Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[sambino510]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Survivalist]

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

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

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

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

That's just a normal human response.

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

 

[sambino510]

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

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

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

That's just a normal human response.

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

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

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Survivalist]

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

That's just a normal human response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sambino510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sambino510]

That's just a normal human response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sambino510]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Auteur]

That's just a normal human response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, how about these numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

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

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

Auteur:

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

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

Then you do her a disservice.

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Auteur]

Auteur:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Auteur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sambino510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, how about these numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Auteur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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