of course thantos would say that he's a military nut
because you know invading countries on false pretences and ........ing people off sure makes me feel safer
Printable View
of course thantos would say that he's a military nut
because you know invading countries on false pretences and ........ing people off sure makes me feel safer
I want to see a game about The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia. Now called the 'Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation' (WHISC).
It has trained interesting people like Manuel Noriega, Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia.
>>UnregdRegd those decisions are not their's to make. The military doing their job does make us safer, the politicans making bad decisions make us unsafe.<<
And what are you going to do about it?
According to the plan (by Rumsfelt and Wolfowizz) there should only be 30,000 troops in Iraq now. There is still over 130,000 US troops there. More are needed but are unavailable.
Of course the rest of the world (the UN) is keen to send more troops after the US respected our opinion as to the urgency and legitimacy of the war.
When will we find the WMD ready to be used in 45 minutes?
If they existed they are;
Still in Iraq, very well hidden (and so not able to be used quickly, nor were they used, why?)
OR
In the hands of some other regime or terrorist organisation. (the very thing the war was to stop)
Freedom fries for all!
I'll do the only thing I can do, vote.Quote:
And what are you going to do about it?
Freedom fries suck. They taste the same as normal 'fries'. (Because we can use deductive reasoning to determine that 'freedom fries', 'french fries', and 'fries' are all made the same)Quote:
Freedom fries for all!
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder about a country whos' citizens demand the right to bear arms, in case the state milita needs them, then invade other countries who try to arm themselves?
That is, when the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan settles down will all Iraqiis and Afghaniis be given the same rights as Americans to own guns?
Their is a large difference between the weapons the citizenry of Iraq have to carry around verses American citizens.. namely... AK 47's, other automatice weapons, and RPG's.. not exactly common on the streets of the US.
The right to bear arms is very much ingrained into our history and what makes us what we are today.
In the United States, in the year 2000 there were 28663 fire-arm related deaths. 16586 Were suicides, 11071 were homicides and 1006 were undetermined/unintentional.Quote:
Originally posted by BillBoeBaggins
Their is a large difference between the weapons the citizenry of Iraq have to carry around verses American citizens.. namely... AK 47's, other automatice weapons, and RPG's.. not exactly common on the streets of the US.
The right to bear arms is very much ingrained into our history and what makes us what we are today.
In 1998(Gun related deaths):
4 people in New Zealand
19 in Japan
54 in England and Wales
57 in Australia
66 in Switzerland
151 in Canada
373 in Germany
11,798 in America
:rolleyes:Oh, but who am I to judge another society's culture. . .:rolleyes:
The Afghan Citizens do not need guns and neither does the Citizens of the United States. You do not need them to protect yourselves: There will be no war in your backyard - And don't give me this "we have to protect ourselves from the terrorists" BS or "We have firearms to protect our freedom!".
And why should they only be allowed to carry guns that are common to the U.S.? Since it is so OBVIOUS that the United States Citizens can control their gun-issue's then why can't Afghans' carry AK-47's? They are just as responsible as you Americans when it comes to firearms. . .
I AM UNSUBSCRIBING TO THIS POST.
This has went way off course of my original question. I don't particularly want to spend the time to argue the merits of different societies. Words are just words and change nothing.
XEI YOU SOB I'LL SHOOT YOU!!! AHHH!!
...anyways we have allowed people to have guns because when we made the constitution we wanted people to feel secure that the government wouldnt attack people, so they were allowed. But today we DEFINATELY don't need guns, only reason is to protect outselves from some insane guy that's going on a shooting rampage and I haven't heard of too many cases of that.
Legalizing guns means people may be scared to rob a store because they don't know who else has a gun, but instead of the clerk giving the money a person will pull out a gun and possibly shoot him or both get shot.
Christ, you're stupid. Please stop posting.Quote:
Originally posted by Glirk Dient
XEI YOU SOB I'LL SHOOT YOU!!! AHHH!!
...anyways we have allowed people to have guns because when we made the constitution we wanted people to feel secure that the government wouldnt attack people, so they were allowed. But today we DEFINATELY don't need guns, only reason is to protect outselves from some insane guy that's going on a shooting rampage and I haven't heard of too many cases of that.
Legalizing guns means people may be scared to rob a store because they don't know who else has a gun, but instead of the clerk giving the money a person will pull out a gun and possibly shoot him or both get shot.
People had guns before the constitution, they were called minuitmen - a malitia formed by the first contenental congeress. They had wepons to fight in emergincies(Concord.. Bunker Hill). The reason they had guns wasn't to feel secue that they would be attacked by the government, they were acentually the first American army. Except they weren't verry formal(they were colonists that signed up for the malitia), if they were notified to fight they just sortof came and shot at anything red... The reason they made it a right was for the same reason.. to protect the country not to feel safe.Quote:
Originally by Glirk Dient
...because when we made the constitution we wanted people to feel secure that the government wouldnt attack people,...
well dient seemed almost sort of close...the reason the constitution says we can 'bear arms' is to maintain the capability to overthrow the US government.
:rolleyes: You just keep telling yourself that... You base your conclusion from what exactly.
He's right.Quote:
Originally posted by 1veedo
:rolleyes: You just keep telling yourself that... You base your conclusion from what exactly.
One of the basic ideas the Founding Fathers had was if a governement ever stopped functioning properly it should be overthrown and started anew. There is speculation that they expected our government to last in the same framework for as long as it has.
Not sure how accurate it is but I do remember reading that while the US is pretty damn young compared to other nations we have the oldest Consitution.