So should we just leave the mess instead of trying to fix it?

 

I agree that we should of investigated the weapons, and then left. But there are still terrorists there, and we are trying to clean the rest out. Bin Laden may also be hiding somewhere there, but IMO he's dead. But if he isn't, and we leave, he'll be able to organize more attacks in a few years, and we'll be back where we started. It's necesarry to stay there, but mainly it's just to cover our backs, incase he is still alive.

 

 

 

Well, personally i feel this is a mess we cannot fix. It will go on for years to come, and i don't think it would be in americas best intrest to police the mess going on. As for investigating the weapons, thats the U.N.s job, and it seemed they had the situation under control without the use of war.

 

 

 

As for Osama in iraq, thats highly unlikely, because it is a fairly long distance from afghanistan, and it is full of U.S. Troops. As for cleaning out the terrorists, thats not a very good reason in this case because the point never was to clean out all the terrorists, that never works, the idea was to bring Bin Laden to justice and end it at that. You can't clean out terrorists, the process tends to breed more terrorists and your back at square one.

Like I said, it's just to cover ourselves... highly unlikely isn't "not there". There are probably other reasons as well, but that's just speculation.

Hmmmmmmm... So what Imus said was fine, huh? Yea, because black women (Or anyone, really) LOVE to be told that they're nappy headed hos. I mean, as long as no one dropped an N bomb, right? Heres a Motto!

 

 

 

Anarchism: Because racism is cool like that!

On the original post:

 

 

 

You don't much sound like an anarchist to me. I've been involved in discussion with genuine anarchists, and their opinions have a great deal of validity. Believing very strongly in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and also small government, sounds to me more libertarian than anything else. But libertarianism and anarchism are closely related, except that anarchism has less of a belief that the state should have strong defense, and is much more interested in social justice (the means of which would be by focusing on the small community, and not the national picture with all its institutional biases).

 

 

 

You might be interested to read some classics of anarchist literature. From Emma Goldman to Noam Chomsky, it's interesting stuff. riding around in the skatepark and hating the police isn't actually anarchism - but anarchism IS an interesting belief system, and highly worth reading more about. I'd recommend continuing to delve deeper into some of these issues :)

 

 

 

I was going to say something similar really, i've been reading up a bit on anarchism recently and i've found the views and ideas fascinating and the beliefs actually very close to my own.

 

 

 

But your original post has little relevance to anarchism. I agree, in America the freedom of speech does seem to be declining, and it is something that should be defended, but what does that have to do with you being an anarchist? I can't see where that fits in.

 

 

 

I would like to explain a few things about me.

 

 

 

1. I am an anarchist, Belive or not yes I am.

 

 

 

2. I Live in the United States Of America.

 

 

 

3. I see things going completely wrong with Democracy and Capitalism, By the day.

 

 

 

4. I have been in a few protests Some peaceful, others not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You started by having a numbered list describing yourself... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

You attend orangised protests... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

You play a game called Runescape where you roleplay as a character obeying many ingame rules... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

 

 

You're about the worst anarchist I've ever heard of. You need to grow up and consider your place in the world. No one wants outright anarchy.

 

 

 

I would like to explain a few things about me.

 

 

 

1. I am an anarchist, Belive or not yes I am.

 

 

 

2. I Live in the United States Of America.

 

 

 

3. I see things going completely wrong with Democracy and Capitalism, By the day.

 

 

 

4. I have been in a few protests Some peaceful, others not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You started by having a numbered list describing yourself... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

You attend orangised protests... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

You play a game called Runescape where you roleplay as a character obeying many ingame rules... not much of an "anarchist" are you?

 

 

 

You're about the worst anarchist I've ever heard of. You need to grow up and consider your place in the world. No one wants outright anarchy.

 

The only thing that's for sure is that you don't know anything about anarchism, and surely you aren't an anarchist (I'm not one either, see my sig). Anarchism isn't about the path to utter chaos, instead, it's about not having a ruling class/State that imposes rules and restrictions on you. That doesn't mean an anarchist can't be organized.

Thats the government allright.

 

 

 

Makes you miss the days when we lived in caves and struggled to have fire.

yeah, there's a lot of bs in the world today, but the government exists for a reason, maybe you should educate yourself and find out what it is.

 

 

 

Also, check my sig.

