| Click to Post a New Message!
Page | | [ 3 ] | | | |
| | |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
I wonder if there was a winner in Vietnam it would have made a difference? Yes I said if there was a winner! There is no winner in a fight or war.
Problem is some people that take advantage of others, been a problem since there was two people, more just leaves more potential for a problem.
Education does help to stop problems but not all can be educated or want to be. Just because you impose laws doesn't mean they will be obeyed as some will always ignore them. Doesn't mean they are that bad of a person but if they bother(what is a aggrivation) or hurt others then they are wrong. After all how long ago were the slaves freed? Look at the people that still have animosity towards blacks as well as that some blacks are still holding people hostage to someones fore fathers action on color only.
The US has always tried to enhance freedom and democracy and it does work under the right conditions. The weak in the world will always need help, country, state, nationality makes little difference. France has been mentioned in earlier posts but there is more, even many of the germans when the counrty was growing under hitler all was well till he turned on his fighting machine.
I don't think we can help all the people where are soldiers are fighting now as it not only has the different groups of people that reside there fighting but they have the terrorists. They are a problem as all people that aren't part of their group should be dead acording to them.
I can only say when some one thinks like that the world as a whole would be better without them. They have been here before and they will return if they aren't preoccupied some where else. I don't like to see any lives wasted on them but I really hate to see civilians innicently killed so lets keep our fighting machine that is trained and paid to fight with them.
I hope everyone gets to open their eyes everyday to see and be the most that they can be as life is to short to sit and worry about if they can make it through the day because of some one elses ignorance.
Tractors any one!
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
KThompson,
Like Billy, I hope your words remain on this board. It's good to have these discussions, and I welcome your opinions on all matters.
In regard to your comments about the people who watch, as their neighbors are raped and murdered, I couldn't agree with you more. Those people who watch, and do nothing, are not Americans. They are not to be associated with, and I do not want them as my neighbors.
That said, there is a limit to the amount of help you and I are allowed to provide. So long as the people being attacked reside within our respective jurisdictions - we have not only a right to help them, but a duty to do so.
Those lawmakers in this country who have passed the laws that take away our right to self-defense are also enemies of the State. Fearing that they might be arrested for taking matters into their own hands, many people now watch out the window as their neighbors are raped and killed. In some of these cases.....in fact many.......the laws are to blame. Good people are no longer allowed to do what's right, for fear of legal retribution.....and that can only come about because of bad laws.
I have something here to share with you. It comes from The Law of Nations......the first treaty our Founders signed into law.
Please consider the following. As you read this, please keep in mind that we're discussing the limits imposed upon us by the laws of jurisdiction.
__________________________
§ 7. But not by force.
But, though a nation be obliged to promote, as far as lies in its power, the perfection of others, it is not entitled forcibly to obtrude these good offices on them. Such an attempt would be a violation of their natural liberty. In order to compel any one to receive a kindness, we must have an authority over him; but nations are absolutely free and independent (Prelim. § 4). Those ambitious Europeans who atlacked the American nations, and subjected them to their greedy dominion, in order, as they pretended, to civilize them, and cause them to be instructed in the true religion, — those usurpers, I say, grounded themselves on a pretext equally unjust and ridiculous. It is strange to hear the learned and judicious Grotius assert that a sovereign may justly take up arms to chastise nations which are guilty of enormous transgressions of the law of nature, which treat their parents with inhumanity like the Sogdians, which eat human flesh as the ancient Gauls, &c.7(91) What led him into this error, was, his attributing to every independent man, and of course to every sovereign, an odd kind of right to punish faults which involve an enormous violation of the laws of nature, though they do not affect either his rights or his safety. But we have shown (Book I. § 169) that men derive the right of punishment solely from their right to provide for their own safety; and consequently they cannot claim it except against those by whom they have been injured. Could it escape Grotius, that, notwithstanding all the precautions added by him in the following paragraphs, his opinion opens a door to all the ravages of enthusiasm and fanaticism, and furnishes ambition with numberless pretexts? Mohammed and his successors have desolated and subdued Asia, to avenge the indignity done to the unity of the Godhead; all whom they termed associators or idolaters fell victims to their devout fury.
_______________________________
We have a perfect right to defend those who are being attacked, so long as we can prove that the offense is within our jurisdiction to take action. If not, by law, we must not interfere.
Respectfully,
Joel
Link:
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
I listen to all of the anti-immigrant vitriol with amusement. 1) We talk about illegal aliens but don't know who or where they are - the reason for that is that when we find them we send them home or enter them into long judicial processes no one can bear - no wonder they are all underground - its the practical result of our complex laws and our inability to enforce them.
