115
This is what dems do when liberalism and gun controll don't work : Swingers Discussion 2172911021
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsThis is what dems do when liberalism and gun controll don't work
TOPIC: This is what dems do when liberalism and gun controll don't work
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Start   21 to 30 of 78   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Robert, we will not use nukes. We are not the only ones who have them. Have you ever thought maybe someone would throw one our way? Your a fuck'n idiot.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Why not? Russia and china both have our tech. Hell china stole our F22.

No nation with any level of technology can stop a dozen or so nuclear tipped cruise missiles fired from a sub. So if said nation attacked the US and we can't invade due to their tech level, blast them from range than.

Further our tech, that new garbage we call high tech... It works half the time and when it does work, it doesn't work for very long before it breaks down.

Who ever thought it a good idea to use a blood thinner in the cooling vest for the driver of the Stryker, wasn't thinking.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7434 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
myself I do not think we should be selling weapons to other countries.maybe old and worn out stuff maybe.but not brand new high tec equitment.......BS

Kingston TN
Username hidden
(1991 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Vacp:

1) Yes I am ok with selling weapons to unstable nations. If they cannot stabilize themselves, then they never will be stable.

2) Actually the Marines aren't meant to hold out, they are meant to destroy and kill everything between the ground they deploy onto and the furthest reaches that they can be resupplied at.

If the army's reinforcements cannot be trianed in time, then of course they pull back under the air cover of the USAF/US Navy and then redeploy else where while the USAF bomber force continues to turn the enemy nations Cities into smoking radioactive craters.

I much prefer peace and the conduction of business. But if a force wishes to land forces in the US, then they have in my view signed the death certificate of every person within their national boarders. (prewar)

No mercy during the war, no forgiveness. After the war, they pay war damages and cost of conducting the war against them, and then rebuild. I would be more than willing to sell them any non-military supply needed to rebuild what is left of their cities. (There shouldn't be much left after the third day of the war to begin with.)

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7434 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So your ok with selling arms to a country that is not stable. So you think that a few Marines could hold off an invasion force until an army could be trained. You are a fool.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Vacp:

You will find that almost every 3rd world nation has child soldiers, mostly the nations which are the most radical and have issues with guerilla soldiers.

personally I have nothing against it either. If someone wishes to buy our goods and services, great. Sell as many of our weapons to those nations and if they strike us... Fly the air force over their nation and fire bomb every city, every town and every village.

Understand, I don't like interfering in other nations. I will do business with them, but I will not tell them how to live their lives until they interfere with my lifestyle.

At which point in time, the longevity of their culture and people come into doubt. (based upon how long they choose to keep being a threat and attacking my people.)

Remember, if My ideals were to have governed the US sense WWII. We wouldn't have been the line against the Soviets in Europe. I would have demanded that the European nations put soldiers along that line and faced against the Soviets.

We wouldn't have been involved in Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Iran wouldn't have had attacked our embassy as I wouldn't be involved in nation building the world, let alone pushing Western values upon the world.

Yes, our military would have been very small. A strong navy (mostly the secret service) A strong Air force (bomber forces to drop bombs on the Soviets) And two brigade of Marines to kick ass in the nation that would attack us while the Army trained up the drafted forces which would follow three weeks later in said nation that the Marines just kicked the front door in on and the Air force just nuked the furthest regions from our soldiers.

Understand, I don't give a shit what someone in bum fuck (insert country) does to their own people. If the people there didn't like it, let them rebel and die for a new nation which I would more than happily sell to.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7434 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Robert did you read my post. It says nothing about the US training child soldiers. It says we will not supply aide to countries that do. But he is ok with it as long as he can sell arms to his Muslim Brothers

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Vacp:

Obama uncommitted the US to military action or action in general against people in other nations. The only people able to legally form a military unit in the US are the government.

The home made militias as Fjep like to imagine are real militia are mostly viewed as men playing with their boom sticks and playing soldier in privately owned woods.

