Sociopaths are rewarded by current system
 

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:30:14 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:



No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.


Power always corrupts. People who crave it are mentally ill.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 03.10.2011 04:41, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in :

Am 01.10.2011 20:30, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ep1fdF442U1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went there, to
find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects and
meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my statements
are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a little bit of
research.


TH


If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you are
particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but I
could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and were
there is any befit from this.

So you don't actually know the answer then? Just checking.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read this list:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at
Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy
base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed
Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego"
Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1
1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in
Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against
mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

MEXICO

HONDURAS

Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed,
fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So.
Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and
against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs
exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers
based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez
crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South
Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war;
atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis;
near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed
president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from
exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army
coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines land during
election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against
rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in
cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in
decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese
invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege
of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist
president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28
troops die when copter shot down.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue
Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not
to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights
aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra)
invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back
Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed
when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by
27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading
Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian
ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait;
large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to
throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north,
Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police
uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations
occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war;
downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops
restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in
area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be
"terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by
Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after
weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia
declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm
Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New
York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S.
mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install
Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S.
troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda,
including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine
military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu
Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back
up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in
Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US
and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies.
More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out
occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels
drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing
rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by
Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and
air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban
refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani
Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special
Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government;
AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against
Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq
kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al
Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-?

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 03.10.2011 03:53, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

..
If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you are
particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but I
could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and were
there is any befit from this.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a lot
of 'help' (military aid) to the world. But neither the world nor the
USA look particularly happy.


And how many wars did the Euros start and fight during that time ?
And how many Euros are particularly proud or happy about those wars


You are right and Europeans fought even more wars than the USA, especially
the UK, that holds the unofficial award for the most militaristic society
on the planet.

(Personally I think, that Hitler was an English spy, but that is my
personal opinion only. Another is, that England regards the USA as a
colony and uses its military to perform a few more invasions. )

The big difference in the great majority of wars where the US got
involved are
1) It was to help someone else
2) It was to avoid someone else becoming the victim of statists
There never was any guarantee that ALL of such attempts would be 100 %
well executed or successful.
But unlike countries like yours, the US has a far better record than
anyone else.

Yes, agreed. The USA usually win wars - but looses the peace. That seems
to be a general pattern, that I do not understand.


The most recent book by John Ringo, "The Hot Gate", actually addresses that
point (albeit indirectly) quite well.
Think of it as 2 tribes that control the government
One group, basically wants to be left alone to do their thing. But if
they get ****ed off, they will go to war, and make sure they win
The other group, is the opposite, they believe that you can negotiate
with anyone about everything. They usually end up screwing the pooch, and
giving away just about everything group one gains.
Vietnam is a prime example
The military did not want to be there. The soldiers didn't want to be
there
But they went and fought and basically gained a military victory.
Which the politicians then managed to turn into a defeat.


You see, the subject of this thread were small arms and how they could
be used for self-defence - apparently against the own government. That
is no sign for a population, that really trusts the government. And
this is not, how a particularly happy society looks like (preparing
for civil war). So, were is the benefit?


I'm sure all those Jews, gypsies, and others whom the German government
exterminated felt safe and secure in Germany right before it happened
There are tales of many people, who later ended in camps, who felt that
it just couldn't happen to them


I do not want to justify the crimes of the German government in the so
called 3rd Reich. Germany lost the war and was almost totally destroyed.

Then the Nazis have left Germany, mainly in the direction of South
America. But a god part went to the USA. These Nazis are dangerous people,
especially to their host.


There are others just as bad, if not worse



Only fools who have learned nothing from history would actually trust
and keep trusting governments
Governments are tools to serve people
But to often in the past, the tables were turned and the people ended up
serving the few who controlled government.


No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That seems
to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.


Yu are either very ignorant or very confused
Go tell to the millions of Germans, not to mention others who were
exterminated in one way or another during the previous century, by Germany
and other countries.
The US is not even close to those numbers.

There are VERY FEW other countries where the citizens are quite safe from
abuses of their own governments.
And contrary to what most Europeans like to imagine about themselves, the
US is WAY AHEAD of them in that context.



As an aside, I would suggest you read "The Hot Gate" and "The Last
Centurion", by John Ringo, for their political and social commentary.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 03.10.2011 04:41, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 01.10.2011 20:30, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ep1fdF442U1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went there,
to
find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects and
meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my statements
are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a little bit of
research.


TH


If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you are
particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but I
could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and were
there is any befit from this.

So you don't actually know the answer then? Just checking.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read this
list:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html



You seem to be confused with the meaning of the word "war"


SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded
Knee.

Wounded knee was one incident in the Indian wars..


You seem to confuse all kinds of individual INCIDENTS with wars...

Why don't you come back with a list of WARS...
Your claim would be more honest AND credible

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:

Am 03.10.2011 04:41, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 01.10.2011 20:30, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ep1fdF442U1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went
there, to find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects
and meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my
statements are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a
little bit of research.


TH


If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you are
particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but I
could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and were
there is any befit from this.

So you don't actually know the answer then? Just checking.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a
lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read this
list: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians
massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom
overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail
strike, 34 killed. NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long
occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Japanese War KOREA 1894-96 Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 Troops
Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910
(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain,
still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain,
occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use
as base. MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa
at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port
of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over
succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land
at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army
occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval,
troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened
canal 1914. HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in
revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S.
interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 Troops
Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua PANAMA 1908 Troops
Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910
Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911
Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41
Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA
1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. PANAMA
1912 Troops Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS
1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA
1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought
guerillas MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during
revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with
rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking
of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops
Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after
revolts. TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan
of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine
occupation. CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation,
economic protectorate. WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight
Bolsheviks PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during
unrest after elections. HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land
during election campaign. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines
intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against
unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army
intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist
revolt.

MEXICO

HONDURAS

Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the
country. EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during
Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI
vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops,
bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for
3 years; first nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put
down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet
troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat,
naval Response to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947
Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE
1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil
war. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers
guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines
evacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54
Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion
crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats
U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in
1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy,
installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered
bombs to use against seige. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation,
bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't
nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep
out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation
against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned
against invading Kuwait. CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China
told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag
protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM l960-75 Troops,
naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North
Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969. CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed
exile invasion fails. GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert
during Berlin Wall crisis. LAOS 1962 Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during
missile crisis;
near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that
killed
president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from
exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's
return. INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed
in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines
land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets
intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43
killed. UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot;
over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million
killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine
invasion. LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S.
directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded
Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during
Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup
ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship
Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South
African-backed rebels. IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat,
aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in
copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in
maneuvers. EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops
Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in
hostage clash. NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval
CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against
revolution. LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops
Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim
positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after
revolution. HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build
bases near borders. IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot
down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air
strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops
Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88 Naval,
bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989
Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989
Jets Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA
1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by
27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990
Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait.
540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ
1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and
Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and
Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family
returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish
north,
Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against
anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United
Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu
faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia
and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone
patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military
government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years
after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at
Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation
of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire
during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas
plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA
training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have
attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days
of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi
obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy
NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO
occupation of Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked
in Aden, bombed. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces
deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker
attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S.
mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install
Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S.
troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al
Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for
Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat
missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel
zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam
regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate
in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and
Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private
contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping
force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after
right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to
leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA
missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and
Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on
Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation
Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist
government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids
against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and
insurgents. SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in
helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile
attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on
rebels LIBYA 2011-?


