Yeah, guns for protection. This concept works only for very few people who are sane enough to respect a gun for the deadly device it is, have a sufficiently high moral standard and yet are determined enough to actually use it in a situation where it is appropriate.
My guns are for sports only, properly locked in a safe, not only to meet the laws but also to keep them away from my 8yo son.
Excuse me Canuck, obviously keeping guns out of the hands of kids (and irresponsible or criminal adults) in the solution. Banning baggy pants is just a work around, because society won't solve the real problem, keeping guns from kids. Does that make me a rightwing nutjob because I'd rather fix the true problem, instead of just take away more of people's individual liberties?
Should we ban spoons to fight obesity? Wouldn't metal detectors in the school be more effective? Wouldn't police arresting violent gang members be more effective?
So lets say we ban those darn baggy pants. Do we then ban baggy shirts? I might support that for some women, but not the fat ones. Do we also ban baggy coats? Because those tight fitting jackets are so nice and warm.
If you ban baggy pants, might that not be considered racially motivated or discriminating? Heaven forbid, we could never do that!
Hm, interesting path of reasoning. So it is liberals who want to ban the baggy pants instead of the guns? I would rather think it is the right wing that wants to make a patchwork semisolution.
Ban the baggy pants and keep your guns. Almost a slogan.
How do you keep guns out of the hands of kids without reducing the number of guns significantly and put more restrictions on their owners? The problem in the USA is that too many socially defunct or just unstable or unreliable people own guns.
The only way to keep guns from kids is better parenting. No government can raise kids to make their own decisions like a proper parent should. Any legislature for gun regulation would violate civil liberties- a path that is a slippery slope for regulation in other areas (obesity etc).
The only way to fix the problem of gang violence, excessive gun violence, etc., is to allow adults to arm themselves everywhere, for self defense. School massacres would not have been as deadly if more people had the weapons to protect themselves and their mates. Gun control is the ability to unload a clip into your assailant.
>a path that is a slippery slope for regulation...
Did you check the Patriot Act lately? You guys are already in much deeper trouble than any tighter regulation on guns could put you into. The right of free speach and legal rights is much more important than any bozo being allowed to run around with a gun and your government has systematically taking away these basic things from you ever since 9/11.
As I wrote before: Drive to school in a tank and you are safe.
our rights to free speech etc are not made at the expense of any other rights. The US government has been taking away rights for more than 100 years. Their reasons for taking rights away don't solve any problems. A lot of people expect the US government to take care of its citizens and even other countries, but they fail to realize the US government cannot address these problems properly. There are more effective ways of dealing with these problems which mainly revolves around adult responsibility. The only function that the US government can somewhat adequately perform is national defense.
First, no one carries that many guns Second, the shotgun will be visible when he walks and will give him a limp. also if someone wore 6 guns on his waist line, it would be uncomfortable while standing. Sitting would be much more uncomfortable especially with the Uzi on the back. also if he were sitting the weapons would be visible, if not his uncomfortable expression and awkward sitting poster will. third, it seems that someone put him up to it, like the directer of the commercial.
Plus, I think one or two of the brainiacs above missed the entire point:
The point of this video excercisem was NOT to show that baggy clothes can hide ALL of the weapons shown simultaneously.....rather, they can be used to hide/conceal weapons more EASILY, than snug-fitting clothing, at any given time.
I .. wonder if he could walk with all of that shit in his pants..
I mean I've watched Cops and seen how the niggra's walk(run/jog, whatever it is black folk do with their legs, I consider it a form of voodoo magic really) with their guns in their pants, and honestly I wouldn't consider that a practical method of 'concealing' much of anything.
Either way, I don't quite care if they require me to stuff my shirt into my pants, I'm not paying extra for larger pant's just so I can shove the extra fabric that hangs over my belt line down into my shorts. I wear pants that fit, and if these faggot overbearing schools want to pay me to buy special school pants, they certainly can do so.
Kind of looks like me before retiring for the night, smaller caliber's but hey, I'm a "grown up"......shit give me a fucking break! And the ignorance in some of the above comments!
You knew it was coming so here I go....
A "gun", a tool like many others....staple guns, nail guns, glue guns, caulk guns, hammers, knives, saws, screwdrivers...you get the point, all tools that can and do injure, main, disfigure and kill daily, both intentionally and accidentally. Education, training, safe handling, quality of product and age appropriate use are all that is needed to ensure no blood flows, NOT ignorance laws, that take MY rights away! A law abiding person, with no criminal, mental or drug use history, poses no risk whatsoever, except to a criminal. I am so fucking sick and tired (like the majority) of the mental midgets who cry out for "bans" every time someone or something goes wrong.
