Vietnam War - how did US benefit from it?

[Chips Rafferty]

You forgot to add as a Marine I am a baby killer and murder civilians for sport.

WELL GOLL-E-E! Did you teach that up at Camp Henderson, Sargunt Carter?

Let’s just disregard your usual pathetic grandstanding attempts (LOOK WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT A HOLY MARINE, PEOPLE!) to garner sympathy and draw a red herring over your conservanazi slime trail.

Let’s recap what I accuse you of - and you have never provided one skerrick of evidence to refute - shall we?

You deliberately and purblindly sustain and approve of a patently piratical, murderous regime that is, according to U.S. and international law, indictable for crimes against humanity.

This stance makes YOU an accessory to mass murder, perhaps even premeditated genocide, under these same laws.

As a demonstrably mental Mormon, you cursorily worship a rabidly racist Jew who, funnily, wouldn’t have given a loathsome Goy like you the fumes off of his Gefilte fish farts.

I maintain this makes you a religiously insane racist and a willing accomplice to your inherently evil political-religious regimes continuing mass murder in criminal pursuit of Imperial profit.

Accordingly, you ought to be hung like Hitler’s henchmen were at Nuremberg.

I also maintain that, seeing that I persistently oppose all the evil that you hold dear, I am - according to global standards, not you immoral American ones - the epitome of universal decency.

There ya go, Gummy. See if you can slime outta that!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WELL GOLL-E-E! Did you teach that up at Camp Henderson, Sargunt Carter?

Let’s just disregard your usual pathetic grandstanding attempts (LOOK WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT A HOLY MARINE, PEOPLE!) to garner sympathy and draw a red herring over your conservanazi slime trail.

Let’s recap what I accuse you of - and you have never provided one skerrick of evidence to refute - shall we?

You deliberately and purblindly sustain and approve of a patently piratical, murderous regime that is, according to U.S. and international law, indictable for crimes against humanity.

This stance makes YOU an accessory to mass murder, perhaps even premeditated genocide, under these same laws.

As a demonstrably mental Mormon, you cursorily worship a rabidly racist Jew who, funnily, wouldn’t have given a loathsome Goy like you the fumes off of his Gefilte fish farts.

I maintain this makes you a religiously insane racist and a willing accomplice to your inherently evil political-religious regimes continuing mass murder in criminal pursuit of Imperial profit.

Accordingly, you ought to be hung like Hitler’s henchmen were at Nuremberg.

I also maintain that, seeing that I persistently oppose all the evil that you hold dear, I am - according to global standards, not you immoral American ones - the epitome of universal decency.

There ya go, Gummy. See if you can slime outta that!

None of your claims are more than hot air from a lunatic.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

None of your claims are more than hot air from a lunatic.

....I love to hear them Mormons squeal, its a shame these slugs ain't real .....

Try reading something other than the corrupt American media, supermarket Penny Dreadfuls, and war comics for once in you Walter Mittyish life, Vince.

The invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were/are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY according to International and American Law. And those who support(ed) them are no better than the German and Japanese civilians of WW2.

The bombing begins in five minutes!

*******Copyright Violation. Edited by Scooter.*******

 

[RetiredGySgt]

....I love to hear them Mormons squeal, its a shame these slugs ain't real .....

Try reading something other than the corrupt American media, supermarket Penny Dreadfuls, and war comics for once in you Walter Mittyish life, Vince.

The invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were/are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY according to International and American Law. And those who support(ed) them are no better than the German and Japanese civilians of WW2.

The bombing begins in five minutes!

Crime Against Humanity
by John Pilger
April 10, 2003

A BBC television producer, moments before he was wounded by an American fighter aircraft that killed 18 people with "friendly fire", spoke to his mother on a satellite phone. Holding the phone over his head so that she could hear the sound of the American planes overhead, he said: "Listen, that's the sound of freedom."

Did I read this scene in Catch-22? Surely, the BBC man was being ferociously ironic. I doubt it, just as I doubt that whoever designed the Observer's page three last Sunday had Joseph Heller in mind when he wrote the weasel headline: "The moment young Omar discovered the price of war". These cowardly words accompanied a photograph of an American marine reaching out to comfort 15-year-old Omar, having just participated in the mass murder of his father, mother, two sisters and brother during the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, in breach of the most basic law of civilised peoples.

