...Here we go again.......

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by babj615, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    one of the plans being kicked around immediately post-war was to give the jews a big plot in alaska. i don't think they'd be particularly psyched about that. we do have freedom of religion and expression, and many jews have made their home in this country with resounding success.
     
  2. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Wow, BigTaco, I didn't know about the Alaska idea. I still think there is probably enough land in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, etc. But I don't live out there.

    Generous offer from a Hoosier, eh?
     

  3. charmincarmens

    charmincarmens New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Parts

    Ya right,they have F 14 alright.The only problem is we have the parts for them,and guess what? they aren't getting any. So F 14 on the ground ain't worth a s--t.
     
  4. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Angel I am sure can defend his own points, but let me save him some time. His point wasn't simply that Iran has F-14s, it was that they got the fighters from US when we were selling them all the weapons they would buy in the '70s. Our noble motive for selling Iran lots o' weapons was to soak up all those petro-dollars we were pumping into the country in exchange for oil. Kinda bit us in the ass when the Shah was deposed. But then Reagan did it again and got caught. But more to the point, we have supplied Iran with weapons which were used to fight Iraq, and we supplied Iraq weapons which were used to fight Iran. Now Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq to fight us. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. Or pot, meet kettle.
     
  5. Angel

    Angel Guest

    70
    0
    0
    thanks posterboy
     
  6. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    Posterboy wrote:
    "I don't blame Iran for being uneasy about what is going on with it's neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, and trying to influence what happens in those countries, especially when a historic enemy (US) is making trouble on its door step.."
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    I wrote: "That ignores their aggressive Jihad against the West since Jimmy Carter gave them their jump start in 1979. "

    charmincarmens wrote: "You sound like your condoning Iran's actions.Have you not learned yet what they are about? What has Iran done for anyone in that region? But start trouble and supply weapons to kill our troops in Iraq. "

    Therefore, Posterboy sounds like he is condoning it. My point is that they have been attacking us for almost 30 years and we have every right to unsheath the sword and give them what they have been asking for.
     
  7. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    "Our government, especially the current one, is just as much a bad actor on the international scene as any other. Our motives are certainly no more righteous nor are our means. "

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tell me the country we invaded where we stayed and treated the people in the country like the murderous tyrants you put us on the same level with: Iran , Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc., etc.?
    Too much time spent listening to the anti-American lefties in the media and retread '60s hippie teachers. No country has spent more money and blood to help other people in the history of the human race.
    And aggressive corporatism? Is that hiring people all around the world and raising their standard of living? Oh, I see, corporatism gets in the way of government bureaucrats having control over everybody.
     
  8. charmincarmens

    charmincarmens New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Thank you for saying that.Most people in this country for get what this country has done for the world,and all the good it does today.
     
  9. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    The countries we invaded and where we treated the people like murderous tyrants: Iraq and to a lesser degree Vietnam. The CIA backed the overthrow of the Guatamalan government in 1954 and the fairly elected president of Chile on Sept. 11 1973, which put Gen Augusto Pinochet in power. Our government also supported Salvadorn death squads and trained many military personel of right wing governments in Central America in torture and other military techniques at the infamous School of the Americas, these people then used what they learned systematically against civilians during the '70s and '80s. While much of our support for Central and South American dictators and military juntas was in the name of fighting communits it was just as often to the benefit of US companies. The United Fruit Corporation was the Halliburton of the first half of the 20th century, with senior level US government officals strongly tied the company, a company which had a colonial like hold on the government, land and economy of Guatamala until the late 1950's and directly benefited from US covert and no-so-covert action. United Fruit was also involved in Cuba until Castro came along.

    I am glad I live in the United States, its a lot better than a lot of other countries in the world. At the same time, our government has interfered in many different countries which has resulted directly or indirectly in very horrible things happening to the citizens of those countries. Torture, massacres, dissapearances, political imprisonment, assassination, coups, terrorism you name it, we have done it or directly supported it. Syriah, Iran, Libya, et al, they may have used some different techniques, they may have motives and beliefs you hate, and the end results have been extremely horrible, but ultimately, what these other countries have done is no worse than the death and missery our government has caused. Do I condone any of this? No, of course not. But to claim that our government is somehow more righteous or innocent is pure hypocracy.