Some dipshit trucker fell asleep on the highway yesterday a mile from me, went across the median, hit another trucker head on killing them both, which caused a major traffic jam for over 12 hours, costing millions in lost productivity, thousands of dollars in gasoline idled away by the thousands of cars and trucks stuck in a giant I-94 parking lot. BAN the FUCKING TRUCKS! BAN THE FUCKING TRUCKERS, no wait ban driving at night!
I thank my great great, for a great US Constitution with it's even greater amendments! It's worked flawlessly for over two hundred years (during which time we've all been armed to the teeth) so why is now any different? Now that we have hundreds of millions more people, percentages alone have us in the most criminal, mental, drug crazed society ever, literally millions of more reasons to own, carry, posses a gun. If you want to live your life in denial (head up your ass), that's your business, don't make it mine! CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING LAWS! Educate yourself, (pull your head out of your ass) join the NRA, come pistol shootin with me, you'll see, a gun is not a demon, it's just another tool in the belt!
Miter, you are right, a gun is not a problem, a gun in the hands of a irresponsible person is. Like a truck driver who does not follow the regulations for maximum steering time and resting.
If everyone were a responsible and sane person we would need no laws.
That's just it Bug, you cannot legislate away irresponsibility (crime, drugs), or (in)sanity. Pure and simple, "shit happens"! One must have a preconceived plan and prepare for a bad situation, as millions of (law abiding) people do every year in the US alone. In a struggle for your life when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Fork over your address. I think my visit with you is now DUE, and we is gonna have that LOOOOOONG talk by the gaslight.
LOL!
Seriously, though, I'd like you to give some honest thought to something here (and it'll take you all of 5 minutes to do it).
Look up the populations of the following countries:
Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Sweden and, of course...the United States.
Now......go one step futher, and look up what the rate of gun-related deaths and/or overall murder rates are, in those countries, vs. their populations, by ratio.
Now take a few minutes took look at the hard numbers.
I'm pretty sure you'll find, that it'll show a pattern of something disturbing about allowing an armed populace.
I mean, jeez, dude....are you really gonna compare a gun to a screwdriver? Or a truck? Or a hammer? You might as well compare one to a waffle iron. See what I mean?
(Of course, the real sad part, is that if I actually DID come visit you, I'd look at your toys, and gleefully say "Oh-oh-oh!!! I wanna try it! I wanna try it! Gimme! Gimme!" LOL!)
Honestly, Bud, I just think that unless one is a police/corrections officer, soldier, or someone who is involved in transporting/guarding valueables......I honestly believe that the last thing needed in 21st century society, is an armed citizenry, a la Dodge City.
As for the criminals? That's easy: amend legislation, so that any civilian CAUGHT or even SEEN with a sidearm (without valid excuse/reason, i.e. as mentioned above) will do some SERIOUS time. And I DO mean SERIOUS. If they use that weapon to commit a crime...well, shit. Put them in a fucking cage....and throw away the key. Buh-bye. And after that......enforce it. Rigorously, across the board.
Just my own take on this issue.
(Don't get one of your toys, and air me out, if I come visit you)
Miter, the problem with your concept is that only a small minority of people is actually able to do what you would like to ask of them: To really responsibly handle guns and actually use them for self defence without killing their neighbours, kids, etc. or getting killed by someone who wants that gun.
Most people do have a problem with the concept of shooting someone, even if they are in danger.
More guns don't make anything safer, it will just increase the supply for the criminals.
Bug, you and I have been round and round on this before (a few times) I still stand by what I know to be true. The fact is, here in the US, with our millions upon millions of guns (approx 200,000,000 in private hands alone) there are over 2 million defensive uses a year, the majority of which they aren't even used. That's a LOT of crime being stopped! Now statistically speaking with all of those guns, you'd think the US would top the world in gun related murders, not so, Canuck are your reading this?, C you pick out the lowest gun murder countries, but you don't mention South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, or Mexico, all of which have an unbelievably higher rate than the US (by orders of magnitude), whereas the countries you mentioned have the same or nearly the same as the US, yet have HUNDREDS of millions fewer guns as well as population. Here in the US, if you were to take away suicide, gangs on gangs (the not so innocent types), you would be left with one of the LOWEST gun death related countries on this planet! Pretty amazing considering how many people are armed to the teeth and carry here! In the end all of our positions are valid, Bug with your perspective from Germany, Canuck in Canada and me in the US, all different cultures with very different histories.
Wow, I totally understand Miter's and Canuck's viewpoints, but I gotta side with Miter. Canuck you logic would work IF society passed serious anti-gun laws, and IF law enforcement properly enforced those laws. But in America, neither of those will ever happen, probably rightly so.