No true epitaph for them in Britain's famous liberal newspaper; no honest headline, such as: "This American marine murdered this boy's family". No photograph of Omar's father, mother, sisters and brother dismembered and blood-soaked by automatic fire. Versions of the Observer's propaganda picture have been appearing in the Anglo-American press since the invasion began: tender cameos of American troops reaching out, kneeling, ministering to their "liberated" victims.

And where were the pictures from the village of Furat, where 80 men, women and children were rocketed to death? Apart from the Mirror, where were the pictures, and footage, of small children holding up their hands in terror while Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street? Imagine that in a British high street. It is a glimpse of fascism, and we have a right to see it.

"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.

Nothing Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing boys and their media court do now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of record, understood by the majority of humanity, if not by those who claim to speak for "us". As Denis Halliday said of the Anglo-American embargo against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books". It was Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the "oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 and quickly realised that the UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation".

I have mentioned these two men often in these pages, partly because their names and their witness have been airbrushed from most of the media. I well remember Jeremy Paxman bellowing at Halliday on Newsnight shortly after his resignation: "So are you an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" That helped set the tone for the travesty of journalism that now daily, almost gleefully, treats criminal war as sport. In a leaked e-mail Roger Mosey, the head of BBC Television News, described the BBC's war coverage as "extraordinary - it almost feels like World Cup football when you go from Um Qasr to another theatre of war somewhere else and you're switching between battles".

He is talking about murder. That is what the Americans do, and no one will say so, even when they are murdering journalists. They bring to this one-sided attack on a weak and mostly defenceless people the same racist, homicidal intent I witnessed in Vietnam, where they had a whole programme of murder called Operation Phoenix. This runs through all their foreign wars, as it does through their own divided society. Take your pick of the current onslaught. Last weekend, a column of their tanks swept heroically into Baghdad and out again. They murdered people along the way.

They blew off the limbs of women and the scalps of children. Hear their voices on the unedited and unbroadcast videotape: "We shot the shit out of it." Their victims overwhelm the morgues and hospitals - hospitals already denuded of drugs and painkillers by America's deliberate withholding of $5.4bn in humanitarian goods, approved by the Security Council and paid for by Iraq. The screams of children undergoing amputation with minimal anaesthetic qualify as the BBC man's "sound of freedom".

Heller would appreciate the sideshows. Take the British helicopter pilot who came to blows with an American who had almost shot him down. "Don't you know the Iraqis don't have a fucking air force?" he shouted. Did this pilot reflect on the truth he had uttered, on the whole craven enterprise against a stricken third world country and his own part in this crime? I doubt it. The British have been the most skilled at delusion and lying. By any standard, the Iraqi resistance to the high-tech Anglo-American machine was heroic. With ancient tanks and mortars, small arms and desperate ambushes, they panicked the Americans and reduced the British military class to one of its specialities - mendacious condescension.

The Iraqis who fight are "terrorists", "hoodlums", "pockets of Ba'ath Party loyalists", "kamikaze" and "feds" (fedayeen). They are not real people: cultured and cultivated people. They are Arabs. This vocabulary of dishonour has been faithfully parroted by those enjoying it all from the broadcasting box. "What do you make of Basra?" asked the Today programme's presenter of a former general embedded in the studio. "It's hugely encouraging, isn't it?" he replied. Their mutual excitement, like their plummy voices, are their bond.

On the same day, in a Guardian letter, Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, pointed us to evidence of this "hugely encouraging" truth - fleeting pictures on Sky News of British soldiers smashing their way into a family home in Basra, pointing their guns at a woman and manhandling, hooding and manacling young men, one of whom was shown quivering with terror. "Is Britain 'liberating' Basra by taking political prisoners and, if so, based on what sort of intelligence, given Britain's long unfamiliarity with this territory and its inhabitants . . . The least this ugly display will do is remind Arabs and Muslims everywhere of our Anglo-Saxon double standards - we can show your prisoners in . . . degrading positions, but don't you dare show ours.".

