What do you think of our current President?

[pgf_666]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I wouldnt say I "hate" the guy (hate is a strong word)..... But I think his positions on quite a few issues PLUS his performance makes him a failure.

I'd still sit down and drink a beer with him though.

I disagree w Mr. Bush on most of his domestic policy, and the way the post-invasion situation has been handled, and many other things.

But I like him. Not 'love', but far more than 'lukewarm'. The poll needs a bit of refinement.....

As to the military 'taking over'...not gonna happen. In this country, anyway, to a great extent, the mil is really just 'civilians in uniform', or, as the Nat G. once put it, 'citizen soldiers'. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but the identity is always American soldier, not, American soldier. One of the seven books I feel should be required reading for anyone going into politics is "The Art of War", and Master Sun makes the point very strongly that with few exceptions, non-mils should just keep their fingers out of th pie. I suspect he'd have approved of Cathrine the Great's instructions to her general going oiff to war: "Win." When he sent back the message, "Hurrah, Praga", she responded, "Bravo, Field Marshal". Beyond that, she let the Army....army. Which in part is why even the Soviets called her, "The Great"....

And don't quote me Clemanceau--those were French generals he was talking about...and they'd recently proven just how bad they really were.

pgf

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

I can't argue against what you think I said, only what I actually said

I never said or implied self-defence was a legitmate need. It's not, as I said.

You said the second amendment was about stuff beyond the militia/right to bear arms which it patently isn't. You were incorrect.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Parker v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I was not and am not 'incorrect' - research and enlighten yourself with respect to the rulings and the research to support the rulings

You may note that both of the recent rulings a') affirm the RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to KEEP and BEAR ARMs. If you are inclined to pose as a scholar you will draw your attention to the detail researched by both Federal Courts of Appeal on the Published debates during the pre and post US Constitution period as well as the legal rulings to date to arrive at their respective rulings

S/A rifles only in .22, straight pull/bolt or double-barrel apart from that - any calibre is fine (.50) and beyond - if you can prove a NEED.

So, if an intruder is shot dead with a pistol in self defense in the home of an individual that did not prove a need for self defense - they are not prosecuted for murder? when the 'Need' was then a matter of fact?

My 'prejudice' is that your government does not trust ordinary citizens with a pistol in their home to defend themselves. Only your criminals and police possess handguns - or select individuals that prove a Need - but self defense with a pistol is not a Right of an individual.

I conclude that is my problem - not yours.

My perspective is that a government that does not trust it's own citizens to arm to protect their home and property - but will not 'personally' be held accountable for preventable harm to those individuals - is a Tyranny.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

or did you have another point regarding my ignorance?

Regards,

Bill

Depends on whether you are talking about modern day Europe or Europe 200 years ago and farther in the past and I was referring to the comment about the elite only being allowed to rule. That is not the case today.

As for the past of Europe and the elite ruling, there you are correct and I have no arguements with you at all.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Depends on whether you are talking about modern day Europe or Europe 200 years ago and farther in the past and I was referring to the comment about the elite only being allowed to rule. That is not the case today.

As for the past of Europe and the elite ruling, there you are correct and I have no arguements with you at all.

Chris - I was specifically referencing the Europe of the 1600-1800 timeframe with zero link to modern day 'royalty'... strictly in the context of rulers of the day even remotely considering permitting the 'ruled' personal arms for even self defense.

That is another very important differentiator between our Revolution and subsequent Constitution/Bill of Rights and the Western European movements toward democracy or Representative form of Government..

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Chris - I was specifically referencing the Europe of the 1600-1800 timeframe with zero link to modern day 'royalty'... strictly in the context of rulers of the day even remotely considering permitting the 'ruled' personal arms for even self defense.

That is another very important differentiator between our Revolution and subsequent Constitution/Bill of Rights and the Western European movements toward democracy or Representative form of Government..

The way the new EU constitution is being rammed down the throats of the people(s) of Europe, it's being done by unaccountable judges, beaurocrats and brigands....

I'd say Europe is still being ruled by elites.

[mkloby]

Every man should be able to defend their castle. If you come into my home, you are going to catch a .45 between the eyes without any hesitation. New Jersey's laws towards the owning/use of firearms make me not want to go back there to live. That is a state where the criminals are armed to the teeth, and the police are hard pressed to provide adequate safety in many cities. Furthermore, the obligation to retreat mentality and the ensuing prosecution if you do use your weapon for self-defense make the law abiding citizen whose home was invaded the criminal.