Many Americans have more of an ingrained fear of the abuses of government power, then fear of a few gun-toting criminals, even though those criminals may be statistically far more likely to kill you. It is a cornerstone of the American constitution, that each and every citizen be at least vigilent about government abuse of power, and in many cases armed against government tyranny. That's why we support free speech, an open media, and checks and balances between executive, legislative, and judicial branches, etc. All to maintain vigilence against tyranny, and the loss of freedoms. If a criminal wacks you, because he got a gun, a free American society can live on. If government tyranny takes away societies freedom, we will never get it back without force. So a gun ridden society is the price many of us are willing to accept. The key is properly training and arming the good citizens to be vigilent, not just against government, but against criminals as well.
it's correct thinking that criminals don't care about laws, in Mass, one of the worst states for lawbiding citz to carry or hunt for that matter, has the most laws against guns and ownership. ( I can't have a gun because of a punch I gave a guy in 1961) We have a law that states a min of 1-yr in jail for carrying a gun or ammo with an FID card, yet NO ONE has ever received the 1-yr to date. Enforement of existing laws are not done, than way add more?
Are you saying that the main reason for every American to have a gun (besides defending against "criminals") is to......be ready to overthrow the government, in case the 'government' gets out of hand or abuses its power?
Plus...if one were to follow THAT reasoning...then I could spend hours upon hours here, listing the abuses/crimes of the Administration-Of-The-Day, under GWB: sending almost 4,200 young Americans to their deaths for a 'war' based on supreme bullshit; illegal wiretapping; torture; letting bodies pile up in the sewers of New Orleans after Katrina; outing CIA agents; letting the federal deficit spin wildly out of control, and then say "it's all good"; the Patriot Act; getting arrested if you wear a certain kind of T-shirt, or carry a placard or engage in protests these days; the Pentagon embedding retired military personnel into news programs, as "news analysts", to put out the right spin and thus rendering the idea of "objectivity" in the press a moot point (if not an outright joke); a VP who once said he was "his own separate branch of the government"?; Republican figures in D.C.who ignore Congressional suphoenas because they think they're above that sort of thing?......
Should I go on? I mean....it's all swell and dandy to quote parts of, and be proud of, your Constitution (as you should be)....but aren't we talking about the same document that this current President and his cabal have shit all over (repeatedly, I might add)?
On the surface, you may be asking what do THESE links have to do with anything.
Well, I think it bears out what you've said (and what I've listed) as examples of the government and its wannabee leaders, being completely clueless and out of touch....so much so, that all the items YOU mentioned above......have already come to pass, given the current attitude/mindest, of some.
And its STILL spiralling, way out of fucking control.
Can you ever see the day someone in Washington saying this?
This would probably freak YOU out, as much as YOUR mindset about this issue freaks ME out.
Sometimes I think as Canadians and Americans, we're not all that different (and on some things...we're not).....then when I read something like THIS, it makes me realize that there are some things where we couldn't more apart if we tried.
Americans and Canadians have one basic difference. Americans rebelled against British tyranny, and formed their entire government around avoiding it in the future, almost to the point of paranoia. Canadians never rebelled against British rule, and don't have that anti-tyranny fear.
What Bush has done right or wrong, is a matter of opinion. He isn't Hitler, in that he isn't rounding up and executing American citizens. If he tried, that's when its good for Americans to have guns. What he's done will be a footnote in American history. American will heal and move on. We still have functional legal outlets to deal with the wrongs of government. Bush still leaves office peacefully in a few months. The American constitution prevails. No where near the critical mass your mind is imagining. No need for armed rebellion yet.
Millions of guns in the hands of citizens is just one more check and balance on the federal government, a limit to its supreme power.
While I don't support Jesus freaks, I don't see how your links about them are relevant at all to this.
As for Canada banning all hand-guns... well I just hope the Canadian criminals all comply with that. :-(
I just gave you reams and reams of examples of how the current President violated and crapped on several points of your Constitution, and all according to what you said earlier, would fit the definition in YOUR book, of a time when a call-to-arms is needed.
NOW...you say "Nahhh....Bush is okay, as long as he ain't tossing people into ovens."
Please make up your mind, as to what your threshold of tolerance is, in this regard.
As for the links.....THOSE are the primary types who put Bush into office, AND who believe even babies should be borm with a six-shooter grafted to their hips.
No, he will not get it, his threshold of tolerance is flexible and Bush is only throwing US citizens (and other nations citizens) into concentration camp in Guantanamo, not killing them, just putting them outside law, just like he tries to put himself above law.
Canuck, I thought you were a liberal and a peace-monger? Why would anyone feel the need to violently rise up and overthrough the American government, when Bush is peacefully leaving office in a few months? Not to mention the fact that impeachment was an option all along (if there was any real reason to impeach Bush). Isn't violence supposed to be the last resort? Most true gun advocates would tell you that. Always be prepared, always have a back-up plan, but don't pull out a gun until its the only option remaining. Isn't that why you're so mad at Bush, because he could have chosen peace, but instead chose violence? We don't need forcible regime change here in America, so long as the constitution prevails. Maybe you're not as unlike Bush as you like to believe.