Roger Mosey says the suffering of Um Qasr is "like World Cup football". There are 40,000 people in Um Qasr; desperate refugees are streaming in and the hospitals are overflowing. All this misery is due entirely to the "coalition" invasion and the British siege, which forced the United Nations to withdraw its humanitarian aid staff. Cafod, the Catholic relief agency, which has sent a team to Um Qasr, says the standard humanitarian quota for water in emergency situations is 20 litres per person per day.

Cafod reports hospitals entirely without water and people drinking from contaminated wells. According to the World Health Organisation, 1.5 million people across southern Iraq are without water, and epidemics are inevitable. And what are "our boys" doing to alleviate this, apart from staging childish, theatrical occupations of presidential palaces, having fired shoulder-held missiles into a civilian city and dropped cluster bombs?

A British colonel laments to his "embedded" flock that "it is difficult to deliver aid in an area that is still an active battle zone". The logic of his own words mocks him. If Iraq was not a battle zone, if the British and the Americans were not defying international law, there would be no difficulty in delivering aid.

There is something especially disgusting about the lurid propaganda coming from these PR-trained British officers, who have not a clue about Iraq and its people. They describe the liberation they are bringing from "the world's worst tyranny", as if anything, including death by cluster bomb or dysentery, is better than "life under Saddam". The inconvenient truth is that, according to Unicef, the Ba'athists built the most modern health service in the Middle East.

No one disputes the grim, totalitarian nature of the regime; but Saddam Hussein was careful to use the oil wealth to create a modern secular society and a large and prosperous middle class. Iraq was the only Arab country with a 90 per cent clean water supply and with free education. All this was smashed by the Anglo-American embargo. When the embargo was imposed in 1990, the Iraqi civil service organised a food distribution system that the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation described as "a model of efficiency . . . undoubtedly saving Iraq from famine". That, too, was smashed when the invasion was launched.

Why are the British yet to explain why their troops have to put on protective suits to recover dead and wounded in vehicles hit by American "friendly fire"? The reason is that the Americans are using solid uranium coated on missiles and tank shells. When I was in southern Iraq, doctors estimated a sevenfold increase in cancers in areas where depleted uranium was used by the Americans and British in the 1991 war. Under the subsequent embargo, Iraq, unlike Kuwait, has been denied equipment with which to clean up its contaminated battlefields. The hospitals in Basra have wards overflowing with children with cancers of a variety not seen before 1991. They have no painkillers; they are fortunate if they have aspirin.

With honourable exceptions (Robert Fisk; al-Jazeera), little of this has been reported. Instead, the media have performed their preordained role as imperial America's "soft power": rarely identifying "our" crime, or misrepresenting it as a struggle between good intentions and evil incarnate. This abject professional and moral failure now beckons the unseen dangers of such an epic, false victory, inviting its repetition in Iran, Korea, Syria, Cuba, China.

George Bush has said: "It will be no defence to say: 'I was just following orders.'" He is correct. The Nuremberg judges left in no doubt the right of ordinary soldiers to follow their conscience in an illegal war of aggression. Two British soldiers have had the courage to seek status as conscientious objectors. They face court martial and imprisonment; yet virtually no questions have been asked about them in the media. George Galloway has been pilloried for asking the same question as Bush, and he and Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, are being threatened with withdrawal of the Labour whip.

Dalyell, 41 years a member of the Commons, has said the Prime Minister is a war criminal who should be sent to The Hague. This is not gratuitous; on the prima facie evidence, Blair is a war criminal, and all those who have been, in one form or another, accessories should be reported to the International Criminal Court. Not only did they promote a charade of pretexts few now take seriously, they brought terrorism and death to Iraq.

A growing body of legal opinion around the world agrees that the new court has a duty, as Eric Herring of Bristol University wrote, to investigate "not only the regime, but also the UN bombing and sanctions which violated the human rights of Iraqis on a vast scale". Add the present piratical war, whose spectre is the uniting of Arab nationalism with militant Islam. The whirlwind sown by Blair and Bush is just beginning. Such is the magnitude of their crime.

Yup, unbiased factual information there.....

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Yup, unbiased factual information there.....

Published on Sunday, March 2, 2003 by The Free Press (Columbus, Ohio)

Bush and America's Willing Executioners Would Be Guilty at Nuremburg
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

If he launches an attack on Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, George W. Bush will be guilty of crimes on par with those committed by the infamous Nazi leaders who were tried at Nuremburg in 1948, after World War II.