Yer dumber than I thought. States and territories?

I have a new policy. If the other debater is to stupid I will no longer
debate them so that anyone watching can't confuse us. You just be stupid on
your own.

IOW, your list speaks for itself.

Wars indeed. Duh.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 03.10.2011 04:41, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 01.10.2011 20:30, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ep1fdF442U1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went
there,
to
find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects
and
meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my
statements
are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a little bit of
research.


TH


If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you are
particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but I
could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and were
there is any befit from this.

So you don't actually know the answer then? Just checking.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a
lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read this
list:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html



You seem to be confused with the meaning of the word "war"


SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded
Knee.

Wounded knee was one incident in the Indian wars..


You seem to confuse all kinds of individual INCIDENTS with wars...

Why don't you come back with a list of WARS...
Your claim would be more honest AND credible




What's the point? These people are just so dumb. And the tragedy is that
they vote.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Sociopaths are rewarded by current system
 

On Oct 4, 7:34*am, dave wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:30:14 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'..
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

- Power always corrupts.
- People who crave it are mentally ill.

D'OH ! Dave... What About The Power of One [1] !

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 03.10.2011 04:41, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 01.10.2011 20:30, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ep1fdF442U1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went
there, to
find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making
stupid allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects
and meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my
statements are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a
little bit of research.


TH


If you have to ask that question, now, all these years later, you
are particularly unqualified to comment.


I don't 'have to ask these questions'. Somalia was an example, but
I could have taken another invasion and ask, why that was done and
were there is any befit from this.

So you don't actually know the answer then? Just checking.

In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a
lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read
this list:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html



You seem to be confused with the meaning of the word "war"


SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded
Knee.

Wounded knee was one incident in the Indian wars..

Yes, but it was one right near the end of those wars brought on by an
exercise of the Ghost Dance and overreaction on the part of the troops.
There were also two Wounded Knee situations. The other was just a few
years ago.


You seem to confuse all kinds of individual INCIDENTS with wars...

Why don't you come back with a list of WARS...
Your claim would be more honest AND credible

;)


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 04.10.2011 19:25, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in
:

--
In a century the USA fought - maybe - two hundred wars. That was a
lot

Name each one.


If only the official interventions are counted, than you may read this
list: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians
massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom
overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail
strike, 34 killed. NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long
occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Japanese War KOREA 1894-96 Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 Troops
Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910
(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain,
still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain,
occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use
as base. MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa
at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port
of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over
succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land
at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army
occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval,
troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened
canal 1914. HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in
revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S.
interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 Troops
Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua PANAMA 1908 Troops
Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910
Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911
Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41
Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA
1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. PANAMA
1912 Troops Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS
1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA
1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought
guerillas MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during
revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with
rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking
of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops
Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after
revolts. TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan
of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine
occupation. CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation,
economic protectorate. WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight
Bolsheviks PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during
unrest after elections. HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land
during election campaign. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines
intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against
unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army
intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist
revolt.

MEXICO

HONDURAS

Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the
country. EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during
Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI
vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops,
bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for
3 years; first nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put
down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet
troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat,
naval Response to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947
Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE
1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil
war. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers
guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines
evacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54
Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion
crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats
U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in
1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy,
installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered
bombs to use against seige. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation,
bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't
nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep
out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army& Marine occupation
against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned
against invading Kuwait. CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China
told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag
protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM l960-75 Troops,
naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt& North
Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969. CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed
exile invasion fails. GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert
during Berlin Wall crisis. LAOS 1962 Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during
missile crisis;
near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that
killed
president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from
exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's
return. INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed
in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army& Marines
land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets
intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43
killed. UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot;
over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million
killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine
invasion. LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S.
directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded
Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during
Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup
ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship
Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South
African-backed rebels. IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat,
aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in
copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in
maneuvers. EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops
Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in
hostage clash. NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval
CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against
revolution. LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops
Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim
positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after
revolution. HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build
bases near borders. IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot
down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air
strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops
Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88 Naval,
bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989
Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989
Jets Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA
1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by
27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990
Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait.
540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ
1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and
Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and
Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family
returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish
north,
Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against
anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United
Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu
faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia
and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone
patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military
government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years
after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at
Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation
of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire
during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas
plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA
training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have
attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days
of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi
obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy
NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO
occupation of Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked
in Aden, bombed. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces
deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker
attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S.
mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install
Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S.
troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al
Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for
Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat
missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel
zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam
regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate
in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and
Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private
contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping
force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines& Army land after
right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to
leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA
missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and
Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on
Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation
Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist
government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids
against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and
insurgents. SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in
helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile
attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on
rebels LIBYA 2011-?


Yer dumber than I thought. States and territories?

I have a new policy. If the other debater is to stupid I will no longer
debate them so that anyone watching can't confuse us. You just be stupid on
your own.

IOW, your list speaks for itself.

Wars indeed. Duh.


It was - of course - not my list. This list was copied from the website
I have quoted.
But I had a different one, called 'American interventions' (or alike),
where even more - well - interventions were listed (if you don't like
'war'). You can call it 'military aid' if you like, too, or 'defending
the free world', 'defeating terrorism' - or whatever diminutive was ever
invented.


TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

TH

Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they
liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and
insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the
last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public
servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have
their corresponding counterparts in your country ...

Regards,
JS

Sociopaths are rewarded by current system
 

On 10/4/2011 7:34 AM, dave wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:30:14 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:



No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.


Power always corrupts. People who crave it are mentally ill.

Yes, but you have to be smart enough to realize that ... he is
demonstrating how "not to be ..."

Regards,
JS

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

TH

Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they
liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and
insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the
last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public
servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have
their corresponding counterparts in your country ...


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for
far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a democratic REPUBLIC.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...ave+Daubenmire

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Top Shrink says democrats and
liberals are CLINICALLY INSANE!