If you want true freedom, social equality, justice, free education, guaranteed social services and healthcare to all citizens, move to a Scandinavian country (in northern Europe in case you're ignorant)

 

 

 

Seriously I've lived in the US for most of my life and nothing could be further from the truth than saying "USA is the land of the free". True propaganda.

 

 

 

Heck, in USA there are people who can't "afford" to get sick. People who can't even afford a rent so they're forced to live on streets. People who need to work 3 jobs to survive and feed their family.

 

 

 

And that's not just a minority, that's millions of citizens. For real democracy go to europe, preferably the northern part.

 

 

 

And no, they don't have the right to bear arms. You need a license. What's that noise I hear? "I need a M4 automatic rifle for hunting deer"? Who the heck needs a weapon firing 800 rounds per minute for hunting animals for sport?

If you want true freedom, social equality, justice, free education, guaranteed social services and healthcare to all citizens, move to a Scandinavian country (in northern Europe in case you're ignorant)

 

 

 

Seriously I've lived in the US for most of my life and nothing could be further from the truth than saying "USA is the land of the free". True propaganda.

 

 

 

Heck, in USA there are people who can't "afford" to get sick. People who can't even afford a rent so they're forced to live on streets. People who need to work 3 jobs to survive and feed their family.

 

 

 

And that's not just a minority, that's millions of citizens. For real democracy go to europe, preferably the northern part.

 

 

 

And no, they don't have the right to bear arms. You need a license. What's that noise I hear? "I need a M4 automatic rifle for hunting deer"? Who the heck needs a weapon firing 800 rounds per minute for hunting animals for sport?

 

 

 

I don't think people are allowed to hunt with M4 Automatics...something about it being illegal?

 

 

 

People who "can't afford to be sick" are generally in that mess because of themselves...(note the "generally", not everyone is like that because of themselves). It's mainly because they made poor choices with their money... the government can't just give them 3 million dollars, but they do give them welfare.

 

 

 

It's a shame people have to work 3 jobs sometimes, but you figure, at least they are working, not sitting around drinking beer, unemployed, and just collecting welfare checks...

 

Lots of places are "lands of the free", mainly Europe and North America(just two examples). Each has pros/cons. Nowhere is truely free. We're just gonna have to deal with that.

I'm not happy with America, so I'm gonna make a thread on the INTERNET about it.

Why not organize a protest or something? Or sue that police officer. With America's legal system, you had a good chance of winning.

I completely agree with this thread, america is NOT the land of the free, its actually land of the hypocrites.(look it up if you don't know what it means)

I don't think people are allowed to hunt with M4 Automatics...something about it being illegal?

 

 

 

The point there wasn't someone using overpowered weapons to hunt animals. The current liberal gun laws in US are pretty shocking, but the more shocking fact is that far too big population actually defend those laws. For example the big number of school shootings in US should wake up people. 19 cases in 10 years (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371403.stm) is quite a lot. When you compare it to Europe, you should see that even tho there's more population living in Europe than in USA, the number of shootings is a lot lesser.

 

 

 

At this point we get into a subject why do these crimes happen? After all getting the gun isn't the only thing you need to shoot someone, you also need a motive. Could it be that your social and welfare system aren't good enough?

 

 

 

People who "can't afford to be sick" are generally in that mess because of themselves...(note the "generally", not everyone is like that because of themselves). It's mainly because they made poor choices with their money... the government can't just give them 3 million dollars, but they do give them welfare.

 

 

 

I already talked a bit about welfare earlier. Currently to get a reasonable threatment at hospital, you need an expensive insurance. To get it, you need a good work. To get a good work you usually need a good education which in USA requires an expensive private school. The point is that in your current system your backrounds mean too much: in Scandinavia for example with a working welfare and social help systems pretty much everyone can become anything. Our schooling system works really well (look for Finland at PISA test for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_ ... Assessment)

 

and everyone has equal chances to study.

 

 

 

Also that 3 million thing there made me laugh. Seriously, 3 million is nothing there. Iraq war can cost (of course having it's natural resources and geopolitically important place pay back something) up to 1 trillion dollars (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/ ... 8872.shtml some sources report even higher numbers, but that's the most trustable source I found in few mins) and so on. If 3 million dollars/euros/Mongolian tugrugs/squirrel furs can get you a better system, you shouldn't think if it's worth it, you should think can you start it today or wait for tomorrow.

