Deployed in the US--our creeping militarization

[Modbert]

But if they only took certain peoples rights it would be racism or a political agenda against people with lower income

Again, links? Or you just tossing out BS?

This was wrong in general, it doesn't even matter if there was a bias agenda or not. It is a tragedy in the name of American rights that a city that you can legally own guns in had the Gov't come in and take away those rights.

Even in the videos, those soldiers rather of been elsewhere because they knew how wrong it was.

 

[Mr. President]

Yeah yeah yeah the political mumbo jumbo has always prevented soldiers from doing the best job but if the military is told to unarm a city that is exactly what we will do. As far as links just google it. Now for tragedies its a tragedy when American soldiers get blamed for not helping and shot at for helping

 

[Modbert]

Yeah yeah yeah the political mumbo jumbo has always prevented soldiers from doing the best job but if the military is told to unarm a city that is exactly what we will do. As far as links just google it. Now for tragedies its a tragedy when American soldiers get blamed for not helping and shot at for helping

I don't feel like googling it, I feel like waiting for you to prove your own point.

I posted links, it isn't that difficult as you make it seem.

Of course american troops are going to be shot at may it be in New Orleans or Iraq.

Do you think they all want us in Iraq too? They throw sticks and rocks at the tanks and soldiers. They shoot at them with rocket launchers, machine guns, and anything else they can manage.

Don't try to change the subject though.

 

[Mr. President]

Haha more than you know I am aware of them wanting us in Iraq. Im also aware that happy kids playing on the newly constructed playgrounds isn't newsworthy but rocks being thrown at tanks for some reason is.

You proved my point by saying of course american soldiers are going to be shot at

 

[Modbert]

Haha more than you know I am aware of them wanting us in Iraq. Im also aware that happy kids playing on the newly constructed playgrounds isn't newsworthy but rocks being thrown at tanks for some reason is.

You proved my point by saying of course american soldiers are going to be shot at

I didn't prove your point at all. I proved my own point that all societies have criminals.

I never denied that these societies have criminals. My problem is when you take away EVERYONE's rights because of a few criminals.

And yes some people are going to shoot if you come for their guns. Don't you know by now that some people in this country would rather die first before giving up their guns?

 

[Mr. President]

People shooting was the reason we came for their guns. The scale that weapons were taken was not as drastic as people are trying to say and trust me we didn't want those weapons to be taken from law abiding citizens but the afformentioned situations that would have resulted from us taking select people weapons would have been damaging to say the least.

 

[Modbert]

People shooting was the reason we came for their guns. The scale that weapons were taken was not as drastic as people are trying to say and trust me we didn't want those weapons to be taken from law abiding citizens but the afformentioned situations that would have resulted from us taking select people weapons would have been damaging to say the least.

Scale that taking the weapons were not that drastic?

They took EVERYONE's guns! How much more drastic could of they gotten without throwing everyone in make shift jails or shooting everyone?

 

[Mr. President]

Its a security measure you cant take your guns on planes either

 

[Modbert]

Its a security measure you cant take your guns on planes either

That is for the safety of the other passengers and obviously there is at least one U.S Air Marshall on most if not all flights now a days.

However, lets say on the day of 9/11 that these hijackers had gotten on a plane with people who were lets say even 30% of them were armed.

How long you think they would of lasted before they got shot down?

 

[Mr. President]

they would have shot out the windows and the plane would have crashed

 

[Modbert]

they would have shot out the windows and the plane would have crashed

Thats a big what if you assume. Someone with a gun and a quick enough shot will kill the 3 or 4 (who were btw towards the front of the plane, not near the windows) would be killed.

Do you know that one of the reasons that the Russians never invaded America during the Cold War is because they thought we were all armed?

How can they invade America and they try to take it over if everyone owns a gun and is shooting from windows,etc? That's the kind of logic they had during that time.

 

[Mr. President]

They didn't invade because we have a superior military.

 

[Modbert]

They didn't invade because we have a superior military.

A superior military wouldn't matter in the case of a sneak attack.

Point and Case: Pearl Harbor

 

[BrianH]

A superior military wouldn't matter in the case of a sneak attack.

Point and Case: Pearl Harbor

Point and Case: Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion.

The Russians didn't attack us because of the same reason we didn't attack them. We were both scared shitless of what would happen. Hence the numerous "proxy wars" of conventional arms...instead of all out nuclear war--> something both sides knew was inevitable if they were to make a risky move---including invading one another.

 

[Modbert]

Point and Case: Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion.

The Russians didn't attack us because of the same reason we didn't attack them. We were both scared shitless of what would happen. Hence the numerous "proxy wars" of conventional arms...instead of all out nuclear war--> something both sides knew was inevitable if they were to make a risky move---including invading one another.

Well gee, I guess that's why I said it was a point and case of a SNEAK ATTACK.

Of course the Russians and us were scared of what could happen because it would of been World War III.

The Russians thinking we were all armed is one of many reasons why they were scared of what could happen if they invaded the US.

 

[BrianH]

Well gee, I guess that's why I said it was a point and case of a SNEAK ATTACK.

Of course the Russians and us were scared of what could happen because it would of been World War III.

The Russians thinking we were all armed is one of many reasons why they were scared of what could happen if they invaded the US.