The law is clear. At Nuremburg, American, British, French and Soviet jurists used international conventions, legal precedent and a global moral consensus to establish a code of conduct deemed the standard for all nations.

Key was the "crimes against humanity" prohibition stemming from the conscious slaughter of six million Jews, leftists, gypsies and others by the Nazi fanatics.

But also crucial was the ban on unprovoked attack by one nation against another. The explosive fuse that set off World War II was the September 1,1939 Nazi attack on Poland, which was unprovoked by any stretch of the military imagination. By all accounts it was an act of aggression and conquest, which led ultimately to as many as 50 million deaths over the next six years.

Article VI of the Nuremburg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war.

A week before the unprovoked Nazi assault on Poland, Hitler promised his generals he would provide "a propagandistic reason for starting the war.� He then justified a "preemptive" strike based on lies about a non-existent Polish Army attack against Germany.

The Nazi attack date had been set for more than a year. "The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not," Hitler told his generals. "In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."

After Hitler's deceptions were revealed at Nuremburg, the surviving Nazis based their defense on the claim of "preventative war," claiming a need to protect Germany from a pending Polish attack. They were the last, until Bush, to use that rationale.

It didn't work. For this attack, ranking Nazi commandants, starting with Hermann Goering, Hitler's Number Two, were convicted and sentenced to death. That charge and that alone was deemed sufficient to warrant hanging.

Unless Saddam Hussein launches an attack on the United States very soon, any American attack on Iraq without UN approval would be on a legal par with the Nazi attack on Poland.

A key US argument, that Iraq was somehow linked to the September 11 terror attacks, has been definitively dismissed. In the eighteen months since, all credible evidence points to intense hostility rather than cooperation between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell, arguing in front of the UN, failed to prove any cooperative connection.

Iraq has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, whose legal legitimacy was essential to the 1991 campaign that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Thus far, there is no United Nations consensus that the Iraqis have definitively failed to comply with the terms of that defeat to an extent that would justify a renewed military attack, one that would inevitably involve civilian casualties.

With no claim to having been attacked, George W. Bush has instead argued that his war on Iraq would be "preemptive," meant to prevent Saddam from launching a future war. But Iraq has not attacked anyone in more than 12 years and two-thirds of the country is under a no-fly zone. Thus Bush is merely resurrecting the preventative war doctrine invoked by the Nazis before their Nuremburg hanging.

In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander, dismissed the idea of a preventative war against the Soviet Union. "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler," he said. "I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

George W. Bush has now added to the list of pre-war demands a "regime change" by which Saddam Hussein would give up power. Bush then proposes rebuilding Iraq along democratic lines.

But Nazi functionaries at Nuremburg also received stiff sentences for approving essentially the same totalitarian statutes that now appear in the Homeland Security, Patriot I and Patriot II Acts authorizing secret arrest, detention and "disappearances" of American citizens without legal recourse or public notification. At Nuremburg, such laws were recognized as a form of state terror.

The embrace of such laws in America casts serious doubt on the Bush Administration's real willingness to install democracy anywhere else.

When the Nazis attacked Poland in 1939, no one envisioned that just eight years later Germany would be leveled and its all-powerful reichmarshalls would be tried and sentenced under international law.

Such a vision seems less far fetched today. America's current military might has prompted the Bush Administration to frame its proposed war in terms of a "crusade" against "evil." But military action against Iraq is guaranteed to inflame the passions of 1.2 billion Muslims. The proposed war is explicitly opposed by the Pope. International support is extremely limited. The US itself is deeply divided, with its economy in serious trouble.

The diplomatic campaign for this attack has been handled with all the wisdom and foresight of madmen lighting matches in a room full of gasoline. There is no reason to expect a military campaign would be handled any better.

It is clear from the precedents at Nuremburg that any American attack on Iraq without United Nations approval would be illegal under international law. It is also clear that the inevitable civilian casualties resulting from such an attack would qualify as crimes against humanity.

And sooner or later, the American perpetrators of such an attack and related crimes might well find themselves standing trial before some sort of Nuremburg-style international tribunal.