 

 

 

It's a shame people have to work 3 jobs sometimes, but you figure, at least they are working, not sitting around drinking beer, unemployed, and just collecting welfare checks...

 

 

 

Seriously, working in 3 places can't be the right way. First of all, minimum salaries should be set to a level where people can actually live a normal life by working 8 hours a day in one place. You also don't seem to understand the idea of welfare system: the poor are helped so they can have a worth living and same time trying to get them a job. It's not something that can magically replace working (if it could, our unemployment rate in Scandinavian countries would be 100%), but it helps when you don't have one or when you are having hard times.

 

 

 

So should we just leave the mess instead of trying to fix it?

 

I agree that we should of investigated the weapons, and then left.

 

 

 

First of all, how can you attack a country, destroy their infrastructure, dethrone their goverment and after all that think everything there would be ok after you checked few labs, caves and warehouses? Second, your current acts in Iraq don't give a sign of leaving it: even the most optimistic talks are about withdrawing majority of soldiers but leaving training centers to train a loyal army of iraqians and having some geopolitically important military bases there.

 

 

 

But there are still terrorists there, and we are trying to clean the rest out. Bin Laden may also be hiding somewhere there, but IMO he's dead. But if he isn't, and we leave, he'll be able to organize more attacks in a few years, and we'll be back where we started. It's necesarry to stay there, but mainly it's just to cover our backs, incase he is still alive.

 

 

 

So Osama, a man who knows how to hide and use the media to boost his power, would hide in Iraq where the majority of US soldiers currently are? Heck, he has better chances to currently sleep in a Swedish hotel than be in a cave near to Baghdad. Also you have to remember that attacks against US can be planned&funded by many other souces too.

 

 

 

Your current acts there won't stop terrorism. It just gives a good ground for its growing: it boosts hatred towards you amongs the iraqians, it has showed that you can attack without a good reason (first hit strategy) and it has ruined so many lives giving them only goal: to hit back.

 

 

 

To stop terrorism, you don't go to conquer another nation. First of all you should check history a bit: the USA's politics (Israel being it's satellite there) at Near East (where most of these so called terrorists come) is they key for it: your imperialistic acts there have caused a retaliation. I personally am rather surprised that since Iraq's war no major attacks towards USA has been done. However its allies such as UK and Spain have gotten their attacks.

 

 

 

And when you pulled out the terrorism-card, I'd like to ask you same questions I've (without a success) tried to ask few other times. What is terrorism if I may ask you? Is it causing the death of few thousand civilians after all you've done at their homes? Is it causing the death of tens of thousands of civilians? Is it pressuring multinational companies to boycott a country that doesn't obey you? Is it kidnapping citizens of European countries, torturing them and finally releasing without any trials? Please define the word terrorism before you use it. What I've seen, terrorism is just a word that's part of American mantra and with it anything is allowed. Your ways aren't that different from the acts of "terrorists".

 

Second Admendment- The right of the people to keep and bear Arms

 

Many gun stores around the state are deabting wether or not their should be a required liscense to purchase guns.

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

 

Ok. So a shotgun is neccesary to kill a deer? A rifle is neccesary to defend yourself from an intruder? No. Hand guns are fine. Machine guns are pointless. You don't need 50 shots to kill a deer.

 

 

 

Admendment 3 -No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

 

 

I have noticed how many wives of those who have left for Iraq struggle to keep a job and support their children all at once.

 

 

 

I'm not sure excatly how they are supossed to do that without the government's help. They sad part is those women or men who lose their spouse in war then only get support from the goverment.

 

You're misunderstanding this amendment. This amendment states that soldiers can't intrude someone's house during a war, or at anytime. Back in the Revolution, British soldiers helped themselves to houses without consent from the owner.

 

Second Admendment- The right of the people to keep and bear Arms

 

Many gun stores around the state are deabting wether or not their should be a required liscense to purchase guns.

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

 

Ok. So a shotgun is neccesary to kill a deer? A rifle is neccesary to defend yourself from an intruder? No. Hand guns are fine. Machine guns are pointless. You don't need 50 shots to kill a deer.[/quote=hellzbellz]

 

 

 

I could say the same about handguns. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't go hunting with a handgun. Handguns are made for shooting people, and people alone. Since shooting people is illegal, then they should be illegal? What do people need them for if they're rule-abiding citizens? If you say 'to defend themselves', well if nobody had them (no criminals) then there would be nothing to defend from. I know it's too late to change it now, since there'd be a huge black market for guns, but if guns had never been sold to the public besides hunting equipment, it'd be a lot better today then it is now.