[Aussie1001]

The problem i have with "self defense" is when that crosses with gung ho and trigger happy.
It is my belief that America is a trigger happy place. Dont take this personally but your country is a bit of a sticky beak when it comes to other countries, for instance you have only had 2 decades in the past centuary that i can think of off hand in which you have not had a war however you are forgiven for WW2 and WW1 .
Vietnam- what the hell was that all about please tell me ? give me a good reason why it should have been invaded.

Iraq- Desert storm what the hell was that all about.

Korea- Wth

*Note i do not wish to offend any persons who were involved in any of these conflicts and the questions are purly philosophical.

What is this think with modern day korea. You yanks seem to be happy to have nukes but no-one else can, is that it?
*I do not wish to start a war in the forum so keep it cool i am not attacking you i just wish my questions to be answered

[mkloby]

Wow - That was one heck of an uneducated post, Aussie. Let's take it from the top.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

The problem i have with "self defense" is when that crosses with gung ho and trigger happy.
It is my belief that America is a trigger happy place.

How much time have you spent in America? If it is any amount of time short of several years, how can you make such a conclusion and actually feel there's any credence in it? Self defense is just that - defending yourself, your family, and your home.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Dont take this personally but your country is a bit of a sticky beak when it comes to other countries, for instance you have only had 2 decades in the past centuary that i can think of off hand in which you have not had a war however you are forgiven for WW2 and WW1 .

Forgiven for WWI and WWII? Forgiven by who, you? The US seeks no forgiveness for those conflicts, and cares even less if it is given.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Vietnam- what the hell was that all about please tell me ? give me a good reason why it should have been invaded.

I don't agree that the US should have gotten involved in Vietnam. It was a US attempt to contain communism for fear that it would increasingly proliferate throughout the remainder of what was still the third world. The goal was to keep the second world contained.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Iraq- Desert storm what the hell was that all about.

What was it about? Seriously? It was about one nation invading another in a war of aggression. Saddam Hussein's goal was to annex Kuwait, which was long claimed, to Iraq. Actions such as this cannot be justified on the grounds of national sovereignty. Perhaps you feel that if one nation conquers and annexes another it is completely legitimate. Then, you should also believe that Germany was the nation in the moral right in WWII.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Korea- Wth

You really must have not read or studied anything to do with Korea. Go look at Soviet involvement and support of the north, and then you figure out "wth." While you're at it, go read about the 1st Marine Division at Chosin Reservoir, which was surrounded and fought its way out rendering 10 Chinese divisions combat ineffective.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

What is this think with modern day korea. You yanks seem to be happy to have nukes but no-one else can, is that it?

You seem to support national sovereignty of a nationa when it falls in line with your biases, and just as easily cast it aside when it does not support them. National sovereignty is an ideal. If a nation's, or more precisely leaders', actions are morally reprehensible, then it is the responsibility of others to take action - not bury their head in the sand and hide behind an ideal. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

It's unfortunate that nuclear power cannot be uninvented. If you don't see the clear danger of continued nuclear proliferation, then I don't think I can help you. More than worrying about N Korea with nuclear weapons, I worry about a nuclear Iran. There you have a leader that promises to obliterate Isreal from the map. You want individuals like that to be free to develop nuclear weapons?

If a nation's leaders terrorize, starve, and wreck havoc on their own populations, how can you rationally believe that they should possess nuclear weapons, which can literally end life as we know it?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

The problem i have with "self defense" is when that crosses with gung ho and trigger happy.

Aussie there are severe penalties ranging to execution of persons misusing a firearm. There is no redress for a victim killed in his own home. IMHO you are in a class of people that believe legislating against tools is a solution to criminal behavior but that doesn't work for me

It is my belief that America is a trigger happy place. Dont take this personally but your country is a bit of a sticky beak when it comes to other countries, for instance you have only had 2 decades in the past centuary that i can think of off hand in which you have not had a war however you are forgiven for WW2 and WW1 .

I do, of course take 'this' personally.

Would you cite WWI or WWII as an example of US being 'trigger happy'??


How long did it take for GB and France to BEG us to join in the fight against Germany in WWI?

Ditto WWII. 'Trigger Happy' - please define your term.

Would you cite our battles at Guadalcanal, Darwin (air), New Guinea, etc to help keep Japanese from walking your streets, posting of US Marines and Army and Navy in Oz as 'unwanted and unwarrented' intrusion of your sovereignty? or, in your terms 'being a bit of a sticky beak'? Was it Mother England or American troops that were there for you?

