Gun ownership in Thailand

[jackcorbett 2]

Johnny K....I was wondering if you have ever been advised that using capital letters on the web was a sign of rudeness equivalent to shouting at someone in a one on one situation?

 

jackcorbett,

Where you live, or how keen a collector you are, or your childhood and history books and hobbies while growing up in America have ZERO to do with Thai law or gun regulations. It's another country.

 

You did capitalize the word zero, didn't you? Since I was very obviously responding to Babepecker's sincere question of why I wished to bring a handful of guns into Thailand, and since you are an obviously intelligent guy I have to assume that you understood just like everyone else here that I was merely stating why I would like to bring them there. I certainly would never have brought the subject up in this forum if I was going to bring them into the country without being 100 percent sure I had the permission of the authorities to do so because that would be tipping my hand--something no criminal in his right mind would do.

 

So your having to tell me that my growing up in America has ZERO to do with Thai law troubles me since I 1. Don't go around breaking U.S. laws that I disagree with because I don't want to suffer the consequences, and I certainly would not knowingly take a chance of breaking laws in Thailand for fear of having my Visa being revoked, being thrown out of the country, and of having my guns confiscated. So I'm worried about you, old boy because you might be shouting at people close to you (a son, daughter, wife, girlfriend, etc) or someone you need on your side in the business world. Such people aren't going to take kindly to your treating them in such manner and make it tough on you. I won't. They will.

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by sinbinjack:

I have no intention of stoping you as an american in america from having a gun ( I think it counterproductive)but I do not like it when you or others wish to export these gun laws to the rest of the world.

Skytrooper As for your "STUPID" referal to the 2nd world war and lend lease I leave that to your own countrymen to explain to you

sinbinjack

 

I never referred to "lend lease" during World War II in my post you objected to. I referred to the ads the British government (specifically the Committee for the Defence of British Homes) published in U.S. newspapers and magazines in 1940 begging American private citizens to donate their personal firearms for shipment to Englishmen who'd foolishly allowed their government to disarm them. This had nothing to do with Lend Lease which was an act of Congress. BTW, to use your word, are you "STUPID?" That would account for your abysmal ignorance and atrocious spelling.

 

Originally posted by sinbinjack:

skytrooper you are somehow asserting that guns and freedom go hand in hand and somehow the USA is a land of limitless freedoms all down to the bill of rights have you conveniently forgoten Guantanamo bay (hope its spelled right)and the lack of rights given to the people held there by the government you defend because of your Bill of Rights please tell me which ammendment allows the government to suspend the bill of rights so giving you all these wonderful freedoms but not anyone the government dosent like

sinbinjack

 

ps I should ad here so you and other people dont get the wrong idea about me that I love to go to america and have done often (and will again) and on the whole find Americans to be friendly and open people but the gun laws (or lack thereof)are to me a sad lack in a so called civilised society

 

1. Since the right to keep and bear arms is the greatest individual liberty a free people may possess then, yes, I am "asserting that guns and freedom go hand in hand." Every act of genocide was committed against a disarmed population. Your knowledge of history is on a par with your reasoning ability and spelling skills.

 

2. If you're under the delusion I think contemporary America "is a land of limitless freedoms" and that our Bill of Rights isn't generally ignored then you've obviously never read most of my posts in the Member's Only section of this board. I happen to be this board's harshest critic of the U.S. government (and the ignorant, docile, apathetic American populace). I'm routinely vilified for my opinions. My criticism of the USA, however, is based upon drastically different premises than that made by the Eurotrash, Aussies, and Canadians here.

 

Originally posted by Babepecker:

I am sorry that you see it so exclusively.

 

IMHO, liberty is not defined as only the simple freedom to move wherever you wish to. 

 

Or were you absolutely forbidden to think and/or speak while being imprisoned?

 

I never gave the definition of "liberty" you falsely attributed to me. I understand you still haven't got a handle on the English language yet, but I wish you'd cease prevaricating and fabricating when you find yourself in an untenable position. Liberty and freedom are not synonymous. Liberty is a "political condition," just as I stated, not simply a "freedom of movement" as you allege.

 

Here's your English word to study today: Disingenuous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. — Thomas Jefferson

 

The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun. — Patrick Henry, 1788

 

The term [liberty] ... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience.... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action.... Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-400 (1923).