 

 

 

I agree more so with the machine guns, I mean why could you possibly need one for anything*?

 

 

 

*By anything, I mean legal things. So don't say 'For shooting people of course'

alright 1. they passed somthin that makes semi autos legal for the time being i infact own a ak-47, its not for hunting its for recreation or stress releaf, got some stuff i don't need? shoot it up, its fun, got really mad at ur boss today? go to the thrift store buy a $10 microwave and shoot that sucker to bits.

 

 

 

2.ever since schools started the first amendments has been bull, we protested this year for not having a bell and every one got a 3 day suspension, plus u can't cus in school its a dentention of some sort

 

 

 

3.shot guns can b used to kill animals althought its not needed and if u wanna go as far to say rifle and hand gun, y not illegal em all and jus use a bow?

 

 

 

4.hand guns were made for protection, some1 try to break into ur house with out ur permisson then u have the right to shoot them because they r truspassing...lets c..anything else i missed......machine gun could b used for protection as well

 

 

 

5.if u try to out law guns on outlaws will have guns, so wats the point? ur not slowing down crime rate or nothin lol, ppl that were gonna shoot ppl b4 r gonna do it after wards there jus gonna have a bit of a harder time find a weapon.

I could say the same about handguns. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't go hunting with a handgun. Handguns are made for shooting people, and people alone. Since shooting people is illegal, then they should be illegal? What do people need them for if they're rule-abiding citizens? If you say 'to defend themselves', well if nobody had them (no criminals) then there would be nothing to defend from. I know it's too late to change it now, since there'd be a huge black market for guns, but if guns had never been sold to the public besides hunting equipment, it'd be a lot better today then it is now.

 

 

 

Handguns are currently (not 100% sure about their origin) used mainly to protect and competitive shooting. They are relatively weak (=chances to kill are relatively low when compared to other weapons) and inaccurate. In the other words, they aren't good for hunting deers. However even tho they are mainly protecting, they can be lethal.

 

 

 

I personally would want to see stricter gun laws in USA. With a working permission system and strict enough penalties for even owning an illegal gun would help a lot there.

 

 

 

I agree more so with the machine guns, I mean why could you possibly need one for anything?

 

 

 

In my eyes machine gun CAN'T have any other reason to have than militarical things. Notice that there's a difference between a rifle, shotgun and machine gun.

hohto-

 

 

 

On your first post, all I really got from it was that you strung together a few quotes and called America terrorists. I really don't care about the quotes, except the gun thing, which I'll go into later, it's the terrorist thing that bugs me. I ask you: What is terrorism? Killing innocents on purpose, in large scale killings? That, in my opinion, is one part of terrorism. We have some attributes associated with terrorists, but we aren't.

 

 

 

Part of our mantra? We don't use IED's much, we don't bomb hotels with innocents in them, hell, we won't blow something up if there isn't confirmed suspiscion that there is an enemy orginization/ leader inside. Innocents die. It's happened in every war since the beginning of time. It's not gonna change because people get mad about it. Misinformation has happened in every war since the beginning of time. We blow something up with just innocents inside, I'd be willing to bet my house that it wasn't for the hell of killing innocents.

 

 

 

Your second post, however, I agree with. Gun laws should be stricter, but if they simply outlaw them (like robo said, alebeit with awful grammer), criminals will just have a harder time getting them. And machine guns, like robo also said, are very good for stress relief. There's something satisfying about pumping a target full of a clip of bullets in about 5 seconds. But mainly they are used for military needs.

 

The gun thing, about our population defending the laws, is understandable, when you consider most of us hunt. Also, sleeping with a pistol next to your bed gives you a nice sense of security at night. And if we outlaw guns, kids and criminals will stab. They just won't be able to do it at a distance.

 

 

 

Flying Death Bombs, you completely show your ignorance with that naive statement. At least most people on this thread calling us hypocrites/terrorists have facts to back it up....

What is terrorism? Killing innocents on purpose, in large scale killings?

 

 

 

Iraq war has caused around 70-75k civil deaths. Even though not all of them are victims of your bullets and bombs, it was you who caused the situation to go like that. Btw, how did iraq kill your civials? Also, don't you count economical warfare, kidnapping&torturing innocent people and stuff like that to terrorism?