Top Shrink, Lyle Harold Rossiter,Jr in Saint Charles,Illinois is RIGHT.
cuhulin

Liberal democracy
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:17:40 -0500, J R wrote:

America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a democratic REPUBLIC.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+Republic+Dave
+Daubenmire

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Top Shrink says democrats and
liberals are CLINICALLY INSANE!

Top Shrink, Lyle Harold Rossiter,Jr in Saint Charles,Illinois is RIGHT.
cuhulin

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a
constitutional republic, such as the United States, France, Germany,
Italy, or India, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United
Kingdom, Spain, or Japan. It may have a presidential system (the United
States, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina), a semi-presidential system (France,
Russia, Poland, Ukraine), or a parliamentary system (the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India).-wikipedia

Liberal democracy
 

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+of+Allegiance
http://www.redskelton.com/PLEDGE.htm
Also, Kate Smith God Bless America
cuhulin

Liberal democracy
 

You mentioned wiki wiki woo woo. (wikipedia)
Looka here ilk, head on over to the rec.autos.tech online newsgroup
thangy, check out the wikipedia thread.

Now you know why I have been calling it wiki wiki woo woo.
cuhulin

Liberal democracy
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:47:27 -0500, J R wrote:

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+of+Allegiance
http://www.redskelton.com/PLEDGE.htm
Also, Kate Smith God Bless America
cuhulin

I like Ike

Liberal democracy
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:53:21 -0500, J R wrote:

You mentioned wiki wiki woo woo. (wikipedia) Looka here ilk, head on
over to the rec.autos.tech online newsgroup thangy, check out the
wikipedia thread.

Now you know why I have been calling it wiki wiki woo woo. cuhulin

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected
representatives that hold the decision power are moderated by a
constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the
rights of minorities in society, such as freedom of speech and assembly,
freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well
as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, and
many more.

Such constitutional rights, also named liberal rights, are guaranteed
through various controlled institutions and various statutory laws.
Additionally the constitution of most of the contemporary liberal
democracies protects the rights of individuals and minorities, and
prohibits the will of majority (majoritarianism), by almost eliminating
that rule in practice.

Some would argue that liberal democracy isn't democratic or liberal at
all. They would argue that "liberal democracy" does not respect majority
rule, except when citizens are asked to vote for their representatives,
and also that its "liberty" is restricted by the constitution or
precedent decided by previous generations. They would argue that, by
prohibiting citizens the right to cast votes on all issues—especially for
serious subjects like going to war, constitutional amendments or
constitution abolishment etc.—this turns "liberal democracy" into the
precursor of oligarchy.

Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the
individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a
dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could—in this view—lead to an
oppression of minorities.-wisegeek

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

TH

Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way
they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom
is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen
away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting
our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the
white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ...


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these
'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:40:06 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:


OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these
'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

TH

Bears and coyotes mainly. Sometimes puma come down from the hills.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?

If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.

Actually arms are dangerous - even for the owner - and I don't believe,
that armed self-defence is the best of all possible ways to deal with
the problem of crime.

If there are so many agencies, police officers, FBI, ATF, FEMA,
homeland-security, ..., why shouldn't they do something useful.
The problem I see, that these agencies are not really trusted, but seem
to be the former criminals, now with official status and better weapons.

If that is the case, than your country is really f****.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...

On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the
people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

TH


Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way
they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom
is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen
away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting
our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the
white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ...


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these
'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

Don't confuse being "Happy with our form of Government" VS RELYING on a
Government/Police Force that can't ensure/insure our PERSONAL SAFETY.

Because they CAN not, HAVE not, WILL not, AND ARE not obligated to do so.

Police are merely "a thing" you call AFTER a crime is committed, or is
taking place.

Normal people are allowed to defend themselves AS IT TAKES PLACE!

Therefore, I LOVE my "form of Government" that allows me as a citizen,
to protect my life, my wifes life, our childrens and neighbors and other
others lives, so that that "we" can live on, work, and pay silly taxes. :)

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

dave wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:40:06 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:


OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these
'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

TH


Bears and coyotes mainly. Sometimes puma come down from the hills.


Or... if you live in Detroit, or Trenton, NJ!

And again, I never had a "need" for a gun, so far.
I just "want" them in case.

For instance, NOBODY said you MUST have fire extinguishers or smoke
detectors in certain dwellings.

Sure glad I had plenty of both in '95 when our dryer decided to go
ballistic due to a faulty electrical malfunction INSIDE the dryer.

Took 20 minutes for the Fire Dept to show up after we called 911, and
the FD was only 3/4 miles away!

And I already killed the power, and put the fire out!

In all fairness, the FD did provide me with some really cool Oxygen when
they eventually showed up.

Never had that bottled stuff before!

I suggested that they add something "minty".

Liberal democracy
 

On Oct 5, 7:29*am, dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:17:40 -0500, J R wrote:
America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a democratic REPUBLIC.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+Republic+Dave
+Daubenmire

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=TopShrink says democrats and
liberals are CLINICALLY INSANE!

Top Shrink, Lyle Harold Rossiter,Jr in Saint Charles,Illinois is RIGHT.
cuhulin

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a
constitutional republic, such as the United States, France, Germany,
Italy, or India, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United
Kingdom, Spain, or Japan. It may have a presidential system (the United
States, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina), a semi-presidential system (France,
Russia, Poland, Ukraine), or a parliamentary system (the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India).-wikipedia

-WOW- M4* Mania Dave 'A "Liberal" Democracy' !

* Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness [M4]

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...nd+ Bear+Arms

Second Admendment.
Firearms, Shootin Irons.

Go to U.K.and what will you see? The 'imprints' of Firearms used as
rebar (steel reinforcement for concrete) in concrete sidewalks and
concrete walls of buildings.Go see for yourself.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?


I'm so sorry that you are so myopic
You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions
Who said that:
1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ?
2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ?
3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed
with BIG guns ?
- Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in
large numbers
4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals
- try criminals as an althernate threat
5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ?

Ok I don't understand the US society!

If a country has a certain population and has a government and all sorts
of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should somehow
work for the country - and not against.

A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the
society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach their
kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no less.

If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of
justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted.

That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell these
employees, what to do (and what not).

These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect
belongs to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws
(and nothing else).

If that isn't what happens, but the government tries to threaten the own
population, than we have a lawless situation, where government and its
personal only pretends to work for the people, that pay for them.

If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google)
FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ps3sep04.htm#1

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.

Btw- the word concentration camp is badly 'germanized' in
"Konzentrationslager" (from the original English roots), because the
German language uses a different linguistic picture, that is more like
the English word 'to collect' for 'sammeln'. In German you would say
"Sammellager" (English: Concentration camp), but not
"Konzentrationslager", because in German to concentrate
("konzentrieren") means to think hard.

So these camps are an Anglo-Saxion speciality and first invented by
Cecil Rhodes.