2) I became a citizen of the US not because I am deeply in love with the US but because I have long ago discovered that life is about having the correct paperwork, it was costing me a fortune not to be a citizen, and the bureaucracy was unbelievable - my solution - become a citizen it has to be easier / cheaper than dealing with INS. People talk about deporting folk well the long and the short of it is that INS (congress) has made it impossible to know what to do to get that done. I once received a letter from INS saying that since they did not know who I was, my recent application had been denied! I had written to them, clearly providing identification as to who I was, to inform them (as required by law) that I had moved and my new address was such and such - application denied indeed, I was not applying for anything, I was informing them that I had moved. Who are these monkeys - they couldn't spot an 8 foot tall illegal albino bald Caucasian in a tribe of sun tanned pigmys sitting on a basketball arena - INS is a joke.
3) Governments don't get to dictate what languages people speak - its been tried a million times - the people dictate what language government speaks - all this nonsense about forcing people to speak English fails to take into account that the folk for whom this is a problem don't speak English as a result governments have to speak Spanish or whatever if they wish to communicate with the public. Just because the majority of us US folk say those who are non-English people should learn English does not mean it will happen. US business has long ago learned that if you want to engage someone you have to speak THEIR language. If they are getting along just fine speaking Spanish why would they ever learn English - no need. Its the equivalent of making a public service announcement in Chinese - no one will hear you. If you want to communicate with these folk you need to speak their language. Plus in communities where they have elected officials in office they they have the right (check the constitution for the 1st amendment) to petition government - if the petition is for government to speak Spanish to them then so be it - we the people have spoken.
The problem with most of the current immigration chatter is that it does not address the real practical situation on the ground so we end up making laws for a situation that does not actually exist or cant be enforced as intended. I hear words like "amnesty" pop up all the time "We cant give them amnesty etc etc!" heck we ALREADY gave them amnesty - that is water under the bridge, they are here, right on your doorstep picking your fruit and putting milk in your fridge everyday. They are not going anywhere - we can't round them up because we don't know who they are and we don't know who they are because when we do we round them up - and you only get to do that once - they wizened up to that and don't talk to government anymore. You can't force businesses to turn them over because 1) they can't determine who is illegal and who is not (because INS has such complex laws including things like over 300 different types of visas) and 2) if they did turn them in no one would show up to milk cows tomorrow and they get paid for milk.
Its a bit like the anti-gun lobby with their "If you remove all the guns then there will be no need for some one to have one" In a perfect world thats completely true, but of course the practicality is that you cant remove all the guns and so in the end only the outlaws have them and you're in a worse place than before.
Immigration is a genuinely complex issue - its like the square root of a negative number, there is only an imaginary answer - certainly not one solvable by someone who needs votes to stay in office. And those laws from Mexico - well they are just words on paper aren't they.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Kenneth, Billy is right, I don't think you've been a member long enough to have witnessed some of the less pleasant exchanges on this board.
Mostly it was those exchanges that created the need for 'moderators' in the first place.
Your points are valid and well taken, Ann, yours also are a perspective I had not thought of.
Joel, while I appreciate (and agree) with your observations on the need (and uses) of a standing army, they are sadly no longer appropriate or advisable.
As the song says "The times are a' changin' and so must we.".
Take for example the situation I was involved with in Grenada. Although there was saber rattling and overtures, political and military (from both sides) for weeks, but once the triggering event occurred, the shooting of over 100 people (including the democratically elected leader of the country) it took less than 48 hours to have Marines and Army Rangers were on the ground, and in sufficient numbers, and with enough air and naval support to secure the 133 square mile Island and it's 110,000 citizens and stop the Cuban-backed rebels in their tracks.
It's hardly reasonable to think that could be achieved with anything less than a crack force of well-trained and equipped professional soldiers.
It's kind of like insurance, you don't pay for it because you plan on using it, but NOT having it is not prudent either. How much you need is the big question.
Best of luck.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Murf,
I joined the military, as a young kid, thinking that I was doing so to help provide security to my fellow citizens.
As my military career advanced, I began questioning our presence in Germany for (now) more than 60 years.....Japan, 60 years......Korea, 50 years.....as well as all of the military bases we have in the more than 120 nations around the world.
Somehow, in the back of my mind, I just knew that we Americans wouldn't take kindly to the Russians or Chinese having military troops in our country........and then I began to question our "good intentions".
After leaving the military, after a long and distinguished career, I decided to study history. If we're going to have our soldiers die on foreign soil, it might be nice to know why our government sent us there.
During my research, I read a passage from Ronald Reagan's book, which he wrote after leaving office. Hindsight is 20/20, even for past presidents. Reagan questioned his decision to send troops into Lebanon. He thought he was doing somebody some good.......but it soon became apparent that we weren't wanted. The deaths of some 200 U.S. Marines weighed heavily on Reagan's mind, because he knew in his heart those fine American soldiers didn't die while defending the U.S. They died for some utopian goal of preserving peace in the world......which is well beyond our power to control.
I firmly believe that the U.S. military is stationed in places where we shouldn't be. We have no business having military bases outside of the U.S. The U.S. military is supposed to defend the people of the U.S. from any possible foreign attack. It is not to be used to defend the people of every nation on earth. Our Constitution was written by Americans, for Americans. The Bosnians had no part in writing in our Constitution, and they don't pay taxes to support our military forces.