Bug,
Gitmo is hardly a concentration camp. Gitmo is summer camp for the world's most violent murderers. I would have executed them as spies long ago, as the geneva convention allows. For your information, a concentration camp is where the Nazis took innocent Jews, Gypsy's, political prisoners, gays, and communists, to be systematically worked to death and murdered. When you dare compare Gitmo to the horrors of a true concentration camp, you demean the true horror those prisoners endured, or failed to endure. In short, grow a fuckin spine you pussy. Far better men then you are risking their lives daily, to give you the freedom to whine about perceived injustice towards murderers, and to whine about a president trying to protect you.
Hellbozo, I am from Germany, so don't try to lecture me about our history.
It is people like you who would need the lecture to get some idea about the danger that comes from the erosion of civil rights and proper legal process. Guantanamo is a fucking illegal concentration camp and your screwed up government is putting people there with no trial, no chance of legal defense. Those who do this are a threat to freedom and democracy.
Murat Kurnaz was one of the Guantanamo prisoners for several years, his crime was to take his vacation in Pakistan and get too close to the border, you can say this was stupid of him (very much so I think) but is this a reason to imprison a person for years?
Acts like that are what is destroying the USA, this is the kind of bullshit that erodes democracy. Like it or not, everyone has the same rights in law and has the right for a fair trial. If you deny them such you are not better than those you supposedly fight.
This is why I say Guantanamo is a fucking concentration camp, run by fachists.
I do NOT believe in coup d'etats, ok? I'm using YOUR reasoning here. YOU were the one who said: "Millions of guns in the hands of citizens is just one more check and balance on the federal government, a limit to its supreme power."
And you said: " What Bush has done right or wrong, is a matter of opinion. He isn't Hitler, in that he isn't rounding up and executing American citizens. If he tried, that's when its good for Americans to have guns"
YOU are the one who's making the case for this, basically saying that's what ALL Americans will do, if a threshold is met. What I'M saying to YOU, why do YOU keep pushing the goal posts back? Is government overthrow the reason so many Americans have guns? Or isn't it? And if so....what IS the threshold for those hypothetical events?
Bug, I don't see the erosion of civil rights you fear. The Patriot act does not remove a single right. You still have the right to communicate. You never constitutionally had a right to privacy. That is an illusion.
I support the terrorists at Gitmo having military tribunals. They should not languish forever, since this war will have no clear ending. However, they are not American citizens, therefore they are not entitled to due process. Now since they are now receiving military tribunals, that works for me. As for your innocent German vacationing in a war zone, I've seen no evidence to support his innocence or guilt. I'll let the tribunal decide.
As a German, you above all should know the difference between Gitmo and a concentration camp. To diminish the horror of what the Nazis did is a shame, all the more worse coming from a German. Erosion of rights, for fucking terrorists? The constitution was not designed to protect the rights of foreign terrorists, but to protect the rights of American citizens.
Both Obama and McCain want to close Gitmo. I hope that finally means executions for the guilty.
Canuck, you know very little of my reasoning. You read one post, and determine I'm some gun-hoarding Waco escapee. I never changed any goalposts for armed rebellion. I disagree with you that American rights have been eroded. We don't have the right to call foreigners in privacy. We don't have the right to fly on airplanes without security checks. Our individual rights extend only to where they might infringe on others rights. Do I have the right to drive wasted on public freeways? No? Fucking overthrow the government man!
I didn't go buy a gun one day planning to overthrow the government, neither did I buy my guns for hunting. Self defense from all threats, was the reason. A tyrannical government gone wild could one day be one such threat. That is not the case in America today.
You may not like Bush, I may not like Bush (the president that is), but his actions are aimed at defending Americans, not to erode your right to talk dirty to a Danish sex hotline. You don't like his foreign policy, you vote him out.
I would safely say one threshold an American president dare not cross, is to declare himself king / emperor / dictator. That would draw armed conflict, not just from ordinary Americans, but probably within the ranks of the military as well. That is the line that has not been crossed. And that is the true beauty of the constitution. That no matter how much you hate the baffoon in power; there are limits to his power, there are impeachment options, there is a peaceful transfer of power within 4 years if needed.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Unfortuantely you are not alone in failing to understand democracy, civil rights, and justice. Revenge is something you obviously understand quite well. So they are not entitled to due process because they are not US citizens? Did you care to take a look at your laws? This shows that you are totally ignorant of any basic principles of a democratic system with equal rights.
How about applying this same principle to US citizens in other nations: Hey, he did kick that dog and he is not from here, lets hang him!