Anyhow..
Size and location of these camps are a hint, that the intended inmates
are Americans, what I regard as a hint for a not generally trustful
government.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 05.10.2011 22:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could
stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?


AND ?


If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.


I'm so sorry that your "feeling of security" is based on ignorance.
Are you claining that when it comes down to it, you are NOT responsible
for YOUR security and that of your loved ones ?
And instead are willing to be irresponsible and depend on others for it ?
If one day a criminal decides to invade your home, or attack you on the
street, - How will you respond ?
Will you do like so many Europeans did about 60 years ago ?
Obediently go along and be shipped of to camps to be disposed of ?

In the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice the criminals than the
police do
Yet at the same time, the allegedly highly trained police shoot over 6
times more innocent bystanders, than plain old citizens do. (That should
raise some flags about who is a safer to you than not).

Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a
willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and
your fellow citizens.

That is blatant nonsense!
If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few
problems, than to send in troops.

Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why
you have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in
these organisations.

So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If
people in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy,
employed, sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa)

If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.

This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the
policemen within the bounds of the law.

The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting
range. But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out
their troubles with firearms.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have). This is
why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil
armament.


TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could
stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?


AND ?


If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.


I'm so sorry that your "feeling of security" is based on ignorance.
Are you claining that when it comes down to it, you are NOT responsible
for YOUR security and that of your loved ones ?
And instead are willing to be irresponsible and depend on others for it ?
If one day a criminal decides to invade your home, or attack you on the
street, - How will you respond ?
Will you do like so many Europeans did about 60 years ago ?
Obediently go along and be shipped of to camps to be disposed of ?

In the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice the criminals than the
police do
Yet at the same time, the allegedly highly trained police shoot over 6
times more innocent bystanders, than plain old citizens do. (That should
raise some flags about who is a safer to you than not).

Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a
willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and
your fellow citizens.

That is blatant nonsense!
If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few
problems, than to send in troops.

Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they
run around with arms.

Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates among
the leading nations.

And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer.

So clearly trying to keep people from having arms, doesn't necessarily mean
crimes won't occur.

The true measure isn't by how much people have had their arms removed, but
whether they chose not to engage in crime whether they have arms or not.

It isn't the arms that cause crime, but the will to do so. Removing arms,
doesn't alter the will. One can ALWAYS find a way if they decide crime is
what they desire.


The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why you
have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in these
organisations.

I agree they should be able to trust these organization, but that doesn't
mean they shouldn't be able to provide for themselves should this trust be
misplaced, or simply the organizations can't be everywhere 24/7/365.

So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If people
in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy, employed,
sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa)

Actually only ONE of those criteria is really relevant. Moral. Everything
else is conditions that overcome ones morals.

So the issue is with these things, these are the causes of crime....so why
are you wasting time trying to control one means of instrumentality rather
than deal with the causes?



If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.

Hate to tell you this, but if you have a lot a psychopaths running around
things are going to get dangerous whether guns are legal or not.

See, they can always gets guns illegally, or they may simply turn to another
means, such as bombs, traps, poison, and so on.

The whys that one can commit a violent crime is limited only by one's
imagination....not whether they can legally buy a gun.


This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public.

They try to do so, however, since their concern is for the general public,
that means that individuals are often, well, on their own.

This general public in return controls the police - to keep the policemen
within the bounds of the law.

And yet regularly we find policemen who are outside the bounds of the law.

The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting range.
But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out their
troubles with firearms.

Yep, but if they are going to do so, whether they legally have guns, or not
isn't going to significantly alter their ability to carry out their troubles
on others, Either with an illegal firearms, or simply some other means.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have).

Neither does the UK.

This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the
civil armament.

Sorry, but civil law isn't the issue. Every crime is already illegal.
Reforming the laws isn't going to change this. Until you can eliminate the
causes of crime, why should one provide for their own defense just in cause
the military or police fail to do so when needed as needed? If people are
armed when there is no crime, then who cares? As long as they aren't
engaging in crime, then what difference does it make if they chose to be
armed or not?

In short, I think you're spending too much time on the instrumentality and
trying to control it, and no enough realizing that people will break the law
when they chose to do so. Address why they chose to do so, and you can
eliminate most crime. However you can never eliminate all crime because some
people chose to commit crime only because they want to, and no other reason.
"They just want to watch the world burn. " Because it gives them something
that they simply can't have in any legal society.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could
stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?


AND ?


If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.


I'm so sorry that your "feeling of security" is based on ignorance.
Are you claining that when it comes down to it, you are NOT responsible
for YOUR security and that of your loved ones ?
And instead are willing to be irresponsible and depend on others for it ?
If one day a criminal decides to invade your home, or attack you on the
street, - How will you respond ?
Will you do like so many Europeans did about 60 years ago ?
Obediently go along and be shipped of to camps to be disposed of ?

In the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice the criminals than the
police do
Yet at the same time, the allegedly highly trained police shoot over 6
times more innocent bystanders, than plain old citizens do. (That should
raise some flags about who is a safer to you than not).

Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a
willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and
your fellow citizens.

That is blatant nonsense!
If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few
problems, than to send in troops.


HELLO ???
Earth to TH..
Come in TH...

What are you blabbering about ?
What "troops have been sent" for what "crimes" ??



Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they
run around with arms.


1) NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is claiming that "crimes were unavoidable"
Your stupid strawman - you feed it
2) NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is claiming that people "could only survive, if they
run around with arms"
Your stupid strawman - you feed it
3) But there is also NO GUARANTEE that you will not be the target of a
criminal
And no matter what and how much social engineering you attempt -
there will be criminals and there will be people targeted by those
criminals.


As to your cheap slur of a "degenerate society"...
My metric for that is as follows.
A society that allows
- the murder of over 6 million people in the same number of years
- the murder of over 50 million people in a neighboring country in the
same number of years
- starts and participates in a couple of wars that result in the deaths
of millions of people, military and civilian in a single century
- that consistently disarms it's population to make them helpless against
criminals both in and out of governments

Ironically, the above describe YOUR country and your neighbors
Yet it does NOT apply to the US

Maybe you need to look at yourself, and the history of your people and
countries before you do cheap and ignorant slander on others


The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why you
have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in these
organisations.


So how does YOUR country live up to that standard over say the last 100
years ?
You're real strong on theory but fail miserably on execution.
The Opposite seems to be true for the US

In the US, historically most people have ALWAYS viewed themselves as the
"first responders" to bad situations. This is actually a continuation of
what was true in England up to WWII.
And therefore, it's part of the mindset that you do NOT sit around and wait
for the "authorities" to come and solve your problems and fix thing for you.
That has been changing (for the worse) with the increasing number of people
buying into the "socialist" mindset that you spout above

Here is a most appropriate editorial comment that appeared today that talks
about this issue..
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...vidualism.aspx


So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If people
in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy, employed,
sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa)


More ivory-tower theory totally disconnected from reality
It sure sounds good
And idiots like you have been spouting that nonsense since Rousseau
But then when we actually LOOK at your history and see how that theory has
panned out over time, we realize that it's nice fantasy totally UNRELATED to
reality.



