Guns at Protests?

[Ponzio]

No argument from me on some of the valid points you made. Basically we’ve handed the keys to the hen house to the fox.

Maybe we need to run the Senate/Congress, and presidency while were at it, like some investment/banking houses do, where employees sign an employment contract that prohibits them from engaging ... I know this because my wife works for a firm where we or family members are not allowed to buy stocks/etc.on any project she's privy to ... or sharing ‘insider’ information with family or others to profit, with a set financial or criminal encoded penalty. Setting up an independent oversight committee to monitor their activities to stop bull$hit like this from happening, over and over again. It's graft, pure and simple, and they should be punished accordingly.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/21/us-senators-accused-coronavirus-insider-trading-are-a-symbol-moral-bankruptcy

This is but one mere example of what’s been going on since the founding of our country, during peacetime and war.

It make me sick to my stomach, especially during wartime, where your average Jose bleeds and dies on the battlefield for our country, while entitled asses skirt hardships and doing their civic duty, like some of our presidents, senators & congress men/women have.

I’m a big believer in a national draft, for everyone. Rich, poor, male, female, conscientious objector, etc. between the ages of 19 to 24. No deferments for anyone, except in extreme cases for cripples or whatnot. If not in the armed services, then in the community or repairing our broken infrastructure.

I can see both liberals and conservatives being outraged, which tells me it’s the right thing to do.

I guarantee you that it would put a stop to all these endless wars we seem to be fighting without any clear objective and bond people from different races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Same goes for during peacetime. If it works for Switzerland, a non-aligned country, why not here?

I can still clearly remember and being pissed as Bush was telling us to go on with our lives, go on vacation or whatever, after 9/11, like nothing happened. There is no shared suffering and sacrifices, like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam to bond our country.

You may disagree about Vietnam bonding us but the protests and internal strife brought about Nixon's 'peace with honor' and got us out of trying to win an unwinnable war, where young men and women were dying for naught.

Off my soapbox.

 

[Swerd]

No argument from me on some of the valid points you made…
I’m a big believer in a national draft, for everyone. Rich, poor, male, female, conscientious objector, etc. between the ages of 19 to 24. No deferments for anyone, except in extreme cases for cripples or whatnot. If not in the armed services, then in the community or repairing our broken infrastructure.

I'm in complete agreement with you when you said we should have a universal national service requirement.

I've always wondered if the lack of universal draft is behind our severe national divisions. When people were in uniform and forced to do a job they didn't want to do, they found they could get it done if they cooperated with those next to them. Those people may have come from very different backgrounds, religions, and politics, but they learned to get along so they could accomplish something. I see a lot of people younger than me who never learned that lesson.

(I also see a lot of guys who have unusual obsessions with fire arms. It's clear to me that they didn't spend nearly enough time in boot camp or basic training, learning to properly respect & hate those things. But that's another subject for another time.)

But I disagree when you said Vietnam eventually succeeded at bonding our country. Those divisions remain today. The politicians and big brass in the 1960s ignored the good advice they heard from on-the-ground intelligence people. There was a debate (not large enough IMO) about the futility of sending armed forces to accomplish a diplomatic goal. Armies, Navies, and Air Forces are good at blowing things up and killing people, but they are poor at finding diplomatic solutions.

The USA should never get involved in a foreign war unless our soldiers have the following:

1. The best weapons, clothing, food & supplies.
2. The full support of the nation.
3. An enemy that truly threatens our homes and way of life.

In Vietnam, we had 1, but lacked 2 and 3. And there were plenty of people eligible for the draft who found ways to avoid it. Some of them went on to govern our country. Clinton, W, and the Bunker Boy of Pennsylvania Avenue come to mind. Clinton didn't send anyone off to war. But W and BB did, sending soldiers off to do something that they themselves had dodged. That's our prior experience in Vietnam coming back to bite us again and again.

 

[Gmoney]

I'm in complete agreement with you when you said we should have a universal national service requirement.

I've always wondered if the lack of universal draft is behind our severe national divisions. When people were in uniform and forced to do a job they didn't want to do, they found they could get it done if they cooperated with those next to them. Those people may have come from very different backgrounds, religions, and politics, but they learned to get along so they could accomplish something. I see a lot of people younger than me who never learned that lesson.

(I also see a lot of guys who have unusual obsessions with fire arms. It's clear to me that they didn't spend nearly enough time in boot camp or basic training, learning to properly respect & hate those things. But that's another subject for another time.)

But I disagree when you said Vietnam eventually succeeded at bonding our country. Those divisions remain today. The politicians and big brass in the 1960s ignored the good advice they heard from on-the-ground intelligence people. There was a debate (not large enough IMO) about the futility of sending armed forces to accomplish a diplomatic goal. Armies, Navies, and Air Forces are good at blowing things up and killing people, but they are poor at finding diplomatic solutions.