[sinbinjack 251]

Skytrooper, I have eventualy seen the light about you,you are a nut who lives in a compound in the woods fearing your government is taking your freedoms away every time some law is passed that you personaly dont like,as you are a nut I cant reason with you in any normal manor so I will ignore any further posts you may make as that is the only sensible thing for a sane man to do,goodbye.

[JohnnyK 28]

jackcorbett,

wasn't shouting at you mate. sorry if it came off that way.

cheers

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by sinbinjack:

Skytrooper, I have eventualy seen the light about you,you are a nut who lives in a compound in the woods fearing your government is taking your freedoms away every time some law is passed that you personaly dont like,as you are a nut I cant reason with you in any normal manor so I will ignore any further posts you may make as that is the only sensible thing for a sane man to do,goodbye.

 

1. I’m not sure living in the heart of the metropolis of Sioux Falls constitutes “in the woods,†but then veracity obviously doesn’t rank high among your traits.

 

2. Why is it that pro-government supremacists invariably allege their adversaries live in “compounds?†The Weaver family’s cabin in remote northern Idaho was labeled a “compound.†Mount Carmel Center near Waco, Texas inexplicably became a “compound.†I suppose your ilk finds it essential to demonize and dehumanize people who resist your predations.

 

3. There’s nothing unusual about members I expose as having written misstatements and fallacious assertions choosing to “ignore†my posts. People capable of ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the concept of unalienable individual rights have no difficulty disregarding reason, history, and moral behavior.

 

4. You willingly acquiesce in the deprivation of your own personal freedom, choosing to endure life with only government-bestowed “privileges†which may be curtailed or revoked at the whim of a bureaucrat or majoritarian caprice. Lenin referred to people such as yourself as “useful idiots.â€

 

5. The U.S. government already stole several years of my life and impoverished my family, but I suppose that was all an illusion. When I see Randy Weaver again next month, I’ll explain that federal agents didn’t really shoot his 14 year-old son in the back and an FBI sniper didn’t really shoot his wife in the head as she stood holding her baby in the doorway of the family “compound.†Thank you for clearing that up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment’s respite, deserve only the end of a rope.

 

America’s historic misfortune is that her people have seldom been equal to the ideals upon which their nation was established. — L. Neil Smith, “Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin,†The American Zone (2001)

 

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. — Thomas Jefferson

 

“...Where true fortitude dwells, loyalty, bounty, friendship, and fidelity may be found.... Small and creeping things are the product of petty souls.... Pitiful things are only to be found in the cottages of such breasts. But bright thoughts, clear deeds, constancy, fidelity, bounty, and generous honesty are the gems of noble minds....†— Browne, “The Heroic Mindâ€

[Babepecker 0]

...

 

Originally posted by Babepecker:

 

I am sorry that you see it so exclusively.

 

IMHO, liberty is not defined as only the simple freedom to move wherever you wish to.

 

Or were you absolutely forbidden to think and/or speak while being imprisoned?

 

I never gave the definition of "liberty" you falsely attributed to me. I understand you still haven't got a handle on the English language yet, but I wish you'd cease prevaricating and fabricating when you find yourself in an untenable position. Liberty and freedom are not synonymous. Liberty is a "political condition," just as I stated, not simply a "freedom of movement" as you allege.

 

Here's your English word to study today: Disingenuous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...

Skytrooper,

I have never claimed that you had ever posted any definition of "liberty" (why did you use quotation marks there?) at all.

 

 

I merely wrote:

"I am sorry that you see it so exclusively.

 

IMHO, liberty is not defined as only the simple freedom to move wherever you wish to.

 

Or were you absolutely forbidden to think and/or speak while being imprisoned?"

 

 

Why have you falsely accused me of falsely attributing definitions to you? :crying

 

 

 

[Skytrooper 0]

Babepecker,

 

When I suggested you study the meaning of the word "disingenuous," I wasn't encouraging you to behave in a disingenuous manner. I realize such conduct evidently comes natural to you.