They are viewed this way so we wouldn't have to break up their militias and so to allow disgruntled people an out lite for their dislike of a government that despite the sabotage of the right, has done pretty well in taking care of 320,000,000 people.

We couldn't even fix Iraq. A nation which was actually relatively modern when compared to its neighbors and contemporaries in the regions. Why? Because we neither have the balls to be invaders nor do we have the ability to speak sweat nothings into their ears.

So we have no means to control others but with false sticks and empty threats.

As this is fact, how do you expect the US to invade nations with child soldiers and remove from power said warlords? How are we to leave said nation either as stable or more stable than when we invaded?

The Quick and long answers is, we cannot. We cannot help these people and these people really do not want our help or they would not ask for our soldiers, but only for the training and weapons our soldiers use.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7434 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
If it can save one child is what they are saying about gun control here.But I guess they don't care about the worlds children.

Obama Waives Bush Law Banning Child Soldiers Posted by: The Liberty Beacon™ Staff Published February 5, 2013, filed under GOVERNMENT

Here’s a headline we’ll guarantee you simply won’t find in the mainstream media –

On October 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law “Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008,” a law that made it a federal crime to recruit or use soldiers under the age of 15. The law also gave the United States authority to “prosecute, deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.”

The bipartisan law, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress, drew the applause of several international human rights organizations:

“The US is saying to the world that using child soldiers is a serious crime and that it will take action,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate for Human Rights Watch. “Military commanders who use children can no longer come to the United States without the risk of ending up in jail.”

Over the weekend, while most Americans were too busy spending time with their children and keeping up with the latest sporting events to worry about executive orders, President Obama removed the teeth from this law; effectively making it void in the nations most guilty. The result - thousands of children throughout the Middle East and Africa may be drafted into foreign militaries, with the full blessings of the United States.

Sunday afternoon, President Obama signed a Presidential memorandum, stating the following: “I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA [Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008] with respect to Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen… and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles; and I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.”

Section 404(a) deals with exporting arms to countries that allow child-soldiers.

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama did two very frightening things:

1. He authorized the United States to sell military weaponry to the nations of Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and Congo.

At a time with such unrest in the world, there is now a very significant chance that American weaponry will soon be delivered to a Yemen and Libyan port.

2. President Obama has undone much of the progress made in the fight against child-soldiers won over the past decade. Jesse Eaves, a senior policy advisor for child protection at World Vision stated the following: “At a time when Congress is locked in one of the most difficult budget battles I’ve ever seen, it is shameful that a portion of federal funding continues to help support governments who are abusing children. At its core, this is a missed opportunity to show leadership on this issue and protect thousands of vulnerable children around the world,” adding, “Frankly, we expected more from our nation’s leaders.”

Unfortunately, as originally stated, this is a headline that you simply will not see ran across the screen of MSNBC.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Massachusetts Residents Erupt in Applause as ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Withdrawn (Video)

by AWR Hawkins

Washington DC - -(Ammoland dot com)- Approximately 400 citizens attended a meeting of the Westford, MA Board of Selectmen on Feb. 20 2013 to speak against a proposed ‘assault weapons’ ban, which was ultimately defeated. The crowd “erupted in applause” and greeted the news with a standing ovation.

Robert Jeffries, Vice Chairman of the Board of Selectman and the one who proposed the bill, said he was taken aback by the size of the opposition: “This was meant to be a discussion within the town of Westford. A community discussion that’s gotten way, way beyond that.”

However, Jeffries then said he had hoped to look beyond his community to justify the ban: “I though there would be some negative reaction. But I also thought maybe some other towns in Massachusetts might have also tried something similar and none of them did.”

Westford resident David Kohl was at the meeting and said: “It was good for gun owners, it was good for everything. It was great.”

NRA President David Keene weighed in on the ban’s defeat as well, suggesting that proponents of such bans should consult the Constitution before putting such proposals forward in the future.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Start   21 to 30 of 78   End
TOPIC: This is what dems do when liberalism and gun controll don't work