    Yes, sometimes, even many times, our government has acted the right way for the right reasons, and the US has given a huge amount of aide. But it doesn't erase the atrocities we have committed against other countries, it doesn't make up for the times our government has stood by while atrocities we committed against people by their own government, sometimes governments we supported, because it wasn't to our economic or political advantage to help the weak, the poor and defenseless . And when it comes down to it, per capita, the US gives a lot less aide with a lot more strings attached then many other Western nations. No, in terms of external affairs, our government is no better than those of our declared enemies.

    I am not anti-American, I am just a realist and I am willing to see the bad side of our country along with the good. People are people are people. People think they are fundamentally different then other people, think they are better, more righteous, but ultimately, all people have the same motivations, the same vices, the same delusions, the same xenophobic tendencies, the same fears, the same limited view points, limited imagination, limited sympathy and they all act in the same ways with the same justifications, they just use different words and different ideas, but justice is justice, fair is fair, and selfish is selfish and agressive is agressive. Whether it is spreading democracy or spreading Jihad, it is all a bunch of bull. No worthwhile idea can be advanced by violence, defended yes, but not spread.
     
  10. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap New Member

    27
    0
    0
    We did do some pretty crappy stuff through the cold war...but refer to my previous statement: menu of crappy choices.

    Throughout the entire cold war, our interference in other countries was generally completely shi*tastic. But from the US policy makers' point of view, it was that...or communism wins. In hindsight, did the threat of communism justify those actions? Probably not, but at the time they didn't know the USSR would collapse due to economic problems in 91. Revisionist history can make ANY conflict seem stupid.

    On a side note, 'entering a country and treating them like murderous tyrants' requires a far more specific qualifier. Do you mean we treated the combatants like murderous tyrants? the noncoms? everyone regardless of their status?

    I'm not attempting to justify our Vietnams, Irans, or Guatemalas...i'm just saying there's more than 2 sides to every story.
     
  11. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    "In hindsight, did the threat of communism justify those actions? Probably not, but at the time they didn't know the USSR would collapse due to economic problems in 91."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But it is a dynamic problem. That is, if we did not oppose the Soviets as we did and they did not have to spend the wealth they did to oppose us they probably would not have fallen in 91. It is now known that the last straw was when Reagan upped the ante with Star Wars and they knew they couldn't compete and threw in the towel.
     
  12. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    To foreign policy makers in the Republican administrations of the '80s, with their obsession with communism, their options may have seemed like a choice between the lesser or greater evils. I don't know. I don't recall who they were, but if they were of the same mind as the Iran/Contra actors, then I doubt they had much compunction or sympathy for the victims of their chess game. Hind sight is 20/20, but I am not being revisionist. My parents objected to US Central American policy, as did many others. There were discussion in the media. One option would have been to let these countries chart their own course. If we didn't like it we could have cut economic and/or diplomatic ties. Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, they were no threat to us. Vietnam was taken over by communits, yet a decade later no other countries in the region had fallen, like perverbial dominos. (Except Cambodia, which we had a huge part in destabalizing in the first place.) Instead we engaged in a proxy war with the Soviets.

    Its like the Iraq war. Anyone who understood Saddam's psychology, ie, his main priority was keeping his own hide intact, would have known that he was no threat to the US (or Israel, for that matter). Anyone who listened to the people who actually knew the status of Saddam's WMD, the UN inspectors, would have known that he no longer had any. The UN inspectors had no reason to lie. Everyone who said otherwise had a known reason to lie - Iraqi exiles, neocons - or was a member of the inbred "DC elite" and were duped when they should have known better. How did I, some schmoe in Indiana know Saddam had no WMD while the Bush administration and the major MSM got it wrong? Because I don't trust politicians who are proven liars. And because sometimes even murderous tyrants tell the truth. Saddam told the media exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq, he said he would go underground (we didn't realize he meant literally) and that the military would shed their uniforms and fight on. That is exactly what happened.

    How have we treated Iraqi civilians like tyrants? We took over their country, took out their government and infrastructure and didn't replace it with anything close to functional. On top of that, we carelessly killed civilians, but worse, we detained civilians for little or no reason, or because one person's name sounded like someone else's, or we believed people who turned in people they had a grudge against. And then worse of all, we tortured them in the very same prison that Saddam used to torture them. We deprived them of water, electricity, homes, killed family members, destroyed their economy and unleased a bunch of religious lunatics who took away women's rights and kill people who don't follow their extremist rules or who are the wrong religion or ethnicity. We unleased civil war, we destroyed their country. We we have left for Iraqis is way worse then what they had under Saddam.