 

BTW, is VikingInOz, your Norwegian socialist chum, objecting to my referring to him as your "chum" or isn't he really Norwegian? You know how much trouble I have understanding European statists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Highest art in the world cannot guild socialism. It is impossible to make beautiful the denial of liberty. — Auberon Herbert

 

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. — Charles A. Beard

 

The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time. — George Sutherland, 1938

[VikingInOz 0]

VikingInOz, your Norwegian socialist chum

I see you're still making baseless accusations without providing evidence, irrefutable or not, even when specifically asked to do so. It can only mean that you are an amoral liar. I now realize such conduct comes naturally to you.

 

I understand you haven't got a complete handle on the English language, but I wish you'd cease prevaricating and fabricating when you find yourself in an untenable position.

 

I’m not sure the heart of the metropolis of Sioux Falls constitutes the centre of the universe but then megalomania obviously ranks high among your traits.

 

Here's your English word to study today: Verisimilitude.

 

 

VB

 

 

Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

-Buddha

 

It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

-Buddha

 

Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value.

- Editorial in the Boston Post (1865)

 

But what ... is it good for?

- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

[rkt 0]

Hi James.

The demise of gun ownership in Great Britain started in 1987 after the Hungerford massacre. The end came after the 13th of March massacre in Scotland. I have completely shut it out of my mind, it was so horiffic i'd prefare to put it to the back of my mind. ( my daughter and my grandaughter both have the 13th of March as there birthday ). Regarding our last pm i had no choice but to surrender my guns, i was compensated but it did'nt make ammends.

 

When i now go hunting i use my bird Olive, and i own a gas powered .22 air rifle. Every winter rats move into my garden, i am surrounded with farm land and they come for the corn left on the bird table.

 

[jackcorbett 2]

No problem Johnny K.

 

Okay guys, let's take this one step further. Skytropper contends that genocide has befallen in those regions of the world in which the population was disarmed. Let's take this one by one. I raise my first example--Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime. Nobody knows exactly how many Cambodians were executed and/or tortured in the later half of the 1970's. Many estimates put it at 2 million however. Most of the executioners were the very young who had fallen victim to the propaganda of the Khmer Rouge. Had the local population been armed rather than just those Pol Pot felt should have weaons would this genocide been averted? I am merely bringing up this example because my friends and I spent several days in Cambodia 8 months ago and we did see a number of the old torture chambers as well as the Killing Fields.

[Skytrooper 0]

VikingInOz,

 

I asked you which word you objected to ... Norwegian, socialist or chum, and you never replied. Why should I bother to answer your questions when you lack the courtesy to respond to mine?

 

Feel free to disparage South Dakota in general, and Sioux Falls in particular, whenever you desire. My wife is the South Dakotan; I'm a political refugee from the tyranny of the People's Republic of California. Where did you get the peculiar notion that Sioux Falls is the "centre of the universe?" I merely pointed out that residing in the heart of Sioux Falls isn't quite the same as living "in the woods." I realize Europeans such as sinbinjack and you are weak on geography and topography, but there are precious few "woods" in eastern South Dakota.

 

You, instruct me, in English? That's almost as funny as a Norwegian statist such as yourself offering a course on Objectivism, marksmanship, or individual liberty. Are you aware your posts have been even more bizarre than usual recently?

 

Hello raykaytat,

 

Actually the "demise of gun ownership in Great Britain" started in 1919, not 1987. That was when your aristocratic rulers decided commoners couldn’t be trusted with privately-held arms. They were concerned the communist revolution in Russia would be embraced by lowly peasants in the UK. Not one American in ten has more than a brief familiarity with U.S. history, so I shouldn’t expect things to be any better across the pond.

 

In December 1994, while aboard the cruise ship Crown Princess, I was paired up with an Englishman as my scuba dive buddy. He owned some "properly registered" pistols and scoffed when I told him that handguns and semiauto long guns would soon be banned in his country. He assured me I was "daft" and that would never happen in freedom-loving Great Britain. I'm still waiting for an apology from him and from numerous now gun-less (and gutless) Australians who once told me the same thing about Kangarooland.

 

Actually, you did have a “choice†when it came to surrendering your firearms. I regret you made the wrong decision. It took a couple dozen SWAT cops and federal agents gathered from three states to seize my gun collection and that was when they knew I was unarmed. It’s going to be interesting to see how well they fare when I’m not unarmed and they're not holding my wife hostage at gunpoint.