Vietnam- what the hell was that all about please tell me ? give me a good reason why it should have been invaded.

?? Invaded? independent on whether our justification to support a variety of corrupt non-communist governments for the sole reason of preventing a communist takeover of deep ports - the only 'invasion' was NV invading SVN aftyer they promosied not to do so? Cite your 'invasion' facts?

Iraq- Desert storm what the hell was that all about.

'essentially to a.)keep Saddamn from moving further south to take Saudi Arabia and control 25% of the world's supply of oil, and b.) make sure he was not rewarded for his invasion of Kuwait.

Further, if you don't know what it was about, do a little research to understand that not only was this a UN Security Council decision, but b.) fellow arab countries like Syria and Egypt was part of the coalition as well as the Brits and France? What is your point?

Korea- Wth

*Note i do not wish to offend any persons who were involved in any of these conflicts and the questions are purly philosophical.

What is this think with modern day korea. You yanks seem to be happy to have nukes but no-one else can, is that it?

This depends on your world point of view with respect to concerns about a.) one nation threatening another and one or both are armed with Nucs, and b.) when one nation possessing Nucs has novel ideas regarding supplying third parties with said weapons as 'proxies'

France, Britain, Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, North Korea and India plus Israel and soon Iran. No telling where the 50-90 missing 'back pack nucs' are that the Russians seem to have misplaced.

You may wonder how that technology will be applied if for example a fundamentalist Islamic group dedicated to the fall of Western ideals, and willing to die for Allah to achieve that aim, manage to overthrow Pakistan government... or perhaps Indonesia just north of you a little bit.

Good buddies of Religious beliefs could always be persuaded to 'help out a brotha'. How will your economy function of a couple of Nuclear 'oops' happen to be found in Sydney and Melbourne - with a promise of 'more to come'

The same mentality in Iran that furnish IEDs to similar thinkers in Iraq would have no problem slipping a few devices to some cell headed for Melbourne or New York or London. Hopefully you won't ever see what happens to global political stability - much less economic

*I do not wish to start a war in the forum so keep it cool i am not attacking you i just wish my questions to be answered

For someone who wants to keep it cool, you make statements in a provocative way

I see that you are displeased with US role as willing intervener in conflicts with other nations. Some of us question the value of this role - particularly when so many people hate us, including Americans who do not want a strong US in context of global balance.

You will be pleased that quite a few of us, including conservatives and ex-military would be pleased if we developed an attitude which basically stated to rest of world - "we'll trade with you but not interfere in your affairs. Mess with us personally or support those that do - and we will kill you' (this is that 'ol defend your castle from rude intruders' mentatlity - but not trigger happy

I'm ambivalent at the moment regarding whether I care if Europe or Middle East or Far East Governments survive in conflicts they may choose )or not choose). South Korea has had our presence since 1953 to act as a trip wire to prevent North Korea from attacking them. I say move. India, Pakistan? you want to start throwing Nucs around? Go for it. Iran, you want Israel, do your worst.

The problem is that fallout and radioactive waste is nasty stuff and cance3r rates here are likely to rise and the global climate will not be helped

I'm not ambivalent (yet) about Australia or Britain or Canada as former Commonwealth countries from an alliance and friendship point of view... but such relationships are two way streets. If you don't like that obligation imposed on you, then organize and throw out your government - form a "Piss Off America' party and cut all ties.

I'll miss the beer and many good friends but we'll survive.

Regards,

Bill

[syscom3]

Drgondog,

And the sad thing is every major US military intervention since 1990 has been to save the f***ing muslims from themselves or others.

Somalia
Bosnia
Kuwait
Iraq
Afghanistan
Indonesia (Humanitarian)

I dont know about the rest of the people reading this thread, but its about time we let them kill each other off.

We are damned if we do, damned if we dont.

As for Korea..... everytime we make noises about withdrawing from that region, the following countries howl in protest:
Japan
S Korea
Russia
PRC
Taiwan
Singapore
Philipines

We are condemned for "disengaging". What a bunch of ingrates!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Drgondog,

And the sad thing is every major US military intervention since 1990 has been to save the f***ing muslims from themselves or others.

Somalia
Bosnia
Kuwait
Iraq
Afghanistan
Indonesia (Humanitarian)

I dont know about the rest of the people reading this thread, but its about time we let them kill each other off.

We are damned if we do, damned if we dont.