The patriot act takes no rights away? What about amendments 4, 5, 6? Of course just minor rights, not worth talking about.
"No right to talk with people from other countries in privacy", my ass, what is next? No right to privately talk with someone who did not vote for the current president?
I am not diminishing the deeds of the nazis, I am just showing you parallels. The USA are sliding towards a totalitarian system and like every time that happens in any country there are enough people who cheer to this and don't see any erosion of rights, all they see is that someone is finally doing the right thing to fight the terrorists (...illegal aliens, jews...).
I am fully aware of Benjamin's quote, and I agree with it. I think that's why I initially was bothered by the baggy pants ban. That is an individual right, that I don't see infringing on anyone else's rights. Our rights as American citizens are defined in the Bill of Rights. They apply to American citizens only, not to illegal aliens, not to foreigners. I understand democracy and civil rights quite well. Show me where US laws give equal rights to non American citizens.
Show me a right I've lost because of something Bush did. The Patriot act does not defy any constitutional ammendment, except in your opinion. If there was legal agreement with your opinion, that would be grounds for impeaching Bush. So why haven't democrats impeached Bush, must be a lack of desire?
In WW2, when Americans were killing Germans and Japanese, were we concerned about violating their rights? I wonder why that was? Maybe its because we were at war, and the enemy were not American citizens? Notice a pattern similar to today?
Obviously its a different case for foreigners not at war with us, who lawfully emigrate or visit here. And obviously there are reciprocity laws with other nations, about the treatment of nationals in each others nations.
However, I have noticed that Taliban and Al Qaeda don't seem to honor any international reciprocity agreements, when it comes to the treatment of captured Americans. Maybe if a few more Germans get beheaded, you'll understand. Its not revenge to kill terrorists. Its the fact that its easier to kill them, then to change their minds about killing others.
I do appreciate your vigilance against America becoming a totalitarian system, that is the duty of every American citizen, and it leads back to my earlier arguements. In my opinion, this is not the case. Jews in Germany were German citizens. Locking up your own citizens without charges, and exterminating them, is a far cry from locking up foreign terrorists in a time of war. You'll also notice the illegal aliens in America when actually arrested, are only deported, not sent to prison or exterminated.
Americans have a right to free speech, that doesn't mean the government can't listen in. Now if the government arrests you for speaking freely, without plotting to kill others, that would be a violation of your rights.
I have no idea how you manage to ignore so many facts around you.
Guantanamo: Try to find out the nationalities of the inmates, then tell me again that they are all from countries that the USA is at war with. And for those who you regard as foreign fighters captures in a war: Ever heard of the Geneva convention?
Civil rights: So it is of no concern to you that your home can be searched and you can be arrested without a proper legal process if the suspicion comes up you might be connected with any terrorist activities? Got anyone you really hate? Give it a try what homeland security does with them.
You got a mighty reality distortion field. Do you also believe Iraq was invaded because of the wepaons of mass destruction and the al Quaeda camps there?
Wow bug, your perception of reality is truly distorted. I'm ignoring facts? Let me correct your version of reality.
Gitmo: Inmates are from all over the world. That doesn't mean we are at war with their country of origin. It means the person captured was an unlawful combatant, by that meaning a terrorist not representing any nation as a legitimate army protected by the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention clearly assigns certain rights to captured POWs. POWs defined as members of a nations military, wearing a uniform. Personal caught out of uniform, but aiding the enemy, and not a member of any military, are in fact spies. The Geneva convention does allow spies to be executed. You as a German should understand that. Germans executed lots of spies in WW2.
The Patriot act applies to wire-tapping, nothing about searching homes. To search your home, a warrant is still required, even for terrorism concerns. Not that a warrant is very hard to get when terrorism is an issue. I'm an American citizen in America, I can't be arrested without charges, even for terrorism. You'll notice other American terrorists in the news, arrested with clear charges. Now maybe illegal immigrants can be arrested and held for awhile without charges for terrorism concerns. American constitutional rights do not apply to them, although they are usually extended even to illegal immigrants at great taxpayer expense.
There were several reasons to invade Iraq, none of them by themselves enough, but combined were a compelling reason. I'm sure this will be completely wasted on you.
-Iraq was not invaded for any assistance to al Qaeda, no link has ever been proven. However, Iraq did support terrorism by paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq did also harbor the al Qaeda mastermind of the first world trade center bombing, but again not enough on its own to invade. Clearly Iran was a bigger supporter of terrorism than Iraq.