 

I’m not sure how a person may be financially “compensated†for the perpetual deprivation of their most precious unalienable individual right. If John Locke were alive today, I don’t think he’d be too pleased with you chaps. I know Patrick Henry would be infuriated with the ignorant, apathetic, domesticated animals that comprise most contemporary Americans. If most of my craven fellow countrymen were any more docile, they’d give milk.

 

I wish you luck using your bird, Olive, and/or your anemic air rifle against vicious hoodlums or government orcs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government. — Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1867)

 

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. — Judge Learned Hand

[wombat 5]

a couple of links

 

this is where i live.

http://www.mooloolababeach.com/

 

this is a link to sioux falls

 

http://www.siouxfalls.org/

 

this link is the surf cam...it updates every 30 seconds.

click on surf cam.

 

http://www.thesurfclub.com.au/media/web_cam.html

[Babepecker 0]

Babepecker,

 

When I suggested you study the meaning of the word "disingenuous," I wasn't encouraging you to behave in a disingenuous manner. I realize such conduct evidently comes natural to you.

 

BTW, is VikingInOz, your Norwegian socialist chum, objecting to my referring to him as your "chum" or isn't he really Norwegian? You know how much trouble I have understanding European statists. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Highest art in the world cannot guild socialism. It is impossible to make beautiful the denial of liberty. — Auberon Herbert

 

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. — Charles A. Beard

 

The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time. — George Sutherland, 1938

Dear Skytrooper,

I am deeply hurt by your rude and baseless accusations. :crying

 

 

I expect a full apology from you, as soon as you will have read this.

 

 

Or should I start posting links to some of your less-than-coherent and, indeed, tragically off-the-point posts, like the one quoted above?

 

 

Btw, I have also noticed that you are having a bit of trouble with the proper use of tenses, as of lately, especially the Present Perfect - now, that would be perfectly understandable if you were a foreigner, whose mother tongue contains no comparable tense (Croatian, German,...), but as the facts that you have provided indicate otherwise, I admit to being profoundly surprised.

Before you ask for examples: please check among my quotes of your posts, as I do not intend to further this (grammar) topic.

 

 

 

[Skytrooper 0]

wombat,

 

It doesn't take much of a beach to beat any in South Dakota. It's quite a hike to an ocean from here. But that name ... mooloolalabeach? I suppose that's to be expected from the descendants of penally-transported English highwaymen.

 

Personally, I'll pass on the beach in exchange for some really nice gun stores here in Sioux Falls. Patches of sand alongside bodies of saltwater aren't uncommon. Bastions of personal freedom are, lamentably, increasingly rare in this world.

 

Babepecker,

 

You've never asked my permission before when posting links in an effort to obfuscate things. Once you finally grasp the English word "forgery," I'll start paying attention to your ramblings about English usage. There's a "Croatian" language? Whoever would have guessed?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. — Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do ‘til the Revolution (1996)

 

I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too. — Thomas Jefferson

 

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. — Daniel Webster

[wombat 5]

lala

....lala..aka toilete..aka..loo....

mooloolaba beach has an icon called "loo with a view"

http://www.billdevine.com.au/andrea/sunshi...%20View%201.htm

aint many places you can hang a piss enjoying beach and ocean/white pointer views.

[Babepecker 0]

...

 

Babepecker,

 

You've never asked my permission before when posting links in an effort to obfuscate things. Once you finally grasp the English word "forgery," I'll start paying attention to your ramblings about English usage. There's a "Croatian" language? Whoever would have guessed? 

 

...

Skytrooper,

it seems to me that you are avoiding to "walk the walk" that you so eloquently preach to everyone else on this Forum - show some responsibility and apologise for your rude and false accusations.

 

 

Here are some of the links showcasing your ways with the facts, the truth and illustrating your disingenuousness / insincerity, including the "forgery case":

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...=0entry123938

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...30entry124426

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...60entry138286

 

 

Recent one:

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...=0entry141850

 

 

Also, your and my previous posts in this thread.

 

 

I guess that it must be very difficult for you to be confronted with the hard facts like this...

 

 

Cheers, everybody

 

 

[VikingInOz 0]

 

Good one - chum

:D

[bigfoot 0]

jackcorbett

Had the local population been armed rather than just those Pol Pot felt should have weaons would this genocide been averted?

The Americans had plenty of firepower but chose to leave the Khmer people for dead. they could have averted the massacre but no oils there so not worth the hassle.