 

 

 

Btw, even FBI supports openly counterterrorism. The question goes, when is it counterterrorism, when terrorism and when it's war?

 

Our Budget & Strategic Plan

 

In fiscal year 2007, our total budget was approximately $6.04 billion, including $318 million in program increases for our counterterrorism, surveillance, information technology, forensics, training, and information sharing programs.

 

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm

 

 

 

Part of our mantra? We don't use IED's much, we don't bomb hotels with innocents in them, hell, we won't blow something up if there isn't confirmed suspiscion that there is an enemy orginization/ leader inside. Innocents die. It's happened in every war since the beginning of time. It's not gonna change because people get mad about it. Misinformation has happened in every war since the beginning of time. We blow something up with just innocents inside, I'd be willing to bet my house that it wasn't for the hell of killing innocents.

 

 

 

Yet you can:

 

* Arrest people without any solid proof and torture them. The scary part here is that you can kidnap even citizens of EU countries who have never even stepped your ground. Same time you are complaining how some people are being judged brutally but by written laws.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri Also you can read the sources there.

 

* Attack other countries even when international things such as UN votes no for it. Is this democracy? Is this respecting the international laws?

 

* Try to convince multinational countries to stop their trades to certain countries that haven't agreed to your policy.

 

* Allow things from your allies and deny it from your opponents. One reason for anti-american feelings at the muslim countries is that you allow certain things for Israel which you don't allow for them.

 

 

 

9/11 Didn't happen because you're USA, it happened because of what you've done in the past, what you're doing now and what your future plans. Your war on "terrorism" doesn't stop it, but it gives an excuse to spread your imperialism. During cold war, communism was your excuse to spread your power. Now it's terrorism. The only difference is that now you got something that is real but can't destroy you. Compare 9/11 to what USSR: USSR could have destroyed you (and whole planet), but these "terrorist groups" can only wound you. However the attack of "terrorist groups" has already happened and will most likely happen again whilst USSR had few closeup but nothing real.

You people speak like you live in America. People who don't live here shouldn't judge us. I don't say Canada sucks, because I don't live there.

 

TBH, I hope some of the people on this forum don't become Presideents/Prime Ministers, because they will attack us simply because of the media. You need to stop being so naive about things. We aren't terrorists. What you are basing everything on is stereotypes, propoganda, and media bulls*it. Come live in America for a few years. Then come back and talk to us about how bad we are.

You people speak like you live in America. People who don't live here shouldn't judge us. I don't say Canada sucks, because I don't live there.

 

TBH, I hope some of the people on this forum don't become Presideents/Prime Ministers, because they will attack us simply because of the media. You need to stop being so naive about things. We aren't terrorists. What you are basing everything on is stereotypes, propoganda, and media bulls*it. Come live in America for a few years. Then come back and talk to us about how bad we are.

 

Please stop with the hypocrisy. You're own idea of terrorism and the Middle-East has been completely skewed from American mass media. Anyone who believes that America's counter-terrorism is working is being manipulated by "propaganda and media bulls*it". As I've already pointed out, global terrorism has increased seven-fold since America has invaded Iraq.

 

 

 

You keep telling us how "naive" and "ignorant" we are, yet you blatantly ignore the facts that we spit at you. You called me "lazy" in an earlier post yet you don't bother researching before making outrageous claims that often prove to be false.

 

 

 

I'm not anti-America. I love traveling to America and I love the people there. However, I'm a peaceful person and I'm strongly against your views on violence and military. I believe conflicts can be solved without war and violence.

 

 

 

I ask you: What is terrorism? Killing innocents on purpose, in large scale killings? That, in my opinion, is one part of terrorism. We have some attributes associated with terrorists, but we aren't.

 

That's a minor aspect of terrorism. Mass media tells us that most terrorism is performed by Muslims through suicide bombings. This isn't always the case...

 

 

 

Terrorism is simply the act of spreading fear. There is always a strong motive behind it, often political. Popular means of terrorism is through seemingly random acts of violence. Although terrorism can often be non-violent.

 

 

 

Much of the true terrorism you see daily is created by your own government and the mass media. Daily broadcasts of suicide bombings and constant death in the news creates fear in viewers. The government reminds you that you are "at war" with terrorists. Nobody is safe. Nobody is protected.