If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.


Are you claiming that Americans who CHOOSE to:
own firearms
carry firearms as allowed by law
are "psychopaths"

Are you really this much of an ignorant bigoted prejudiced idiot ?
Or did you have a bad fall recently and suffered a concussion ?



This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the
policemen within the bounds of the law.


Again with the nice theory..
How has that been working for say the last 100 years in Europe ?
And then there is the problem is that in most countries, ALTHOUGH there is a
belief that the police have a duty to protect them, there is probably also
some law that states that they have no such duty or responsibility

IN the US, we have 2 US Supreme Court Decisions (Warner, I believe, is the
name of one) which CLEARLY STATE, that unless you have a previous
relationship (such as witness protection), the police have NO DUTY to come
to the aid or protect individual citizens.
So, MOST DEFINITELY in the US, your theory is pure fantasy..


The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting range.
But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out their
troubles with firearms.


What exactly do you mean by "carry out their troubles with firearms"
Is that some stupid code for criminal behavior ?

And what do propose that a person being held up at an ATM do ?
Dial 911 and hope for the best ?
How about a woman who is being assaulted, with the possibility of being
raped or even killed in the immediate future ?
Should she also dial 911 and hope for the best ??
Fortunately in the US, we are far more civilized than people in degenerate
societies like yours
We STILL believe that people HAVE A RIGHT NOT to be the victims of
criminals, whether those criminals are civilian or government agents...



To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have).


TOTAL IGNORANT BULL****
I doubt that the laws in your country are any more "understandable and
practical" that US laws
But hey, go ahead and prove me wrong..


This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the
civil armament.


I would recommend instead that you get yourself an education in history and
law
Then you would stop spouting such arrant nonsense based on stupid
presumptions that are based on abyssal ignorance...

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?


I'm so sorry that you are so myopic
You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions
Who said that:
1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ?
2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ?
3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed
with BIG guns ?
- Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in
large numbers
4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals
- try criminals as an althernate threat
5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ?

Ok I don't understand the US society!


YES !
I agree you do not
But thanks for admitting that much
It's a good start

If a country has a certain population and has a government and all sorts
of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should somehow
work for the country - and not against.


Well that's nice..
But what does that have to do with anything ?

A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the
society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach their
kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no less.


OK.
And ?


If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of justice
to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted.


BZZZT
You seem to confused about the role of the police
1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"...
Instead, the police
- are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district
- usually show up AFTER a crime is committed
- usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT
- possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an
arrest
At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the alleged
criminal and "bring justice" more or less..
Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace"
But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or stop
crime in progress.
IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime.
As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that more
police will result in less crime
Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown
is NOT a good thing...




That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell these
employees, what to do (and what not).


Again with the nice theory that has NOTHING to do with the real world



These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect belongs
to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws (and nothing
else).


More nice theories not connected to the real world
Not to mention the notion that government is MAYBE the servant of the
people.

That has been shown NOT to be the case in European countries, over and over
again...
As a matter of fact, European governments have proven themselves
repeatedly to consider themselves the Masters and NOT the servants of the
people..


If that isn't what happens, but the government tries to threaten the own
population, than we have a lawless situation, where government and its
personal only pretends to work for the people, that pay for them.


sigh

If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google)
FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ps3sep04.htm#1


BIIIIIG SIGH
The so-called FEMA concentration camps are just another conspiracy theory.
And you'll be happy to find more of that ignorant **** all over the web

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this is true.
What would be, according to you, the BEST DEFENSE against such government
abuse ?
A defenseless population that is easily picked up and loaded into the
railroad cars ?
Or an armed population that is apt to shoot back at the government thugs
coming to load them in the railroad cars ?
And remember that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about 80
million "households" with a total of about 100 million households in the US.
There are not even close to 5 millions police and soldiers in the US

How do you think 80 million ARMED people would respond to a few million
government thugs wanting to abrogate their rights ??
And don't forget that of all the people in the police and military, A VERY
LARGE NUMBER are conservatives who:
believe in the Constitution and what it represents
BELIEVE that they have a duty to their Oath of Service, which in part
states that they swear to defend the Constitution from enemies within and
without the United States.
Note that their oath is NOT to uphold the government
Their oath is to "PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both domestic
and foreign"

Do you believe that in their minds, a government wanting to abrogate the
rights of the people they swore to protect would not qualify as an enemy of
the Constitution ?

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.


Ironic how they were successful in Europe and not so successful in the US
Why do you think that is ?

Hint: Americans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Mindset from Europeans which
makes it difficult for such statists to do what they like to do.



Btw- the word concentration camp is badly 'germanized' in
"Konzentrationslager" (from the original English roots), because the
German language uses a different linguistic picture, that is more like the
English word 'to collect' for 'sammeln'. In German you would say
"Sammellager" (English: Concentration camp), but not
"Konzentrationslager", because in German to concentrate ("konzentrieren")
means to think hard.

So these camps are an Anglo-Saxon specialty and first invented by
Cecil Rhodes.

Anyhow..
Size and location of these camps are a hint, that the intended inmates are
Americans, what I regard as a hint for a not generally trustful
government.


Who cares
The so-called "FEMA camps" are conspiracy nut nonsense.
Read this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/4312850

And the only people who are apt to end up in it, are unarmed and trustful
sheeple like you
Americans are neither unarmed, nor do they blindly trust their
government.


Thomas,
I hope I haven't been too harsh with you
But, I've been on these groups for a long time
It is so so frustrating to come across people who are so deeply ignorant of
history both theirs and that of the US, and of the relationship between
gun-control and people-control throughout history
Americans learned this lesson 200+ years ago and have worked hard not to
forget it
Europeans, with the possible exception of the Swiss, have not leaned this
lesson very well and seem to be doing everything in their power to forget
it. (And sadly the Swiss seem to be going down that path as well).

You do not come across as one of the regular trolls that come through these
groups to push the lies and distortions so commonly used by the gun-control
crowd.
You do come across as some who is curious, not very well informed, and maybe
willing to look at things from a different viewpoint.
IF you are truly interested in the subject and are willing to spend some
time reading up on this subject, you will find a whole slew of people who
will be happy to point to interesting material. They will also give you a
fair hearing if they believe you are NOT pushing an agenda

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

One of those so-called FEMA concentration camps, in the DeSoto National
Forest in Mississippi, some local area people went to check it out.There
isn't a concentration camp there.