The USA should never get involved in a foreign war unless our soldiers have the following:

1. The best weapons, clothing, food & supplies.
2. The full support of the nation.
3. An enemy that truly threatens our homes and way of life.

In Vietnam, we had 1, but lacked 2 and 3. And there were plenty of people eligible for the draft who found ways to avoid it. Some of them went on to govern our country. Clinton, W, and the Bunker Boy of Pennsylvania Avenue come to mind. Clinton didn't send anyone off to war. But W and BB did, sending soldiers off to do something that they themselves had dodged. That's our prior experience in Vietnam coming back to bite us again and again.

Blame JFK for Nam. LBJ had his part in that war than Tricky Dicky Nixon. The French were glad to hand the keys over to the United States on that one.

 

[Gmoney]

How dare you????????????

The first members of Congress were paid almost nothing until 1855, except 1815 which, I assume, had to do with the War of 1812 eating the budget and compensation has risen drastically since 1969-

Salaries of members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I told you guys Washington is nothing more than a wheel of fortune for politicians! That's just what they make in salary what about the health insurance they get? On Your Tax dollars! Hell I'd be a Career politician if I made that kind of money plus free healthcare plus all the white envelopes under the table. Bunch of Crooked greedy bastards!

 

[Swerd]

Blame JFK for Nam. LBJ had his part in that war than Tricky Dicky Nixon.

Although JFK, LBJ, and Tricky Dixon get their due blame, the real trouble began long before them.

At the very end of WWII, the Americans were determined to prevent European Colonists from returning to Asia. British & American agents were sent into the various colonies that the Japanese had taken, to find out just who the local inhabitants actually supported. Often it was whoever actually fought the Japanese. In French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia of today), it was Ho Chi Minh's forces, the Viet Minh. We actually supported the idea that the Japanese forces in Indochina would surrender to them. We opposed the return of the French. After 1948 when Nationalist China fell to the Red Chinese, we completely flip-flopped and supported the French. It led to disaster.

We had persuaded a very reluctant Churchill that the UK had to give up it's colonies in India, Africa, and Asia. The Netherlands wanted Indonesia back, but they had no ability on their own to do that. France stubbornly insisted it would go back to French Indochina. After 1948, we armed and supported them. We basically paid for their entire war, which failed in 1954. DeGaulle asked Eisenhower to bail them out with nuclear weapons, but Ike wisely refused. The result was the French left, but Vietnam was divided. The North was run by Ho Chi Minh, and the South was run by the former French toadies. By the late 1950s/early 1960s we were sending weapons to South Vietnam, money to the rulers, and small numbers of US troops instructors.

Now you can bring on JFK, LBJ, and Tricky D!ck. But the dye was cast in 1948.

 

[Gmoney]

Although JFK, LBJ, and Tricky Dixon get their due blame, the real trouble began long before them.

At the very end of WWII, the Americans were determined to prevent European Colonists from returning to Asia. British & American agents were sent into the various colonies to find out just who the local inhabitants actually supported. Often it was whoever actually fought the Japanese. In French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia of today), it was Ho Chi Minh's forces, the Viet Minh. We actually supported the idea that the Japanese forces in Indochina would surrender to them. We opposed the return of the French. After 1948 when Nationalist China fell to the Red Chinese, we completely flip-flopped and supported the French. It led to disaster.

We had persuaded a very reluctant Churchill that the UK had to give up it's colonies in India, Africa, and Asia. The Netherlands wanted Indonesia back, but they had no ability on their own to do that. France stubbornly insisted it would go back to French Indochina. After 1948, we armed and supported them. We basically paid for their entire war, which failed in 1954. DeGaulle asked Eisenhower to bail them out with nuclear weapons, but Ike wisely refused. The result was a divided Vietnam. The North was run by Ho Chi Minh, and the South was run by the former French toadies. By the late 1950s/early 1960s we were sending weapons to South Vietnam, money to the rulers, and small numbers of US troops instructors.

Now you can bring on JFK, LBJ, and Tricky D!ck. But the dye was cast in 1948.

Did you mention Korea? I'm sure if Ike would've been given the use of one or two A-Bombs by Congress to use before the Reds got ahold of the A-Bomb wonder how Different things would be today.

 

[Gmoney]

If you smelled chocolate and sausage, I can almost guarantee you were close. You probably smelled beer being brewed, too.

WT? please don't tell me you guys ain't going around smelling "sausage"? no huh? what da hell is wrong with you guys! here! Scratch and sniff the pic y'all be snapped back into reality!