-Iraq was clearly defying UN resolutions to disarm, the UN weapons inspectors had been kicked out, and Russia, France, and even UN officials were getting oil-for-food kickback bribes to lift the sanctions. It was only a matter of time before the UN sanctions were lifted, and Saddam free to re-arm. Whether he actually had WMDs to me wasn't the primary reason, it was just the reason that resonated with the media. The intel from around the world said Iraq still had WMDs, obviously wrong, but only because that's what Saddam wanted the world to believe. There is still a very real possibility Iraq did still have WMDs, that were flown to Syria, but that's unproven. The small amount of chemical weapons found after the invasion was not enough to validate the WMD threat. The point is, had we done nothing, UN sanctions would have lifted, Saddam would have remained in power and re-armed. Saddam had already attacked three other nations, Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Not a good guy to leave in power. This was probably the most compelling reason.
-Then there were the mass graves where Saddam murdered his own people, but honestly again by itself not a reaon to invade. Although it was enough reason to get us into Yugoslavia under a Democrat. Not that there wasn't enough moral cause, but this just isn't a matter of US national security.
-There was the goal of establishing an Arab Muslim democracy, with the aim of preventing future ME wars, and ending the lack of political input from the common Muslim that often enough leads to Islamic terrorism. Surely as a German you can agree, that Democracy has worked pretty well at keeping Germany out of European wars, and ending fanaticism.
Of course Bush made many mistakes. Not that the war was for oil, (oil is sold on a global market, whether its Saddam selling it or a new Iraq) but oil did play a part, in that the Bush administration under-estimated the costs to rebuild Iraq after the war, believing Iraq's oil money would pay for everything. This is in no way justification for war, but I think it did play into war planning. This was the biggest mistake Bush made. Purging all the Baath party from Iraq's leadership was also a mistake, but had worked well with Germany. Bremer was a mistake. Underestimating Iraq resistance, and being too heavy-handed was a mistake.
Anyway, there were lots of execution mistakes and leadership blunders in this war, as there are in every war. For that I can blame Bush. But I still feel Iraq is better of now (for most) than it was under Saddam, and that Iraq will no longer be a threat to its neighbors. So while the war has been more costly in lives and treasure, and dragged on far longer than anyone expected, I agreed with the need to invade at the time. With hindsight, I might have directed those resources elsewhere, maybe Iran.
But in 2003, diplomacy had failed. UN resolutions were almost done. Saddam was almost free to re-arm and attack his neighbors again. Saddam did support terrorism, just not 9/11. He committed genocide against his own people (much closer to concentration camps than your comparison to Gitmo. This alone was enough to get us into Yugoslavia.) And America wanted to create a model of Arab democracy, to mitigate terrorism and ME wars after 9/11. Iraq was the candidate. Maybe there is even some truth to the idea of fight the terrorists over there, rather than fight them here.
So I agree lots of mistakes were made. In hindsight probably few Americans would justify the lives lost and cost to invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq. But these were the reasons for invading at the time.
Are you aware of the international court in den Haag? That would be the place to drop off the people who are imprisoned in Guantanamo.
But thank you for acknowledging, that the US methods are equivalent to Nazi Germany.
Iraq: Nice try to rationalize the agression against a souvereign (though pretty fucked up) state. Ever cared to look up how many Iraqi people have been killed in the invasion? Many more than Saddam ever did. Iraq is totally unstable now, close to a civil war. Nothing gained, many dead, many more to die.
The USA have to grow up and understand that they are not boss of the world.
Alright, I'll repeat my entrance here:
The things I could sort out here. Hmm, what to do?
For starters, you can all get your rants about my newest username out of your systems, to those this applies.
Furthermore, I will state that I don't know everything going down right now myself. Feel free to ask sensible questions, I'll answer as best I can. (regarding aliases and whatnot.)
And lastly, I would like to direct a comment at rat-ass:
Do they make an abridged version of your rat-shit? Because the less I have to hear of it, the better.
The solution is simple. Every citizen is required to serve a minimum of one year(non-combat duty) in a chosen armed force. That way when they get out they can at least AIM properly. Problem will kill itself off pretty quick after that.
Actually I fully support that. Except I would give citizens the option of serving their year in a non-military way, like the peace corps, Red Cross, or something similar for the true conscientus objector or liberal pussy. No exceptions for rich fat cat kids. That would teach people the true meaning of service, break down racial / class barriers, and make citizens appreciate or participate in their community and government. Works pretty damn well for Israel. An armed society is a polite and respectful society.
Had the teachers at Columbine carried guns, it would have limited the carnage. Had the school had better security, it would have limited the carnage. Had these kid's parents properly dug through their crap, screened their emails, or spied on them properly... as all good parents do... that may have limited the carnage. Had the parents properly locked up their guns, then existing gun laws, properly enforced, could have stopped the carnage.
"Are you aware of the international court in den Haag? That would be the place to drop off the people who are imprisoned in Guantanamo."
Most of the evidence is probably classified, and not to be shared with the world. Military tribunals will be fine. Europeans don't execute their criminal murderers.