During World War Two era, there were Four German Prisoner Of War Camps
here in Mississippi.One of them was in Clinton,Mississippi, about five
miles West of doggy's couch.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+Mississ ippi

Those German POWs Liked it in Mississippi.They had it made in the shade
drinking orange kool aid.

Kool Aid, Kool Aid, can't wait, we want Kool Aid, taste great!
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Mize Attendant School (Mize,Missy Sippy) on Lockdown.A dude brought a
'pineapple', the kind of pineapple that has a pin on it, if you know
what I mean? to school for show and tell.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?


I'm so sorry that you are so myopic
You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions
Who said that:
1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ?
2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ?
3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed
with BIG guns ?
- Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in
large numbers
4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals
- try criminals as an althernate threat
5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ?

Ok I don't understand the US society!


YES !
I agree you do not
But thanks for admitting that much
It's a good start

If a country has a certain population and has a government and all
sorts of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should
somehow work for the country - and not against.


Well that's nice..
But what does that have to do with anything ?

A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the
society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach
their kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no
less.


OK.
And ?


If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of
justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted.


BZZZT
You seem to confused about the role of the police
1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"...
Instead, the police
- are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district
- usually show up AFTER a crime is committed

I hope!

but you seem to suggest, the policemen showed up before the crime was
committed (and left after).

- usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT

In Germany we have a distinction between police and a sort of police for
criminal investigation, called 'Kriminalpolizei'. (The ones, that
collect evidence)

Police has a specific monopoly (in Germany) and that is, what gives the
police a special role. Nobody is allowed to apply physical force on a
person, no government, no lawyer, no military, nobody except a policemen.

They represent the enforcement power of the government and only they.
Policemen are 'Beamte'. Don't know, how to translate that.
That is the Prussian idea of organizing the state with 'Pflichten'
(duties of an office'), that are codified in laws. An official is sworn
in to fulfil these duties and respect the constitution and so forth.
After that, he is bound to these duties - and not to orders of the
superiors. Those have duties themselves.


- possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an
arrest
At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the
alleged criminal and "bring justice" more or less..
Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace"
But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or
stop crime in progress.
IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime.
As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that
more police will result in less crime
Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown
is NOT a good thing...


The American system is that of orders, that a person has to obey and
only these. That is more or less a pyramid of orders. In such a system
it is essential, to have control over the top position - otherwise the
entire body of officials could march in unwanted directions.
The American have no clear distinction between the branches of
policework, but a overlapping structure of rivalling 'agencies', like
ATF, FBI, county sheriffs and so forth. And the police is organised on
different levels of the USA, what leaves a confusing picture of a
hierarchy of polices.

In Germany the police belong to the constitutional obligations of the
'Länder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US.
The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the
'Länder'. The Eu has no police neither - for the same reason. Actually
they have some sort of policeforce, but that is highly restricted.

That is a very good way to organise policework, because government
cannot easily enforce anything, what is lawless, because the policemen
is not obliged to follow governmental orders (he belongs to the states)
and has his duties written down. Special orders are not among those
duties. Only specific persons can direct policemen, like judges, that
crime-police and so forth. And the specific status as 'Beamte' makes it
a crime to try to corrupt a policemen.

The entire system is, what gives Germany a peaceful appearance and
usually friendly policemen. But they have more than enough power, if
there is any sort of trouble, only you usually don't see it.

It is also efficient, because the police officers do a (moderately)
successful job and even the 'bad' districts, like e.g. Berlin-Wedding
(where I live) are quiet and relatively peaceful



That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell
these employees, what to do (and what not).


Again with the nice theory that has NOTHING to do with the real world

Well, maybe Germans are different. But we HAVE laws, that tell
policemen, what to do. (You Americans should try that out...)

These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect
belongs to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws
(and nothing else).


More nice theories not connected to the real world
Not to mention the notion that government is MAYBE the servant of the
people.

Yes I know, we are all slaves...
But to whom?

That has been shown NOT to be the case in European countries, over and
over again...
As a matter of fact, European governments have proven themselves
repeatedly to consider themselves the Masters and NOT the servants of
the people..


That term 'European' is like 'Asian'. Did you know, we have still
countries here.
In Asia there would be a HUGE distinction between e.g. India and Japan.

In Europe we have different kind of people even within a single nation.
Even Germany is more a mixture of various tribes (none called 'Germans').

So 'Europeans' is a bit too unspecific. Most probably you fall into such
a category, too, since most Americans have their roots in a European
country.
You should better refer to the European nations like Uk, Spain, France
or Russia.
...

If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google)
FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ps3sep04.htm#1


BIIIIIG SIGH
The so-called FEMA concentration camps are just another conspiracy theory.
And you'll be happy to find more of that ignorant **** all over the web

Well, these camps are nothing to beautify the states. A lot of ideas
could come into ones mind, especially in Germany, where we get usually
allergic reactions upon certain subjects.

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this is true.
What would be, according to you, the BEST DEFENSE against such
government abuse ?
A defenseless population that is easily picked up and loaded into the
railroad cars ?

Actually THAT WAS what the Nazis did.

Or an armed population that is apt to shoot back at the government thugs
coming to load them in the railroad cars ?
And remember that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about
80 million "households" with a total of about 100 million households in
the US.
There are not even close to 5 millions police and soldiers in the US

My suggestion: ask these five million soldiers, if they would defend
their people (in times of trouble) and release those, that wouldn't.

How do you think 80 million ARMED people would respond to a few million
government thugs wanting to abrogate their rights ??
And don't forget that of all the people in the police and military, A
VERY LARGE NUMBER are conservatives who:
believe in the Constitution and what it represents
BELIEVE that they have a duty to their Oath of Service, which in part
states that they swear to defend the Constitution from enemies within
and without the United States.
Note that their oath is NOT to uphold the government
Their oath is to "PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both domestic
and foreign"

Do you believe that in their minds, a government wanting to abrogate the
rights of the people they swore to protect would not qualify as an enemy
of the Constitution ?

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.


Ironic how they were successful in Europe and not so successful in the US
Why do you think that is ?

What do you mean with: not successful?
Germany was destroyed and the USA not. But beware, thats what they want
to change...



Hint: Americans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Mindset from Europeans which
makes it difficult for such statists to do what they like to do.


I hope..

Greetings

Thomas

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

...
Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates
among the leading nations.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same
story. They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too
tough. It is a very lawless and violent society.
UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.

And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer.


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.

Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with
large deficits.

So clearly trying to keep people from having arms, doesn't necessarily
mean crimes won't occur.


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.

Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).

Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.

All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its
more healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.

It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.

The true measure isn't by how much people have had their arms removed,
but whether they chose not to engage in crime whether they have arms or
not.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.

It isn't the arms that cause crime, but the will to do so. Removing
arms, doesn't alter the will. One can ALWAYS find a way if they decide
crime is what they desire.



The arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of
"specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?


I'm so sorry that you are so myopic
You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions
Who said that:
1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ?
2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ?
3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed
with BIG guns ?
- Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in
large numbers
4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals
- try criminals as an althernate threat
5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ?

Ok I don't understand the US society!


YES !
I agree you do not
But thanks for admitting that much
It's a good start

If a country has a certain population and has a government and all
sorts of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should
somehow work for the country - and not against.


Well that's nice..
But what does that have to do with anything ?

A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the
society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach
their kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no
less.


OK.
And ?


If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of
justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted.


BZZZT
You seem to confused about the role of the police
1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"...
Instead, the police
- are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district
- usually show up AFTER a crime is committed

I hope!

but you seem to suggest, the policemen showed up before the crime was
committed (and left after).


I suggest NO SUCH THING
I state the EXACT OPPOSITE
Unless the police have efficient crystal balls to foresee the future,
they can ONLY show up AFTER THE FACT.




- usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT

In Germany we have a distinction between police and a sort of police for
criminal investigation, called 'Kriminalpolizei'. (The ones, that collect
evidence)


Most uniformed police at the city or county and even State level primarily
perform patrol and first responder
duties. Then they have their investigative branch which is responsible for
building the case with the District attorneys.


Police has a specific monopoly (in Germany) and that is, what gives the
police a special role. Nobody is allowed to apply physical force on a
person, no government, no lawyer, no military, nobody except a policemen.


Total nonsense
You have the right to use force in defense of yourself and others, if and
when you consider yourself at risk of serious injury or death.
If you don't even have that, then you are the one living in a degenerate
society.


They represent the enforcement power of the government and only they.
Policemen are 'Beamte'. Don't know, how to translate that.
That is the Prussian idea of organizing the state with 'Pflichten' (duties
of an office'), that are codified in laws. An official is sworn in to
fulfil these duties and respect the constitution and so forth. After that,
he is bound to these duties - and not to orders of the superiors. Those
have duties themselves.


That's pretty standard throughout the world
The problem has always been that every once in a while the police are turned
into a personal militia of either their own leaders or some political
leader. Or they are so suborned that they will not stand up and perform
their duties as per their oaths



- possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an
arrest
At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the
alleged criminal and "bring justice" more or less..
Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace"
But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or
stop crime in progress.
IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime.
As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that
more police will result in less crime
Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown
is NOT a good thing...


The American system is that of orders, that a person has to obey and only
these. That is more or less a pyramid of orders. In such a system it is
essential, to have control over the top position - otherwise the entire
body of officials could march in unwanted directions.


And where did you get this total nonsense from ??



The American have no clear distinction between the branches of policework,
but a overlapping structure of rivalling 'agencies', like ATF, FBI, county
sheriffs and so forth. And the police is organised on different levels of
the USA, what leaves a confusing picture of a hierarchy of polices.


Actually, there are some very clear delineations
Granted that there is some overlap but the US is a big country, covering a
LOT of space.
So there is bound to be some overlap here and there
But most of the agencies have over time worked out compromises to deal with
them and even support each other when one is unable to do the job.



In Germany the police belong to the constitutional obligations of the
'Länder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US.
The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the
'Länder'. The Eu has no police neither - for the same reason. Actually
they have some sort of policeforce, but that is highly restricted.


So what agencies deal with cross-Länder issues ?
Who handles a criminal group that has roots in multiple Länders

The EU is a totally different matter
In the old days you had Interpol to handle issues that straddled national
borders
That's still true today.


That is a very good way to organise policework, because government cannot
easily enforce anything, what is lawless, because the policemen is not
obliged to follow governmental orders (he belongs to the states) and has
his duties written down. Special orders are not among those duties. Only
specific persons can direct policemen, like judges, that crime-police and
so forth. And the specific status as 'Beamte' makes it a crime to try to
corrupt a policemen.


You're being naïve again
What makes you imagine that making something a crime would actually stop a
criminal from trying or actually doing that thing ??


The entire system is, what gives Germany a peaceful appearance and usually
friendly policemen. But they have more than enough power, if there is any
sort of trouble, only you usually don't see it.


What makes you imagine that that is not the case in the MOST of the US ??


It is also efficient, because the police officers do a (moderately)
successful job and even the 'bad' districts, like e.g. Berlin-Wedding
(where I live) are quiet and relatively peaceful


Well that's nice




That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell
these employees, what to do (and what not).


Again with the nice theory that has NOTHING to do with the real world

Well, maybe Germans are different. But we HAVE laws, that tell policemen,
what to do. (You Americans should try that out...)


What makes you even IMAGINE that that is not the case
Maybe you should stop making stupid and ignorant, not to mention
arrogantly self-congratulatory assumptions
You'll avoid looking fatuous.



These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect
belongs to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws
(and nothing else).


More nice theories not connected to the real world
Not to mention the notion that government is MAYBE the servant of the
people.

Yes I know, we are all slaves...
But to whom?


Mostly ignorance and a poor sense of where the real dangers are in the world


That has been shown NOT to be the case in European countries, over and
over again...
As a matter of fact, European governments have proven themselves
repeatedly to consider themselves the Masters and NOT the servants of
the people..


That term 'European' is like 'Asian'. Did you know, we have still
countries here.
In Asia there would be a HUGE distinction between e.g. India and Japan.

In Europe we have different kind of people even within a single nation.
Even Germany is more a mixture of various tribes (none called 'Germans').


And did you know that the EU is a (very ****-poor) copy of the United States
which just happens to originally be the union of 13 Sovereign States..


So 'Europeans' is a bit too unspecific. Most probably you fall into such a
category, too, since most Americans have their roots in a European
country.
You should better refer to the European nations like Uk, Spain, France or
Russia.


I'm talking about the generic ignorance about the US, that is endemic ALL
ACROSS Europe, which you happen to demonstrate on a regular basis


..

If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google)
FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ps3sep04.htm#1


BIIIIIG SIGH
The so-called FEMA concentration camps are just another conspiracy
theory.
And you'll be happy to find more of that ignorant **** all over the web

Well, these camps are nothing to beautify the states. A lot of ideas could
come into ones mind, especially in Germany, where we get usually allergic
reactions upon certain subjects.

LOL
Americans built a country where the allergic reaction was built into the
national psyche. and which was STRONGLY re-inforced with the experiences of
what was discovered in Europe post WWII, and then reinforced again with the
Korean and Vietnam experiences .
It's why Americans tend to use the expression "Trust but Verify" when it
comes to their own governments at all levels



But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this is true.
What would be, according to you, the BEST DEFENSE against such
government abuse ?
A defenseless population that is easily picked up and loaded into the
railroad cars ?

Actually THAT WAS what the Nazis did.