While I will agree that they're "belief" of us being armed may have "slightly" deterred them...I'm positive that it was not the main, nor even remotely a significant reason why Russia never invaded the U.S.

1st reason, what's one way to disarm armed civilians? Drop a nuke on them.

And let me be frank...a sneak attack is not the same thing as an invasion.
In the days after WWII, military intelligence was at it's highest and there was virtually no possible way that Russia could have mounted a "sneak attack" on the United States. The entire world was militarized after WWII.

The Primary reason that Russia did not invade the U.S., or the other way around, is because both countries knew it would be the beginning of a nuclear holocaust. Some would argue that nuclear weapons have actually prevented WWIII instead of instigated one...and continues to this day.

Citizens being "armed" did not stop Russia from invading Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia...Armed civilians is not what stopped Russia from invading us...or us from invading them.

 

[Modbert]

While I will agree that they're "belief" of us being armed may have "slightly" deterred them...I'm positive that it was not the main, nor even remotely a significant reason why Russia never invaded the U.S.

1st reason, what's one way to disarm armed civilians? Drop a nuke on them.

And let me be frank...a sneak attack is not the same thing as an invasion.
In the days after WWII, military intelligence was at it's highest and there was virtually no possible way that Russia could have mounted a "sneak attack" on the United States. The entire world was militarized after WWII.

The Primary reason that Russia did not invade the U.S., or the other way around, is because both countries knew it would be the beginning of a nuclear holocaust. Some would argue that nuclear weapons have actually prevented WWIII instead of instigated one...and continues to this day.

Citizens being "armed" did not stop Russia from invading Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia...Armed civilians is not what stopped Russia from invading us...or us from invading them.

Dropping a nuke on Russia would of had us won the war in the short run.

In the long run, the rest of the world would of punished us at the least or want to take us out in fear of them being next.

 

[BrianH]

Dropping a nuke on Russia would of had us won the war in the short run.

In the long run, the rest of the world would of punished us at the least or want to take us out in fear of them being next.

Proof please? It sounds like this is all strictly opinion based on little or no fact.

Dropping a nuke on Russia would have done nothing but caused them to fire one or several back at us. The same would have happened if Russia had fired one first.

And I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world...allies at least, also hated the creeping communism that was at their door-step. Stalin was no hero to Western Europe.

Also, other countries would not have dared nuke us after WWII, considering we had enough nukes to blow the world up twice. I'd really like some sources of where you get your information....

 

[Modbert]

Proof please? It sounds like this is all strictly opinion based on little or no fact.

Dropping a nuke on Russia would have done nothing but caused them to fire one or several back at us. The same would have happened if Russia had fired one first.

And I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world...allies at least, also hated the creeping communism that was at their door-step. Stalin was no hero to Western Europe.

Also, other countries would not have dared nuke us after WWII, considering we had enough nukes to blow the world up twice. I'd really like some sources of where you get your information....

Proof? It's fact

The rest of the world may of not had liked Stalin or Communism but that doesn't mean they were all for it killing millions of innocents.

Just because Stalin was no hero to Western Europe doesn't mean plenty of people would of been pissed about what America did.

Plenty of people still hate us today for what did to Japan in WWII, can you imagine if we did the same to Russia too?

I never said other countries would not have dared nuke us after WWII. We had enough nukes to blow the world up twice, doesn't mean we can force everyone to trade with us.

If nobody decides to trade with America, we're doomed. Now more then ever today. Unless America wants to create a bunch of Martyrs by bombing country after country for not submitting to our policy?

 

[BrianH]

Proof? It's fact

The rest of the world may of not had liked Stalin or Communism but that doesn't mean they were all for it killing millions of innocents.

Just because Stalin was no hero to Western Europe doesn't mean plenty of people would of been pissed about what America did.

Plenty of people still hate us today for what did to Japan in WWII, can you imagine if we did the same to Russia too?

I never said other countries would not have dared nuke us after WWII. We had enough nukes to blow the world up twice, doesn't mean we can force everyone to trade with us.

If nobody decides to trade with America, we're doomed. Now more then ever today. Unless America wants to create a bunch of Martyrs by bombing country after country for not submitting to our policy?

So basically, you're saying that your opinion of a hypothetical scenario that DID NOT happen is "FACT"? LOL.

The real "fact" is that Russia did not nuke or invade the U.S. nor the U.S. nuke or invade Russia. The reason for this, was because both countries were scared shitless of being blamed for starting WWIII, and also starting a nuclear holocaust from which neither country (if not the world) would ever recover from. Instead, they funded and waged numerous "proxy wars" such as the Korean Conflict, and even the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Russia and the U.S. waged numerous indirect wars because we both were afraid to engage the other in conventional as well as nuclear warfare.

And I hate to break it to you, but world opinion of the U.S. after and during WWII was not what it is today, and in fact not even close. Many nations LOVED the U.S. and would have backed the allies in any war against the Soviets. Stalin was murding millions of his own people anyway, are you saying that Europeans would have been pissed if we took him out??? LOL.

Why don't you look up Stalin's Purges and tell me again that the people of Europe and the rest of the world would not have supported the U.S. in a 'hypothetical' war with the Soviet Union.