As for Korea..... everytime we make noises about withdrawing from that region, the following countries howl in protest:
Japan
S Korea
Russia
PRC
Taiwan
Singapore
Philipines

We are condemned for "disengaging". What a bunch of ingrates!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Syscom - you are a preacher talking to the converted..

if China wants to take Taiwan, ok.. if EU wants us out of Europe, delighted.. If Pakistan REALLY wants India - they are nuts but Ok with me. If Iran gets Nucs - well, they won't - Israel will hit them first...

I'm for completely disengaging from the UN except a.) pay dues so that b.) we retain veto power over the idiots.. then invite the UN to find another spot to call home. After that, bring all of our troops home.

Piss on the fires and pack 'em up.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The way the new EU constitution is being rammed down the throats of the people(s) of Europe, it's being done by unaccountable judges, beaurocrats and brigands....

I'd say Europe is still being ruled by elites.

Just like the United States as well....

[Njaco]

Syscom with you all they way.

Aussie, you may have made afew opinions about America based upon the last few wars but what was England doing before the 20th Century?

England was involved in wars that are too numerous to count and not for WMDs or bad dictators.

It was their belief (at the time and stated by many elite) that England needed to save the savages from themselves. India, Sudan, South Africa and around the world. Numerous wars to push an agenda that they were right and the world was wrong.

As time goes on, a people or country becomes dominant and holds the world in their grip.

The Romans
The Spanish
The English
and now for the last 100 years or so its America. Which is why I agree with Sys. F**k'em all! We have too many problems in this country without trying to save the rest of the world. Lets concentrate on making sure China doesn't kill us with lead-paint toys and bad food from Taco Bell.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

however you are forgiven for WW2 and WW1 .

We are forgiven? What kind of stupid thing is that to say?

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Vietnam- what the hell was that all about please tell me ? give me a good reason why it should have been invaded.

Read up on your history please. We were helping the South defend itself from the Communist North.

Oh and by the way you Aussies were there as well....

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Iraq- Desert storm what the hell was that all about.

Again please go and learn your history.

You are making the US out to be the bad guys for Desert Storm. That is pretty ignorant in my opinion and I think the majority of this forum will agree with me.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US led a Coalition of many nations (including Australia) to free Kuwait under a UN authorized invasion.

Hours after Kuwait was invaded and taken over by Iraq the United Nations passed Resolution 660 condemning the invasion of Kuwait and demanding Iraq to withdraw. Iraq refused.

On Aug 3 the Arab league passed its own resolution demanding Iraq to leave Kuwait. (Yes Aussie that is the rest of the Arab Countries)

On Aug 6. the United Nations passed Resolution 661 placing sanctions on Iraq.

Iraq then threatened to invade Suadi Arabia for her Hama Oil Fields. Do to this the US started Operation Desert Shield as a defensive operation to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and also the build of troops.

On November 29, the United Nations passed Resolution 678 giving Iraq a deadline to withdraw from Kuwait no later than Jan 15th. In this Resolution the UN authorized all necessary force including military action to remove Iraq from Kuwait if it did not withdraw by the deadline.

Once this resolution was passed a coalition of 34 nations Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself. and over 600,000 troops was assembled.

Only after all political efforts failed to remove Iraq did the US along with the coalition (including Australia) invade Iraq and Kuwait to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

Korea- Wth

Again go open a history book and read it. The Korean War was not a US conflict but rather a United Nations conflict

On June 25, 1950 the North Koreans invaded South Korea. After this the United Nations drafted Resolution 82 which called for:

For all hostilities to end and North Korea to withdraw to the 38th Parallel;

For a U.N. Commission on Korea to be formed to monitor the situation and report to the Security Council;

For all U.N. members to support the United Nations in achieving this, and refrain from providing assistance to the North Korean authorities

On June 27th the United Nations voted to aid South Korea and a coalition of forces led by the United States and including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

These forces fought under the UN.

Eventually China and the Soviet Union began to aid the N. Koreans.

So again please dont go and make the US out to be the bad guys here. You obviously dont know your history.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

What is this think with modern day korea. You yanks seem to be happy to have nukes but no-one else can, is that it?

The difference is we will not threaten to use them against the world. The N. Koreans, Iran and many other nations will use them against the world.

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

*I do not wish to start a war in the forum so keep it cool i am not attacking you i just wish my questions to be answered

And before you say I am attacking you, I am giving you your answers and telling you to learn more about history.