Yes indeed
And yet THE ONLY Euro country that still believes in an armed population is
the best defense against government abuse are the Swiss who have been
believing that for 700+ years.
One has to wonder why the Germans haven't figured that one out. and like you
still happily spout how much they are willing t blindly trust their
government, even after the horrors of Germany under the Nazis..
Apparently you have neither learned the lesson, nor have you decided to
eliminate the chance of it ever happening again.


Or an armed population that is apt to shoot back at the government thugs
coming to load them in the railroad cars ?
And remember that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about
80 million "households" with a total of about 100 million households in
the US.
There are not even close to 5 millions police and soldiers in the US

My suggestion: ask these five million soldiers, if they would defend their
people (in times of trouble) and release those, that wouldn't.


I'm sure that the 6 million or so people, German and otherwise, had the same
attitude
And look what it got them..
Clearly you nor the rest of Europe learned ANYTHING from the horrors of WWII
And then you wonder why Americans tend to consider you fools and call
you sheeple.



How do you think 80 million ARMED people would respond to a few million
government thugs wanting to abrogate their rights ??
And don't forget that of all the people in the police and military, A
VERY LARGE NUMBER are conservatives who:
believe in the Constitution and what it represents
BELIEVE that they have a duty to their Oath of Service, which in part
states that they swear to defend the Constitution from enemies within
and without the United States.
Note that their oath is NOT to uphold the government
Their oath is to "PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both domestic
and foreign"

Do you believe that in their minds, a government wanting to abrogate the
rights of the people they swore to protect would not qualify as an enemy
of the Constitution ?

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.


Ironic how they were successful in Europe and not so successful in the US
Why do you think that is ?

What do you mean with: not successful?
Germany was destroyed and the USA not. But beware, thats what they want to
change...


Indeed.
But today in the US, they are not called Nazis.
They call themselves "liberals", "progressives" and in many cases
"Democrats".





Hint: Americans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Mindset from Europeans which
makes it difficult for such statists to do what they like to do.


I hope..

Greetings


And to you...

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

..
Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates
among the leading nations.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same story.
They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too tough. It is
a very lawless and violent society.

At the end of the 19th Century an Englishman could buy a gun in department
stores in London, no questions asked, not paperwork to fill
At the time, an Englishman was also expected to respond the the "Hue and
Cry" and assist in the capture of criminals.
Since then the Brits have been slowly disarmed on law at a time, to the
point that today, the National Olympic pistol team has to practice on
mainland Europe because they can NOT have the pistols in England.

And while they were slowly being disarmed and made defenseless, the crime
rate has steadily increased.

UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.


I'm not sure by what you mean with "the UK is extremely militaristic"
The British and a long history of military success acquired over 3+
centuries.
But British society cannot be considered "militaristic" by any sense of the
word
You may be using an incorrect term.



And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer.


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.


Oh please
Germany did an self-destruct in 1939-45
Before that it did another one in 1914-1918
And a few minors ones during ten intervening period.

And right now, MOST of Europe is doing a self-destruct of it's own, which
may pull Germany down with it, if the Germans don't stand up and refuse to
get dragged down by countries like Greece, Spain and the rest.
Frankly if all Germans are going around like you and patting yourselves on
the shoulder, while claiming to be "different", you haven't got a prayer in
Hell to survive this crisis..



Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with large
deficits.


And if you're not careful, you will get dragged down with them...


So clearly trying to keep people from having arms, doesn't necessarily
mean crimes won't occur.


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.


How is that different from the German way or actually the way of any of the
other countries in Europe ?


Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.


Nice theory
BUT TOTAL BULL****
If you somehow imagine that you are immune from being the target of a random
criminal attack, because you just happen to be at the wrong place and time,
then you are a fool

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).


Well that's nice
But that has NOTHING to with an individual CHOOSING to be able to protect
himself, his family or even his neighbors.
It is NOT the police who are the FIRST line of defense against criminals
It's the CITIZENS
And if you're lucky, the police are not part of that criminal threat.


Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.


Oh please !
Are you really this stump ignorant ?
What about the professional criminal ?


All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its more
healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.


ROFLMAO

By that definition, the countryside where there is a LOT of dirt has got to
be the MOST CRIMINAL place of all




It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.


"say "hush-hush" to the drug pushers" ?
PULEEEEEZE
Where do you get this kindergarten pap ?

I would rather shoot the drug pushers

You are caught trying to sell drugs ?
Here's a nice 9mm bullet to the back of the head
Problem solved,
The pusher is "hushed"..
PERMANENTLY..




The true measure isn't by how much people have had their arms removed,
but whether they chose not to engage in crime whether they have arms or
not.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.


IN the US, there are annually about 1,500,000 crimes committed using guns
ON the other hand there are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) where
armed citizens avoid being the victims of criminals
In the US, where there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about 80
million (out of 100 million) households, there are less than 900 accidental
deaths from guns.
Also in the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice as many criminals as
the police do.
Yet at the same time you are 6 times more at risk from being
accidentally shot by the police than an armed citizen.

I'll let you do the math...

It isn't the arms that cause crime, but the will to do so. Removing
arms, doesn't alter the will. One can ALWAYS find a way if they decide
crime is what they desire.



The arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.


Well that's nice AFTER the criminal has been apprehended and sent off to the
hospital
But what is the target of that criminal supposed to do at the MOMENT of
the crime ??
You seem to be avoiding addressing that issue.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Germany has started printing old currency in case the Euro gets
ditched.I read about that a few days ago at
http://www.rense.com

Not long ago the Australians were disarmed.Result, crime skyrocketed.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:

Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the
people...'. These governments should never be a thread to their own
people. That seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have
in Germany.

TH

Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way
they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom
is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen
away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now
inhabiting our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the
one in the white house, have their corresponding counterparts in
your country ...


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of
"specialty" for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

Are you an idiot? What makes you think I have a gun to defend myself
against my government? I don't.....I have a gun to defend myself and
family against street predators. So far......so good.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

dave wrote in
m:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:40:06 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:


OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these
'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?

TH

Bears and coyotes mainly. Sometimes puma come down from the hills.


Bears and pumas require bigger guns than a Seacamp .32.

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?

If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.

Actually arms are dangerous - even for the owner

Not if the owner understands and practices firearms safety. A gun is no
more dangerous than a hatchet or chainsaw or a mower.

- and I don't
believe, that armed self-defence is the best of all possible ways to
deal with the problem of crime.

It isn't....but when it is the only way available......

If there are so many agencies, police officers, FBI, ATF, FEMA,
homeland-security, ..., why shouldn't they do something useful.

They do, but running around personally protecting everyone in our country
isn't one of them.

The problem I see, that these agencies are not really trusted, but
seem to be the former criminals, now with official status and better
weapons.

In some cases, that would be true in both our countries.

If that is the case, than your country is really f****.

TH




--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....