"But thank you for acknowledging, that the US methods are equivalent to Nazi Germany."
I never said that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. Fighters out of uniform may be executed as spies. This is not what the US has done.
"Iraq: Nice try to rationalize the agression against a souvereign (though pretty fucked up) state. Ever cared to look up how many Iraqi people have been killed in the invasion? Many more than Saddam ever did. Iraq is totally unstable now, close to a civil war. Nothing gained, many dead, many more to die."
Well Germany and Japan were both souvereign (but pretty fucked up) states in 1941. That excuse didn't mean much then either. You're summary of Iraq sounds about 1 year old. Maybe you didn't hear, but the surge worked (so far.) Iraq is more stable, the threat of civil war has receded, and the civilian death rate (from terrorism or US troops) is way down.
"The USA have to grow up and understand that they are not boss of the world." Well that's true, but no one else was going to remove Saddam. You can't even get Europeans to stop genocide in their back yard (Yugo), without us dragging them to the table.
Oh yeah, the evidence is classified, it is maybe even so secret that not even the accused now why they are held prisoner? Did you ever even bother to find out what kind of people they keep there and why? This is information that you will maybe not hear on FauxNews though.
Nice to see that the propaganda of Mr. Bush reaches at least a few people.
Germany and Japan were attacking the USA and its allies.
In Yugoslavia the USA were taking part in a UN military mission with several other nations. Did you ever wonder where the target data came from and who provided the laser painting on the ground?
If the bullshit the USA do would not affect us I would just tell you to go to hell and be stupid as much as you want.
So tell me genius where it is that you aquired all this infinite access to charges and evidence against the Gitmo prisoners? You don't know shit, you only know what the radical left tell you.
Iraq had already attacked three nations. Iraq was defying UN resolutions to disarm and allow inspectors in Iraq to verify this. NATO did not extend to Iraq, but did cover Yugoslavia. Even this required US leadership to drag reluctant European allies in Nato, to block the genocide in Yugoslavia. I'm not saying Europeans didn't help, but they sure didn't lead the charge to stop the slaughter.
Please share with me how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq affect isolated little Germany? You have it so rough. The US provided nearly all the military muscle to keep Germany safe from Russian tanks for decades, now we provide nearly all the muscle to make you safer from terrorism. Its bad enough Germans like you are too fearful to help make this a better world, but to be ungrateful as well... sheesh... The German soldiers who are valiantly contributing to security operations in Afghanistan would probably be disgusted by you. There are three kinds of people in this world, sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. You sheep may not like the sheepdogs, but without the sheepdogs, there is nothing to protect you from the wolves.
Oh, yeah, we are so extremely thankful for having been the appointed primary theatre for the single integrated operations plan. We are also thankful that we could pay for the stationing of the troops for decades. The tanks on the border were German mainly.
In all of Europe France (1) and the UK (a few ski jump types) own air craft carriers. World wide there are only a few more states that do. So which nation should have send their carriers?
And Iraq: Besides UK and Spain only few were foolish enough to send their troops into this illicit adventure.
Your right wing radical press is obviously failing to tell you the facts on many things. The difference between the European the US media is that we not only do have the right for free media, we do have media that actually excert that right.
BTW: The German troops in Afghanistan have my full respect and support. In case you don't knwo this: There are no German high altitude bombers or heavy tanks in Afghanistan, but there is a lot of pioneering equipment down there which is used to help the Afghan people rather than kill them. And surprise, even though there are attacks on the German troops (and sadly deaths) in general they are welcome by the locals and compared to the parts controlled by the USA civil order is doing quite well.
I'm sorry, who should pay for the defense of Germany? And who should pay for foreigners risking their lives to help defend Germany? Honestly, have you listened to yourself?
Sent their carriers where? US carriers are already in the Persian gulf, I was once on one, defeating Iraq in 91. Obviously European militaries have shit for carrier airpower, compared to the US. But where are you going with this? And why is carrier air power even needed, when land based aircraft work in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia? What point are you trying to make?
The Coalition in Iraq has many more nations than just the US, UK, and Spain. There was also Bulgaria, Poland, Austrailia, Georgia (whose troops we had to fly home to fight Russia) and others. Each contributed what they could in proportion to their military power.
Our media is right wing radical? That's news to me, I thought it was the other way around. Guess it depends on your viewpoint. But I do read media from outside the US frequently.
Frankly heavy bombers and heavy tanks are of no use in Afghanistan, since there are no well armored targets to attack anymore. The US troops encounter more violence frankly because they get assigned more violent areas of Afghanistan. The Canadian troopers are hitting some stiff resistance right now, and they're fighting hard. I do fully appreciate the contribution of the German military in afghanistan. Not all Canadians and Germans want to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the international terrorist threat to us all.
And on goes the rant about the fight on terrorism...