I am merely bringing up this example because my friends and I spent several days in Cambodia 8 months ago and we did see a number of the old torture chambers as well as the Killing Fields.

so that makes you an expert

 

the foot

[jackcorbett 2]

I did not try to portray myself as an expert on either the Pol Pot regime or Cambodia. But whether I am perceived at portraying myself as an expert or not is not the issue here. What is the issue or what I would like for all of us to focus in on as the issue is "Whether or not arming a country's populace by allowing it to acquire guns, does in fact avert genocide. There have been other countries where genocide has been practiced. Much of this I will admit complete ignorance to so I am asking those who are more knowledgeable in this forum to bring these examples up.

 

Again, we are off subject here. Whether or not the U.S. could have stopped the Cambodian genocide in its tracks is again not the issue. What I am driving at are purely internal factors---arming the Cambodian citizenry is internal whereas the role of the U.S. or lack of a role is external and completely irrelevant to the fundamental question of does allowing a nation's citizenry to have firearms avert genocide or not?

 

An interesting case can be made of Nazi Germany. Certainly widespread violence in Germany's streets in the 1920's particularly between Communists and elements of the Freikorps is one of the main factors leading to Hitler's being able to take power and the consolidation of power by the Nazi party. Certainly the role of firearms in these street battles made it easier for the Nazis to rise to power since they seemed to offer a stop to the violence. But how about the Jews, who were disarmed? Six million of them were murdered. Would Hitler and his henchmen have dared to start closing down Jewish shops to start with, disallowed marriages between "Aryans" and Jews, etc as the first stages of his anti semitic program if these people had the power of the gun to start with?

 

I would really like to get to the heart of this issue rather than to make this whole thread a showcase for petty comments. As to the possible pursuit of oil by the U.S. as a reason for going to war is completely irrelevant to the Pol Pot question I had raised in the first place. We had just gotten our butts kicked out of Vietnam and could hardly be expected to go back into this region for humanitarian reasons.

[M1903 0]

Skytrooper, thanx for backing up someone that shares your point of few asshole. I think I will have my bear with Sinbin and we can be respectful of each other.

 

 

Sinbin,

 

I hate to tell you this, but there are alot of guns in Thailand and many of then are used on regular basis for very minor disputes and for a very minor fee. Piss off a Thai real bad and you will see one of these guns. I have a friend who is used to be a Captain in the Din Daeng District. He took me on a few ride-alongs and I was amazed at the number of guns confiscated in a day.

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by M1903:

Skytrooper, thanx for backing up someone that shares your point of few asshole. I think I will have my bear with Sinbin and we can be respectful of each other.

 

Having lived in Alaska for ten years, I'm quite familiar with bears although I can't fathom what your "bear with Sinbin" means. What's a "point of few?" I'm certainly impressed with your two graduate degrees. I only have one graduate degree, an MBA, so I'm obviously not in your league. I notice all I have to do to be called an "asshole" or worse by vulgar halfwits on this board is to eviscerate their posts using reason and empirical evidence.

 

Since I'm not aware of any other libertarians on this board, I have no idea who you think I'm "backing up." If you erroneously mean jackcorbett, I have precious little in common with people foolish enough to drink alcohol (especially in East St. Louis bars), who drive while intoxicated, and who obey immoral, unconstitutional laws.

 

Originally posted by bigfoot:

The Americans had plenty of firepower but chose to leave the Khmer people for dead. they could have averted the massacre  but no oils there so not worth the hassle.

 

You conveniently neglected to explain why the USA had any moral or legal obligation to intervene in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign. Cretins like you usually condemn the USA for acting as the world's policeman. Also, the last time I checked, Australia was a lot closer to Cambodia than the USA is. Is there a reason why you Aussies didn't intervene?

 

Individual human beings are the ones most responsible for their own self-preservation. The victims of government genocide all allowed themselves to be disarmed ... Armenians, Ukrainians, Jews, Cambodians, Tutsis, etc. As an Aussie, you should be familiar with this mind set. Your government enacted laws more tyrannical than those of Nazi Germany and supine Aussies docilely complied. The only reason you're alive and/or not speaking Japanese is because of armed Americans. In the future, I hope you folks have to suffer the consequences of your own folly.