Given such circumstances, the guilt of George W. Bush will not be in doubt. But the guilt of subordinates giving supporting orders, and of soldiers and functionaries carrying them out, will also be a given.

The Nuremburg court, including its American judges, repeatedly ruled that those who "only followed orders" in committing atrocities were guilty of crimes against humanity.

Those willing Americans executioners who "only follow orders" in perpetrating this illegal attack on Iraq should understand that they stand to be found just as guilty as the ones giving those orders.

And that one way or another, sooner or later, that guilt will demand payment.

To paraphrase yourself,

You will discover that there are 13 or 14 people on this board you simply can not have a rational discussion with. They are not interested in anything you have to say unless it is to agree with them.

I have had this exact experience with American Calvinazis for years now. Hence I just lampoon these primitive-minded, only recently bi-pedal, inbred Bubbas rather than try and reason with the poor superstitious bastards.

After all, who in their right mind argues with the mentally afflicted!

No amount of evidence will ever get these totally self-absorbed Bubbary Apes to admit they can EVER be wrong about ANYTHING.

These narcissists are just too fucking infatuated with their own self-image - they call it "patriotism" - to ever expect them to try anything as radical as self-reflection.

Therefore you just keep presenting the evidence and hope that one day, perhaps one of them, who hasn't been to church or watching Fux Channel for a year or so, just might be receptive to reason for a split second or so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well every board needs it insano comedic bafoon , you do nicely as it. But you have competetion, better get even crazier, if thats possible.

 

[Care4all]

I am trying to find answers to how USA benefited from Vietnam war.
I am doing a paper for school so this is a historical question rather than a personal opinion. Any factual & historical input would be appreciated!

Thank you

It takes a stronger man and a stronger country to NOT go to war, when times seem hopeless.

A Diplomat, with the big stick power behind them, in their shaddow.

As a DOVE, not a HAWK, this is how I see it.

----------------

As far as Viet Nam, Retgysgt hit on a few things in the beginning of this thread that I always believed to be true, regarding the containment of the Cold war opponents of ours and what happened to China as a result and other asian countries in the region.

But one thing that I have not seen mentioned that I believe did have a part in it was JAPAN. Even with the Korean thing going on.... We are protecting, and were protecting Japan from the Chinese. We invested a great deal in to Japan after ww2, and they later became one of the world's dominating countires in capitalism, and in their investment in us, later on down the road.

 

[Psychoblues]

I didn't pick on anyone, martin.

maybe but why you have to pick on him?. any service member should be respected, you can hate a war but dont take that out on him.

Did you notice that no one had any argument with what this Viet Nam Vet had to say? Listen to the vets, martin. Those of us that were there will tell you how insignificant we felt then and how insignificant we are now.

 

[Gunny]

It takes a stronger man and a stronger country to NOT go to war, when times seem hopeless.

A Diplomat, with the big stick power behind them, in their shaddow.

As a DOVE, not a HAWK, this is how I see it.

----------------

As far as Viet Nam, Retgysgt hit on a few things in the beginning of this thread that I always believed to be true, regarding the containment of the Cold war opponents of ours and what happened to China as a result and other asian countries in the region.

But one thing that I have not seen mentioned that I believe did have a part in it was JAPAN. Even with the Korean thing going on.... We are protecting, and were protecting Japan from the Chinese. We invested a great deal in to Japan after ww2, and they later became one of the world's dominating countires in capitalism, and in their investment in us, later on down the road.

It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction. It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.

Strength is no good without wisdom. A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't pick on anyone, martin.




Did you notice that no one had any argument with what this Viet Nam Vet had to say? Listen to the vets, martin. Those of us that were there will tell you how insignificant we felt then and how insignificant we are now.

No one responded to your post because you posted nothing to respond to. You made a psychoblues proclamation, devoid of any fact or logic, based on your political extremism.

In other words, you were ignored.

 

[Truthmatters]

You can keep your distance and negociate with a rattlesnake if you manage to manuver him into a box and hold the only food and water within a thousand miles.

Sometimes a fight is the only way but negotiation should be always the first attempts and fighting a last one.

Bush promised to use deplomacy and went straight to war brushing all aside.

 

[Gunny]

You can keep your distance and negociate with a rattlesnake if you manage to manuver him into a box and hold the only food and water within a thousand miles.