 

[Swerd]

Did you mention Korea? I'm sure if Ike would've been given the use of one or two A-Bombs by Congress to use before the Reds got ahold of the A-Bomb wonder how Different things would be today.

No, I left Korea out because I already had plenty to say about Vietnam. But it's important. After getting sucker punched in 1950 by North Korea (armed by the USSR), we were bound & determined to not let it happen again after Vietnam was divided in 1954. The trouble was, our intelligence wasn't good enough. We badly underestimated the Vietnamese. In the Korean War, Russia (and later China) had direct access to North Korea. We didn't understand that when it came to South East Asia, China stood in the way of the Russians. Those two communist countries were anything but united about that. And, that the Vietnamese hated the Chinese, and hardly trusted the USSR.

Truman wisely refused using nuclear weapons in Korea, and Ike did the same in Vietnam. I don't believe either of them would allow using nuclear weapons in those conflicts. Congress alone could not order it. And we were in Asia, far away from our homes. In neither of those wars did we have an enemy that threatened or attacked our homes.

 

[Gmoney]

No, I left Korea out because I already had plenty to say about Vietnam. But it's important. After getting sucker punched in 1950 by North Korea (armed by the USSR), we were bound & determined to not let it happen again after Vietnam was divided in 1954. The trouble was, our intelligence wasn't good enough. In the Korean War, Russia (and later China) had direct access to North Korea. We didn't understand that when it came to South East Asia, China stood in the way of the Russians. And those two communist countries were anything but united about that.

Truman wisely refused using nuclear weapons in Korea, and Ike did the same in Vietnam. I don't believe either of them would allow using nuclear weapons in those conflicts. Congress alone could not order it. And we were in Asia, far away from our homes. And in neither of those wars did we have an enemy that threatened or attacked our homes.

@Swerd, Ummm ok lets Fast forward to Afghanistan and Iraq lets just Throw in Pakistan for sh$ts and giggles Hiding Terrorist after 9/11. The two Bushes and now Uncle Trump with his bullsh$t. It seems the way of war these days is to get someone else to do the Dirty work in order to attack the United States. Between the Middle East and Red Asia and Russia who is the one US should be watching out for? China some would say, Russia is on my top. I really feel for our Grandchildren and great grandchildren, China gonna take Taiwan back, North Korea, Just itching to take those islands back from Japan. Between Iran and Israel who's gonna blow who up first.

 

[KEW]

I’m a big believer in a national draft, for everyone. Rich, poor, male, female, conscientious objector, etc. between the ages of 19 to 24. No deferments for anyone, except in extreme cases for cripples or whatnot. If not in the armed services, then in the community or repairing our broken infrastructure.

I totally agree if and when we go to war, everyone should have "skin in the game"!
No one should be evaluating the cost/benefit of war without awareness of the real risk of someone they cherish being sacrificed.
With the national draft eliminated, it largely starts to become a "bean counter" decision without personal concern over loss of life!

 

[Gmoney]

@KEW "Sausages" huh? lolo sorry bro lolo couldn't help myself lolo just messing with ya.

 

[KEW]

The USA should never get involved in a foreign war unless our soldiers have the following:

1. The best weapons, clothing, food & supplies.
2. The full support of the nation.
3. An enemy that truly threatens our homes and way of life.
4. An exit strategy including a well-defined objective to give clarity on why we are there and when are ready to leave.

Finished it for you!

 

[KEW]

@KEW "Sausages" huh? lolo sorry bro lolo couldn't help myself lolo just messing with ya.
View attachment 40064

Man, it's obvious you're just totally worthless until your hot hook-up this weekend!

 

[Gmoney]

Man, it's obvious you're just totally worthless until your hot hook-up this weekend!

She all booked up till Oct 31st. But I do have a backup. She not as hot but..lolo

 

[highfigh]

No, I left Korea out because I already had plenty to say about Vietnam. But it's important. After getting sucker punched in 1950 by North Korea (armed by the USSR), we were bound & determined to not let it happen again after Vietnam was divided in 1954. The trouble was, our intelligence wasn't good enough. We badly underestimated the Vietnamese. In the Korean War, Russia (and later China) had direct access to North Korea. We didn't understand that when it came to South East Asia, China stood in the way of the Russians. Those two communist countries were anything but united about that. And, that the Vietnamese hated the Chinese, and hardly trusted the USSR.

WRT NK being armed by the USSR, China also fought on that side and their numbers could have overwhelmed the Allies very quickly if they had decided to go that route.

 

[highfigh]

I told you guys Washington is nothing more than a wheel of fortune for politicians! That's just what they make in salary what about the health insurance they get? On Your Tax dollars! Hell I'd be a Career politician if I made that kind of money plus free healthcare plus all the white envelopes under the table. Bunch of Crooked greedy bastards!

