement).  The walls and ceiling are painted white or pale green, the inacessible fluorescent ceiling light remains on constantly.  The heat is kept high (to compensate for the lack of clothing).  No reading or writing materials are permitted (to prevent strangling by swallowing).  Sleeping is not permitted during _daytime_ hours when the inmate is required to remain standing or sitting.  When asleep, the inmate is awakened by a guard every hour to maintain suicide watch.  

The only relief from this constant barrenness is a daily one hour "exercise" period in which the inmate is removed from his cell and placed in a larger, equally barren area with a semi-inflated basketball and hoop.  The penalty for uncooperative behavior is the straight-jacket or restraining sheet.  

How long do you think you could tolerate that before wishing to exchange it for a broken leg, ears-to-testicles electrocution, or some old-fashioned water-boarding?   It is a well-established fact that psychological torture is far more agonizing than the physical kind, which the mind can evade via unconsciousness.  



> Well, the first is reasonable.  As for the second, that is for his own protection.
> 
> Much as child molesters and cops are segregated in prison for their own protection, the same goes for PFC Manning.  What do you think his life expectancy would be in the "General Population"?  If he was not in solitary, we would not be awaiting his trial because he would already be dead at the hands of other inmates.


What Manning did was blow the whistle on _the Man,_ and the typical prison inmate is not known for extreme right-wing patriotism.  So I don't think he would have a problem in the general population.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 19, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> I personally don't know a whole lot about the Bradley Manning situation, but why would other inmates want to kill him? I agree with having him on suicide watch, but I'm just curious why he's in danger of being killed.



Think about it.  Mr. Manning is in a military prison.  Where every inmate is a member of the military.  And while they have done crimes that are severe enough to land them in prison (rape, murder, assault, etc), they are all still members of the military (until they get out), and most would place somebody like PFC Manning on a list for being killed.

Just like former cops in jail.  Or people who commit crimes against children, he is kept in isolation for his own protection.  Imagine what 2 or 3 Iraq-Afghanistan vets who really were fighting would think of somebody who sat in a tent and turned over to civilians papers that damaged their reputation, and maybe even got some of their comrades killed?

And MikeK, what do you think most prisons are like?  Holiday Inns?  I do not know if you have ever spent time in jail, I have.  And guess what the conditions were like?

_Totally barren cell, i.e., nothing but an open steel toilet and flat steel cot which is welded to the wall and covered by a 2" hard-rubber mattress.  The walls and ceiling are painted white or pale green, the inaccessible fluorescent ceiling light remains on constantly._

And guess what happened every time I was taken out of my cell and taken to another part of the facility?

_I was stripped naked and given a thorough search (even "body cavity")._

I just wish I could have been in that cell alone, instead of locked up with 3-5 other people (this was a 4 man cell, 2 sleeping on the floor was not unusual).

So I really don't get what you are whining about there.  That is typical conditions in any jail or prison around the country.


----------



## Survivalist (Jul 19, 2013)

sambino510 said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > sambino510 said:
> ...



Why do you think most of the media is so pro-Israel?  Are they more pro-Israel, or more pro-Jewish?  I wonder why some Hollywood types try to change their names, like from Rothstein to Redstone?  Anyway, only a neo-Nazi or Islamic terrorist, or similar fruitcake would think that  Jews run 75% of US media industy and are only 2% of the US population.  These people must be crazy to put this out:

Who Controls Big Media? | Who Controls America?

Anyway, if there really were that many Jews in power in the entertainment industry, then they would naturally focus their bais against Nazis or any ethic Germans (their most hated enemies) by putting out hundreds of anti-German war films and Holocaust programs.  And naturally being far left-of-center, they would have almost no films putting Communists, particularly Soviets, in a bad light.  I haven't seen any evidence of this.  So there is nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 19, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> So I really don't get what you are whining about there.  That is typical conditions in any jail or prison around the country.


What is?  Being locked in a barren cell 23 hours a day with absolutely no diversions?  That is psychological torture by any standard.  And to say it is typical in any jail or prison is evidence you don't know what you're talking about.

While I've never served time in a prison or jail my occupation afforded familiarity with conditions in some of the most active correctional facilities in the Nation.  And except for relatively brief periods of _punitive segregation_ (barren solitary confinement), which by medical recommendation is limited to thirty consecutive days and rarely exceeds ten, the typical prison inmate is ordinarily afforded access to radio, television, occasionial movies, and reading and writing materials.  Sentenced prisoners have jobs, engage in sports activities, enjoy visits and occasional telephone calls.  And all prison inmates are not confined to cells.  Some are housed under dormitory conditions.  

I recommend you go here for a bit of basic education on this topic, which you clearly are in need of:  Torture: The Use of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons | Center for Constitutional Rights


----------



## MikeK (Jul 19, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally don't know a whole lot about the Bradley Manning situation, but why would other inmates want to kill him? I agree with having him on suicide watch, but I'm just curious why he's in danger of being killed.
> ...


Why?  What exactly did Manning do which you regard as comparable to child molestation?  

All I've read and heard suggests only that Manning outed "classified" information which is embarrassing to a lot of high-level military brass and some politicians.  And while the Administration likes to say the information he released is useful to "the enemy," I am yet to hear just who "the enemy" is.  Maybe you can tell us.

Could be Manning will be regarded as a kind of folk hero by imprisoned military personnel -- few, if any, of whom have any affection for the military.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 19, 2013)

MikeK said:


> What is?  Being locked in a barren cell 23 hours a day with absolutely no diversions?  That is psychological torture by any standard.  And to say it is typical in any jail or prison is evidence you don't know what you're talking about.



Errr, then feel free to go spend some time in the LA County Jail.  I had a 45 day vacation there a few years ago.  4 man cells, no radio, no TVs, only let out 1 hour every 3 days for shouwer, and 1 hour a week for time in "the yard" (actually, the roof).

And I did not talk about prison, I talked about jail.  People who are being held in confinement pre-trial are in jail.  People who have been convicted are in either a Prison or Penitentiary (unless their sentences are so short they serve them in the jail).  And I am not aware of any jails that allow radios and TVs.  That is generally something you can not have unless you are in a prison or penitentiary.

And yea, I know more then a bit about the system myself.  Been there and done that, son in and out for years, and the company I work for is in over 100 facilities around the country (from City all the way to Federal facilities).  I literally talk on a daily basis to not only prison staff but inmates and detainees as well.


----------