 

 

 

This makes it easy for the government to introduce new laws, new programs, and, most importantly, spend more money on military efforts. This means cutbacks to healthcare, education, social services, etc. The government tells you it's for "your protection" and they end up looking like the good guys.

 

 

 

Anti-terrorism is being used as a control mechanism by the U.S. government. It lets them do what they want, when they want, and the public abides because of their fear. Check out Chomsky & terrorism for some interesting chatter.

You people speak like you live in America. People who don't live here shouldn't judge us. I don't say Canada sucks, because I don't live there.

 

 

 

With that logic, we shouldn't also critizise the doings of Iran, North Korea, judge the leaders of Germany in 1940, be quiet about Stalin and so on. Just because we don't live there it doesn't mean we couldn't see what's happening.

 

 

 

You also seem to forget that if we (=every non-american) now close our eyes on your doings, it might affect to us too. If we want to have a peaceful world, we need to stop the neoimperialiastic spread and try to get different countries to work with each other instead of teaming up to fight against others. I'd rather trade with arabs and pay a reasonable price for their goods instead of risking as much as you're currently doing.

 

 

 

TBH, I hope some of the people on this forum don't become Presideents/Prime Ministers, because they will attack us simply because of the media. You need to stop being so naive about things. We aren't terrorists. What you are basing everything on is stereotypes, propoganda, and media bulls*it. Come live in America for a few years. Then come back and talk to us about how bad we are.

 

 

 

Judging your doings on abroad has nothing to do with stereotypes, propaganda or any other thing you said. If you're too blind to see what's happening, then that's your problem. I also don't think we're naive: after all you are the one here who can't seem to accept the fact that your goverment has done mistakes. In comparison, we've seen both doing them.

 

 

 

Btw you could become the new president of USA. You seem to ignore facts and close your eyes as well as your current.

 

Second Admendment- The right of the people to keep and bear Arms

 

Many gun stores around the state are deabting wether or not their should be a required liscense to purchase guns.

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

 

Ok. So a shotgun is neccesary to kill a deer? A rifle is neccesary to defend yourself from an intruder? No. Hand guns are fine. Machine guns are pointless. You don't need 50 shots to kill a deer.[/quote=hellzbellz]

 

 

 

I could say the same about handguns. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't go hunting with a handgun. Handguns are made for shooting people, and people alone. Since shooting people is illegal, then they should be illegal? What do people need them for if they're rule-abiding citizens? If you say 'to defend themselves', well if nobody had them (no criminals) then there would be nothing to defend from. I know it's too late to change it now, since there'd be a huge black market for guns, but if guns had never been sold to the public besides hunting equipment, it'd be a lot better today then it is now.

 

 

 

I agree more so with the machine guns, I mean why could you possibly need one for anything*?

 

 

 

*By anything, I mean legal things. So don't say 'For shooting people of course'

 

 

 

Thanks for stomping on the second amendment.

 

 

 

"Guard with jeolous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

 

 

 

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

 

 

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." -Noah Webster

 

 

 

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

 

 

Of course, I don't want to sound one-sided. I'll put someone in who agrees with you on this:

 

 

 

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -Adolf Hitler, 1935 :shock:

 

 

 

You get my point?

So... this whole post has turned into another "I Hate America" thread. No, I'm not playing the victim. I'm actually pretty tired of all the stereotypes people base us on. Like I said, live here, meet our people, and then come talk to me. I don't agree with everything our government has done, that would be foolish to the point of sheer idiocy, and not every American is a killer. People brought this up in the last topic. We fight with whoever shares our values and morals in general. Not everyone shares the same, and Americans seem to be based off of the ones who express the tendancies of serial killers. We go in to stop genocide. Yes, some of us are patriotic, and feel so inclined to defend our country, do you want to crucify us for it? You do realize we have the power to control most of the world. Do we? Are we the ones controlling Britain? Russia? Canada? No? You realize that when most enemies see the stars and stripes, their pulse probably quickens? We'll be the one of the first to come to your aid if you are ever invaded, and yet we still are the scum of the Earth. Your welcome. It makes me laugh to see these people on here, and around the world. Hohto, maybe I will become president. My first course of action would be to invade a few countries and make it as bad as you say we are.

 

Venomai, the day we have world peace, I'll eat my own feet. Having a few pacifists crying for world peace isn't going to make it happen.