Sometimes a fight is the only way but negotiation should be always the first attempts and fighting a last one.

Bush promised to use deplomacy and went straight to war brushing all aside.

That's just plain stupid. You KILL rattlesnakes or they will KILL you.

Bush attempted diplomacy and it failed before he went to war. You really need to get a grip on reality dude before you try and negotiate with any snakes.

 

[Superlative]

That's just plain stupid. You KILL rattlesnakes or they will KILL you.

Just passing through. Thought id give you a hard time.

"Most species of rattlesnakes have hemotoxic venom, destroying tissue, degenerating organs and causing coagulopathy (disrupted blood clotting). Some degree of permanent scarring is very likely in the event of a venomous bite, even with prompt, effective treatment, and a severe envenomation, combined with delayed or ineffective treatment, can lead to the loss of a limb and rarely, death. Thus, a rattlesnake bite is always a potentially serious, or even fatal, injury. Untreated rattlesnake bites, especially from larger species, are sometimes fatal. However, antivenin, when applied in time, reduces the death rate to less than 4%. Around 8,000 people are bitten by venomous snakes in the United States each year. On average, fewer than 15 snakebite deaths are reported."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake

 

[Chips Rafferty]

It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction. It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.

Strength is no good without wisdom. A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.

Not according to the Jewish “Ghost Dancers" in the Wholly Babble!

Mark 16-18 “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

Down here we are advised never to disturb snakes. Especially not to destroy their homes and kill their kids trying to extract snake oil from them.

 

[Gunny]

Just passing through. Thought id give you a hard time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake

Attempting to obfuscate the point is not giving ME a hard time. Want to take the chance the one in your yard isn't the one that's deadly? Only one way to find out ....

 

[Gunny]

Not according to the Jewish “Ghost Dancers" in the Wholly Babble!

Mark 16-18 “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

Down here we are advised never to disturb snakes. Especially not to destroy their homes and kill their kids trying to extract snake oil from them.

Yeah, better to let them run around loose and bite you in the ass when least expected than to just cure them from biting altogether.

Only those with a dishonest argument give one whit about the snake oil.

 

[Care4all]

It doesn' take strength to watch everything you allegedly believe in be destroyed before your very eyes due to your inaction. It takes not believing in your own rhetoric half as much as you claim.

Strength is no good without wisdom. A wise man knows you cannot negotiate with rattlesnakes WITHOUT having to be bitten.

A wise man KNOWS not to kill another human being, (not a damn rattlesnake) unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

A wise man does NOT send his men in to a War without very strong advice from advisors, and here in the United States, that would be all of the Senate and the house of Representatives, with a 2/3's vote as YEA, before sending his men in to a Declared WAR.

So, I guess I disagree with you once again.

BTW, a human being is NOT a rattlesnake or a glob of cells.

Care

 

[Care4all]

Yeah, better to let them run around loose and bite you in the ass when least expected than to just cure them from biting altogether.

Only those with a dishonest argument give one whit about the snake oil.

If you kill all the rattlesnakes... the Rodents will multiply and infest the earth!

Seems to be what is happening in Iraq right now.

 

[Gunny]

A wise man KNOWS not to kill another human being, (not a damn rattlesnake) unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

A wise man does NOT send his men in to a War without very strong advice from advisors, and here in the United States, that would be all of the Senate and the house of Representatives, with a 2/3's vote as YEA, before sending his men in to a Declared WAR.

So, I guess I disagree with you once again.

BTW, a human being is NOT a rattlesnake or a glob of cells.

Care

There's no difference between a rattlesnake and a zealot who cannot be reasoned nor negotiated with and their idea of compromise is "us dead."

A human being that wants to destroy me and mine, and the ideals that created and used to make our society great until liberals ambushed, hijacked and trounced them, is a TARGET. Nothing more or less.

And I consider you disagreeing with me reaffirmation that my stance is correct, and logic and fact-based.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

If you kill all the rattlesnakes... the Rodents will multiply and infest the earth!

Seems to be what is happening in Iraq right now.

I'd rather be a chimp deserter like I am...

The Pie-eyed Piper of Crawford isn't having any effect whatsoever, is he!