Make $174K as a member of Congress when you could be making millions in the private sector?

 

[Gmoney]

Make $174K as a member of Congress when you could be making millions in the private sector?

Who says or should I say you really don't believe that's all they make right.

 

[Swerd]

@Swerd, Ummm ok lets Fast forward to Afghanistan and Iraq lets just Throw in Pakistan for sh$ts and giggles Hiding Terrorist after 9/11. The two Bushes and now Uncle Trump with his bullsh$t. It seems the way of war these days is to get someone else to do the Dirty work in order to attack the United States. Between the Middle East and Red Asia and Russia who is the one US should be watching out for? China some would say, Russia is on my top. I really feel for our Grandchildren and great grandchildren, China gonna take Taiwan back, North Korea, Just itching to take those islands back from Japan. Between Iran and Israel who's gonna blow who up first.

All those are really good questions. And I don't know answers for them.

First of all, I wouldn't trust any country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. I also wouldn't trust the two Bushes, or anyone else who represents the interests of the Oil Industry. And I'd be very careful in trusting any Middle East country, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia.

But we cannot afford to walk away from the Middle East, as Trump has begun to do, because it opens the door to much worse actors, Russia.

The only country with useful knowledge of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran is the UK. But their present Prime Minister, BJ, is the wrong guy to ask. All through the 19th century, the British had to defend their lucrative colony in India from the Russians. Imperial Russia was expanding throughout Asia, both to the east and the south. They wanted to control harbors that were open to oceans year round. St. Petersburg was in the easily closed off Baltic Sea, and Murmansk, facing the Arctic Ocean was frozen much of the year. They didn't mind if they took India from the British in the process.

So for years, the British and Russians prodded and probed, facing off in Afghanistan and the surrounding areas. At first, the British tried direct military occupation of Afghanistan. That failed in 1842 when the retreating British suffered a bloody massacre. By the 1870s the British were back in Afghanistan, but were much smarter. To make a long story short, instead of direct confrontation, they bought the loyalty of the Afghans, and armed them to make sure the Russians suffered as bad as the British had 30 years earlier. When the USSR tried to go back to Afghanistan in 1979, they had forgotten what a bad time they had decades earlier. And when the US went there in 2001, D!ck & Bush deliberately ignored all British efforts to share their knowledge & experiences, gained they hard way, all through the 19th century.

 

[Gmoney]

All those are really good questions. And I don't know answers for them.

First of all, I wouldn't trust any country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. I also wouldn't trust the two Bushes, or anyone else who represents the interests of the Oil Industry. And I'd be very careful in trusting any Middle East country, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia.

But we cannot afford to walk away from the Middle East, as Trump has begun to do, because it opens the door to much worse actors, Russia.

The only country with useful knowledge of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran is the UK. But their present Prime Minister, BJ, is the wrong guy to ask. All through the 19th century, the British had to defend their lucrative colony in India from the Russians. Imperial Russia was expanding throughout Asia, both to the east and the south. They wanted to control harbors that were open to oceans year round. St. Petersburg was in the easily closed off Baltic Sea, and Murmansk, facing the Arctic Ocean was frozen much of the year. They didn't mind if they took India from the British in the process.

So for years, the British and Russians prodded and probed, facing off in Afghanistan and the surrounding areas. At first, the British tried direct military occupation of Afghanistan. That failed in 1842 when the retreating British suffered a bloody massacre. By the 1870s the British were back in Afghanistan, but were much smarter. To make a long story short, instead of direct confrontation, they bought the loyalty of the Afghans, and armed them to make sure the Russians suffered as bad as the British had 30 years earlier. When the USSR tried to go back to Afghanistan in 1979, they had forgotten what a bad time they had decades earlier. And when the US went there in 2001, D!ck & Bush deliberately ignored all British efforts to share their knowledge & experiences, gained they hard way, all through the 19th century.

Why you gotta be so Logical! I can't or should I say Refute your post! Really @Swerd, Dam spot on in my book!
I worked in the oilfield my whole family worked or had Businesses that was connected to the oilfield in one way or another. Exxon mobile Shell oil ChevronTexaco the big conglomerates of the oil industry. Are Not ever to be Trusted! Especially the contractors of the Petroleum industry. They will kill you and make it look like a Accident. They'll go after any members in your family just to prove a point. But you know this already because you mentioned what the two Bushes got the US Involved in the middle east.

 

[Mikado463]

Make $174K as a member of Congress when you could be making millions in the private sector?

me thinks you misspoke .......'make 174k as a member of Congress while you can make millions through the private sector' !