 

 

 

 

]The Cold War is over. A New World Order is

 

beginning to emerge. It is characterized, however, by a lack of

 

order. The United Nations, in light of recent successes, has

 

become the chosen instrument for the maintenance of peace. The

 

United States is being relied upon to support the United Nations

 

in peacekeeping missions throughout the world. These missions

 

are characterized by deep-seated animosities with historical,

 

ethnic, religious, and other hatreds of primarily political

 

concerns that have erupted-into civil violence. Insertion of

 

military forces into this environment for the purpose of

 

establishing or maintaining peace is a complex and poorly

 

understood endeavor that presents a high likelihood of failure.

 

Presently, America's forces are not structured or trained for the

 

types of situations they will face in this role. These missions

 

do not meet the post-Vietnam criteria for force insertion

 

established in the Weinburger Doctrine, and they have not

 

historically experienced success as evidenced in Beirut. The

 

linkage of United States' vital interests to the mission is often

 

remote and sometimes non-existent. The American people will not

 

be willing to tolerate the cost without any perceived gain.

 

Recommendation: Alternative solutions to these highly political

 

situations should be explored and utilized instead of insertion

 

of military forces.

 

Alternitave solutions have been explored. But, though I wish it were possible, they don't usually work as well as violent means. Now read it and see things from our point of view.

 

Don't bother posting a reply, as I'm not going to look at this thread again. I may be a hypocrite American, but I have a sense of patriotism, and it makes me sick to see people attacking us like this.

 

Source: Peacekeeping: The Mission Is Likely to Fail

So... this whole post has turned into another "I Hate America" thread. No, I'm not playing the victim. I'm actually pretty tired of all the stereotypes people base us on. Like I said, live here, meet our people, and then come talk to me. I don't agree with everything our government has done, that would be foolish to the point of sheer idiocy, and not every American is a killer. People brought this up in the last topic. We fight with whoever shares our values and morals in general. Not everyone shares the same, and Americans seem to be based off of the ones who express the tendancies of serial killers. We go in to stop genocide. Yes, some of us are patriotic, and feel so inclined to defend our country, do you want to crucify us for it? You do realize we have the power to control most of the world. Do we? Are we the ones controlling Britain? Russia? Canada? No? You realize that when most enemies see the stars and stripes, their pulse probably quickens? We'll be the one of the first to come to your aid if you are ever invaded, and yet we still are the scum of the Earth. Your welcome. It makes me laugh to see these people on here, and around the world. Hohto, maybe I will become president. My first course of action would be to invade a few countries and make it as bad as you say we are.

 

Venomai, the day we have world peace, I'll eat my own feet. Having a few pacifists crying for world peace isn't going to make it happen.

 

 

 

 

]The Cold War is over. A New World Order is

 

beginning to emerge. It is characterized, however, by a lack of

 

order. The United Nations, in light of recent successes, has

 

become the chosen instrument for the maintenance of peace. The

 

United States is being relied upon to support the United Nations

 

in peacekeeping missions throughout the world. These missions

 

are characterized by deep-seated animosities with historical,

 

ethnic, religious, and other hatreds of primarily political

 

concerns that have erupted-into civil violence. Insertion of

 

military forces into this environment for the purpose of

 

establishing or maintaining peace is a complex and poorly

 

understood endeavor that presents a high likelihood of failure.

 

Presently, America's forces are not structured or trained for the

 

types of situations they will face in this role. These missions

 

do not meet the post-Vietnam criteria for force insertion

 

established in the Weinburger Doctrine, and they have not

 

historically experienced success as evidenced in Beirut. The

 

linkage of United States' vital interests to the mission is often

 

remote and sometimes non-existent. The American people will not

 

be willing to tolerate the cost without any perceived gain.

 

Recommendation: Alternative solutions to these highly political

 

situations should be explored and utilized instead of insertion

 

of military forces.

 

Alternitave solutions have been explored. But, though I wish it were possible, they don't usually work as well as violent means. Now read it and see things from our point of view.

 

Don't bother posting a reply, as I'm not going to look at this thread again. I may be a hypocrite American, but I have a sense of patriotism, and it makes me sick to see people attacking us like this.

 

Source: Peacekeeping: The Mission Is Likely to Fail

 

Being patrotic isn't a 'safe' excuse for yourself.

 

Ask a 1930's Nazi Patroit and he'll give you all the white supremacy [cabbage] and because of his excuse of patriotism makes him OK? No.