    And Vietnam. Destroying villages to save them? My Lai? We propped up S. Vietnam's government, then when the Kennedys got sick of the Vietnamese president they had him assassinated and replaced him with another one they liked better. We may not have known the long term effects of Agent Orange, but those effects are horrendous and widespread, even four decades later. Have any of you seen the birth defects that are resulting from that shit? We napalmed entire villages. You don't get much more tyranical then when you start holding all civilians suspect and acting according to those suspicions.

    There are definitely multiple sides to any story. I can't phathom the horrors experience by civilians in the countries where we decided to change governments or back death squads or wage war all because our policy makers and leaders had overblown fears, unproven theories, big ideas, because they didn't like another countries choice in government theory because they had what we wanted. And then there are all the soldier we have thrown at these lost causes and mistakes and gambles.

    It is always the civilians, the people just trying to live their lives that suffer. While the people who made the decisions die old men.
     
  13. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    stop holding back!!! tell us how you really feel!! :D
     
  14. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Hi ya Posterboy,

    Now I'm all for free speech and this is the Pub, but this thread started out discussing a proposal for new gun control legislation in Pennsylvania and we've wandered pretty far afield. Maybe you can start an Evil America thread or great US foreign policy mistakes of the 20th century or something.

    I've held off commenting on your US Foreign Policy rants, but I don't want you to think my silence is some kind of endorsement.

    You say you are a realist and that you realize there are multiple viewpoints, so please try to understand that while there have been times when the US leaders have behaved like well intentioned idiots in their eagerness to get involved in foreign entanglements - quite a bit of the stuff you are presenting just isn't true.

    I don't have time for a point by point, but please consider some of your sources suspect. It has become very popular in the past 30 years or so to look at the "dark side" of American history and a lot of folks have gotten their Phds and peddled textbooks espousing yet another revisionist view of world events. Unfortunately this new "realism" is also quite biased and somewhat motivated by money. It is hard to sell a new book that doesn't diverge significantly from what is already known and accepted to be true. Whenever possible try to rely on original sources and then make up your mind.
     
  15. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap New Member

    27
    0
    0
    Vietnam was a rediculous fight all around. We can go back and forth all day...i'm not attempting to condone what US soldiers did, but neither side had a monopoly on atrocities.

    My Lai is one example of the worst, but you can't peg that on the US government. My Lai happened after the draft order, when the professionalism of the armed forces (especially the army and marines) in Vietnam took a nosedive. My Lai was a disconnect between upper and lower management so to speak. No one has ever proven the My Lai massacre to be anything more than a field officer going nuts. You also forgot to mention that My Lai was also stopped by the Army as well, CWO Thompson ordered an open fire on American troops. And if you're blaming the US government for the actions of draftees, why stop there? Why not blame them for the 200+ fraggings in 1970...we could have a nice conspiracy theory. (For those that don't know...fragging was where the troops began throwing grenades in their officer's bunks while they slept) The problem with the Cold War was when the US adopted a policy of 'containment'...sure, its an easy theory to toss around polisci classes, but how do you implement a policy like that? Especially when the theory was adopted on an economic platform, but then was adapted to a military one. (Containment was our official policy at the time) According to our leaders, the alternative was the Soviet Union rolling into europe with their massively larger land army, while MAD prevented us from using the only weapons that would help at that time...nukes.

    Iraq? I agree, the US didn't think that one out. But, while "took out their government and infrastructure and didn't replace it with anything close to functional" is true on paper, again...it's only half the story. Sure, what we replaced it with isn't functional at the moment...but why? We went into an area with 3 distinct ethnic/religious groups that had NO history of EVER getting along, and tried to institute a federalized democracy. Sure, it was culturally insensitive of us. But Saddam was not some benevolent leader that led them merrily skipping down the street. His regime was one of terror and repression. Does it suck for us and them that now that they have a choice, they choose to fight constantly? Hell yes. More than half of the violence in Iraq is not targetted at the occupying or peace-keeping (whichever you choose to call them) forces...it is different factions targetting eachother. And while we're talking about Iraq, and the WMDs...again, hindsight. We know now he didn't have them, but when the UN inspectors were there? It was more important to Saddam to look strong to his surrounding Arab leaders than to comply with the UN. To satisfy his ego and his standing with the other Arab countries, he instead decided to bluff strong. Yes, the war was sold to the american public wrong. Yes, the 'installing democracy' was nowhere near as easy as the gov's made it out to be.