As far as I'm concerned, the people of every nation have a duty to provide for their own defenses.......and if they choose not to, it's not our duty to save them. No American soldier should ever die, but in defense of his own nation.
The U.S. was never meant to be the world's babysitter. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which allows our government to take on this mission....impossible as it is.
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Joel, as always you make some very good, well thought out points, however, one I would like to respond to is "No American soldier should ever die, but in defense of his own nation.".
At what point do you finally draw the line in the sand? Take Grenada for instance, or Cuba, at what point do we say there is a threat at our door and do something about it?
I guess 'when' is each persons decision to make, for me, the words they drilled into my head at Quantico stuck, and still form the basis of my views to some extent, they were "Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy."
Notice the words, "...there is no enemy.".
An enemy a few thousand miles away is still an enemy and a threat. A few lives will be lost in any armed conflict, would you rather they be unarmed civilians on our own soil AFTER an invasion or attack, or somewhere on foreign soil?
In my case, Grenada was about stopping a Soviet base on our south border, and rescuing 1,000 unarmed and defenseless US, British & Canadians civilians in harms way with armed nuts threatening them. This is not baby-sitting to me.
Best of luck.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Murf,
I'm of the opinion that we Americans are now scared of our own shadows.
A man in California, armed with a slingshot, poses no threat to me here in North Dakota. He cannot harm me, unless I'm dumb enough to show up his backyard.
A man in Iraq, armed with a rocket launcher, is no more of a threat to me, unless I'm dumb enough to get within a few hundred meters of him. His little rocket launcher isn't a threat to the U.S......nor is his AK-47.
We never invaded the U.S.S.R., even though they had thousands of ICBMs aimed at us. Had the Russians launched one, I would have attempted to shoot down that missile before it reached the U.S. And if I failed to do that, and Americans were killed, the U.S.S.R. would have disappeared under a cloud of nuclear fallout.
I still don't know why we're so afraid of Al-Queda. Their most powerful weapons are only dangerous out a few hundred meters.
The proper way to fight terrorism is to stop allowing these people into our nation. Once they get here, we lose our ability to "kill them over there".
The U.S. hasn't been invaded since 1812. Our weapons are the most powerful in the world. No invading force will ever reach our shores, as even a huge foreign naval force would be blown out of the water long before reaching U.S. waters. I'm not sure why we Americans pay for these impressive weapons, and then send our troops to places where they fall within range of the AK-47. (I'm scratching my head as I type this.)
Every American is free to travel about the world whenever he or she pleases. With this freedom comes plenty of risk, however. Once an American leaves the sovereign shores of the U.S., for the most part, he's on his own. Our government is not meant to serve as a babysitter for those who take this risk. Freedom has risks associated with it. The people of Russia were never allowed to leave their country......and none of them were ever held hostage. We have to decide which system we prefer to have. I choose the risk that comes with my freedoms.
I may be rubbing some feathers the wrong way here, but I know that we have to change the way we do business with the other nations of the world. Our current system of playing the world's policeman isn't solving anything. It's only making enemies, which our sons and daughters will then be expected to fight.
Our government was established for the purpose of defending the U.S. against any and all foreign attacks. However, we never gave our government the power to travel about the world seeking out those enemies. If they wish to attack the U.S........well, in President Bush's own words, "Bring 'em on!" I wish them luck. My M1 Garand is ready for some action.
Joel
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
These posts are way too long to read. I scan them and maybe pick off the first sentence of each paragraph to get the idea. I will tell you my view. Mass communications and global business will ultimately defeat archaic ways of life (like terrorism). Unfortunately mass communications will also lower our standard of living in the US and "equalize" wages throughout the world.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Some quick comments on this thread:
The Swiss (and I am 50% Swiss but 100% American) may not have participated in any wars but they certainly confiscated a tremendous amount of wealth from a deceased and terribly persecuted people. The Swiss are humans and all humans are imperfect and all to the same degree...it's only our perspective that differs.
I also heard that 43% of all people living in the US today are first generation Americans. At first I couldn't believe that, but when you think it through, it's probably accurate.
Brian
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
Bvance,
Our own government in largely responsible for the negative opinion the American people have for the Swiss today.
The Swiss -- for the most part -- have lived in peace for more than 700 years.
Switzerland was one of the few nations that didn't need to be rescued from Hitler's Third Reich. No Americans died in an attempt to free the Swiss from Hitler's advances.
Twice, Hitler made plans to invade Switzerland. The Swiss protected and defended the Jews who lived in their nation.....and Hitler hated them for it. In fact, the Swiss governments made it a requirement that the Jews in that nation keep and bear arms........whereas Hitler disarmed the Jews in Germany.
Our Founders held the Swiss in high regard.
Most of what we've been told about the Swiss is a bunch of government propaganda, designed for the sole purpose of breaking the few ties that remained with our Founders.
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page | | [ 3 ] | | | |
Thread 144223 Filter by Poster:
1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 1 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
DennisCTB
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
08-01-2007, 22:15 
Pics
Reply
Digg It 
Del.icio.us 