This is mostly a straw man of GWB and his friends. You make the terrorists by killing civilians.
As for defending Germany: There are two sides to that coin. The whole exercise had not been necessary if the USA had not been so paranoid about Russia as to paint them as the evil force, there were two parties starting the cold war. And to a large part Germany was only a strategic staging area for the US troops, this was less about defending Germany than about having a well known theatre in which to use tactical nukes.
Check out a map and compare with effective strike ranges for fighters.
Several European aircraft were taking part in the missions when their land bases were in range. German Tornados were doing reconnaisance as they do in Afghanistan.
Terrorists have always been around with their extremism, often religiously motivated. We are only now responding, after they've up'ed the stakes. How can someone like so, so against religion as an evil influence, not support this war against religious extremism? The Muslims need education, and a religious reformation. They won't get that without freedom and democracy.
As for US paranoia about Russian intentions... which side blockaded Berlin with tanks? Which side maintained a military presence in every European nation they "liberated", even brutally crushing the occasional spring uprising? Which side created the worlds largest offensive tank army in the world? Which side rounded up millions of its own citizens, and sent them off to Siberia to die? Which side exploded a nuclear reactor, and allowed millions of its citizens to die? The Soviet Union was evil, and Russia isn't much better today.
You have a very isolationist view of the world, leave everyone else alone. I can understand that and respect that, but every time America goes isolationist and leaves the world alone, we get attacked.
Yes, terrorists have been around before and you can never totally remove them since there will always be totally insane people. But what I am saying is that in Afghanistan and Iraq many fo the "terrorists" are actually people who are (duly) pissed because their country gets destroyed and their families killed by foreign forces.
The Soviet Uniion never was a nice country, but be careful about accusations, the USA have had their share of dirty jobs as well, directly or indirectly toppling governments etc.
As for the blockade (I am from Berlin BTW), this was one step in the escalation of the indirect confrontation. The western allies did their part of the process as well. Western Germany was cast into a new state with a constitution to build a capitalist defense against the soviets. They were not even asked when the Federal Republic of Germany was formed, the German Democratic Republic was their reaction as was the introduction of new currency which was started in the west again. When looking back both sides did their best to alienate each other as much as possible.
Abd they did not willingly explode a nuclear reactor, it was an accident just like Three Mile Island, but they dealt with it in the typical Russian way: Human life is cheap there.
And I am not an isolationist, and I don't believe in leaving everybody alone. I only see military action as the very last option. In Yugoslavia it was the only option left, as it would have been in Darfur. But Iraq would have silently collapsed in a few years, the war was a great waste in human life, money and opportunity. The USA should use proper procedure through the UN in the future and the UN has to be reformed to remove the veto rights.
I'm not sure how I mis-understood you. By the way, land-based aircraft could attack Yugoslavia from many surrounding Nato airbases, with modern mid-air refueling, and fuel drop-tanks.
Now what I'm saying is the age-old do nothing law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism clearly never worked, and terrorists are now getting more powerful and dangerous weapons. A different strategy is called for.
I fully agree the US did lots of shitty things during the cold war. But which country was the bigger threat to East or West Germany during the cold war? Are you suggesting the US should have just ceded Berlin to the Soviet Union?
I never said the explosion at Chernobyl was deliberate, but the cover-up and throwing away of human lives was very deliberate.
Its your opinion that Iraq would have silently collapsed, and its wrong. Iraq had survived 12 years since their military was crushed. Saddam had put down internal rebellions with the Kurds and Shiites, killed thousands, and was firmly in control. When Saddam eventually died, his evil raping spawn were ready to take over. Saddam had bribed the UN, France, and Russia, and the UN sanctions were nearly lifted, despite kicking out the UN inspector. No, Iraq wasn't silently collapsing anytime soon.
And the UN is nearly worthless. It has terrorist nations in the UN security council, many UN officials guilty of taking Iraqi bribes, and is incapable of strong and decisive action. Just like you see in Iran now, the UN has no power. Small nations may see the value of the UN. Large nations only see the worthless beaurocratic blob of corrupt and powerless UN mandates, that fail to be enforced. I'm not saying do away with the UN, but the US hardly works for, or is confined by the UN.
Bug, I think you're being a bit nieve on this. Every country has multiple standards. Politics is the world's second oldest profession. I'm not saying the US is innocent and perfect, but you seem to have this view that the US is the biggest evil in the world, yet give Russia and China a pass. Considering the economic, political, and military might the US has wielded (at least in the past) which country on this Earth do you think could have wielded this power any more benevolently?
Remember how benevolent Germany was with their superpower status?
and now try to walk only that shotgun makes it impsible to walk normaly :S
al thatr guns in youre jeans make also alot of sound :s
hope that kid got a his guns of save :P
Comments (84)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.