    These are dynamic problems. And there are no easy answers on either side. Just staying out doesn't work either, especially with globalism growing constantly. I agree 100% that the civilians are the ones that suffer, and that is no fair, it sucks. But how do you change that? Have our decision makers on the lines fighting? Sure, they'd be less likely to do things like go to war...at first. But the other side of THAT coin is a government run by the military...see how the lines get blurry? Its a sad fact of human existance that some people will always have to pay for some other person's decision.
     
  16. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Squirrelpotpie, thanks for reminding me of the original purpose of this thread. We, and I mean everyone who has posted in the later part of this thread, have different opinions and I doubt we are changing each other's POV.

    This is my last post in this thread (unless it recovers and returns to the original topic). I have had these arguments with other people in other forums before so I feel no need to create a new thread to continue it. Frankly, I much rather talk guns anyway.

    Peace out. :)
     
  17. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    I'm cool with that.

    If people can learn something from history thats great, but its important to realize that history is just an interpretation of the past.

    Its pretty hard to find two eyewitnesses who agree to the facts of an event let alone the why of it, so I suspect getting any two people to agree to the facts or reasons for events that neither one has witnessed first hand or been a part of themselves might be even more difficult and in the end if successful they would just share a subjective opinion of an event that may or may not have happened the way they thought it did for some of the reasons they supposed it did...
     
  18. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Don't know if other folks have been following the news from Pennsylvania on House Bill 760 but it looks like it is going down fast. Apparently there was a massive outcry to representatives across the state opposed to this Bill which called for mandatory registration and a $10 per year per gun fee. 4 out of the 5 sponsors have dropped their support leaving the original writer of the Bill, Angel Cruz of Philadelphia, on his own.

    Yesterday there was apparently a big protest rally at the capital and a couple of protesters held up a sign stating that "rep Cruz should be hanged from the tree of liberty for his treasonous acts against the constitution" which caused an adverse reaction from some of the law makers:

    -- from article by Brad Bumsted in Pittsburgh Tribune Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 04344.html

    Cruz has apparently decided to drop the $10/per gun annual fee after senior citizens complained and there was enough negative feedback (which some media suggested was NRA sponsored - since the notion of popular support for gun ownership was apparently incomprehensible to them) to cause many Democrat Party members of the legislature to denounce the bill and vow its eradication.
     
  19. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    i like to believe that the public being able to scare their representatives into actually representing what the constituents want is the prime reason for the second ammendment. if we lived in an unarmed police state, the representatives could have used the armed police to murder the unarmed protesters and played judge and jury by justifying their murder as necessary to prevent a coup and stopping the protesters from commiting treason against the state.

    i mean... never in history has a gov't turned its army against its own citizens. ever. maybe back in ancient times. but certainly not in more modern times like 1937-1945 in europe. but it could happen one day.

    in this way we can see that the security of the first ammendment is directly proportional to the people's ability to enforce it which is the power given to us by the second amendment.

    i never read the actual bill, but i'd love to know where the $10 registration fee was supposed to go. i suspect it was to cover the cost of the beaurocracy incurred in starting the registry in the first place!!!

    knew it wouldn't pass. even canada abandoned their registry. totally ineffective at stopping crime. and cost 10 fold original expectations.
     
  20. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    5,073
    13
    0
    I think your interpretation of the spirit of the 2A is spot-on here. Unfortunately, this kind of motivator is just reprehensible to most anti-2A politicians/citizens - how barbaric to think of the threat of violence as an acceptable means to keep our elected officials "in-line" - we should be "better" than that... :roll:

    Don't get me wrong - I would never advocate violence as a means to "convince" elected officials to vote one way or the other. But I do think the 2A is an absolute necessary safeguard that is in place to make sure we the people retain some sort of power in the political process. The people must have a means to exact violence to protect their liberties against a government-gone-awry that would be willing to use the same means simply to push a political agenda. A people can't be free unless they have a means to protect their liberties against all enemies - both foreign and domestic.