 

Originally posted by jackcorbett:

We had just gotten our butts kicked out of Vietnam and could hardly be expected to go back into this region for humanitarian reasons

 

I don't know what unit(s) you served with in RVN, but the NVA didn't "kick my butt out of Vietnam."

 

Originally posted by VikingInOz:

Good one - chum

 

So now you've admitted to being Norwegian and Babepecker's "chum." Just have to get you own up to being a socialist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Diplomacy is the art of saying, “Nice Doggie,†while you’re looking for a rock. — Will Rogers

 

A few honest men are better than numbers. — Oliver Cromwell

 

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. — Cesare Beccaria

[jackcorbett 2]

Good...Now we are getting somewhere here, Skytrooper. You have raised some specific examples here of places in the world where genocide took place and you said that had those peoples been armed these nations would not have had to suffer genocide. Would you please take the next step of explaining how you felt each situation would have developed had those peoples been armed thus averting genocide. I do believe you might make some very compelling cases here. And leave out the beer drinking please. Although I do my share, bringing this up while you make a case would suredly get your otherwise sound arguments thrown out of court for being completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

Now......as to Vietnam---don't get so prickly about it. Although our combat units on the line did not get their butts kicked out "We" did as a nation and it is that pronoun I used, not you nor did I refer to our combat troops. There was dissension on the home front. It is the people at home who let you guys down and who led to your being pulled out. As I remember correctly Americans did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam and I don't remember their losing a small one either.

 

However our politicians who brought us into this war took us into battle against the wrong side. We should have fought with Ho Chi Minh, not against him. This little error was similar to the one where a surgeon takes off the wrong leg by mistake.

 

Number two, this war was impossible to win short of killing just about everyone in the entire country because of the deep nationalistic commitment of the other side to unify the country so it would no longer be victimized by imperalistic nations such as the French and later the Japanese. The Viet Minh had the hearts and souls of the people. We didn't. And certainly the very corrupt South Vietnamese regime didn't have the hearts and souls of the people behind it. Furthermore, the more we bombed the more politically unaligned people we killed. Well.....we certainly got them aligned after that didn't we, lined right with the other side and against us. So the more fire power we applied the more enemy soldiers we created.

 

This war was a tragedy. Those in our government who should have done their homework believed the North Vietnamese were the puppets of the Communist Chinese. Clearly this was not the case. Our belief then was in the domino theory.....that if we let the North Vietnamese have Vietnam, China would have ruled Vietnam, and with Russia controlling China the dominos would be falling all over the world with Europe soon to fall to the conquering Red hordes.

 

No, you guys, the ones in the trenches didn't lose the war---we did as a nation because of our insufferable arrogance and stupidity.

[bigfoot 0]

TROOPER

You conveniently neglected to explain why the USA had any moral or legal obligation to intervene in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign

since when did USA even worry about legal obligations when it comes to occupying other countries.of course they had a moral obligation they were in Cambodia and left when the NV and KR were moving into Phnom Penh.

 

The only reason you're alive and/or not speaking Japanese is because of armed Americans.

Here we go again another wanker thinking the USA saved the world

when i fact they use WOMD then get them banned

 

Is there a reason why you Aussies didn't intervene?

YES we knew the Americans were involved so a complete fuck up would have taken place like they have everywhere in the world.

 

the last time I checked, Australia was a lot closer to Cambodia than the USA is thanks for that i couldn't think of having USA as a neighbour :crying

[rkt 0]

OUTLAW GUNS AND ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE THEM!!

______________________________________________

 

As is now the case in the British Isles.

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by jackcorbett:

Good...Now we are getting somewhere here, Skytrooper.

“We?†Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

Originally posted by jackcorbett:

Would you please take the next step of explaining how you felt each situation would have developed had those peoples been armed thus averting genocide.

 

“Felt?†I’m not a woman or a cocker spaniel. My beliefs are based upon reason and empirical evidence; not “feelings.â€

 

Originally posted by jackcorbett:

And leave out the beer drinking please.

 

You introduced into this thread your irrational enthusiasm for the consumption of physically and mentally harmful chemicals. You introduced your unconscionable willingness to drive motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. You introduced your reprehensible willingness to obey immoral, unjust, and unconstitutional legislation.

 

Originally posted by jackcorbett:

Now......as to Vietnam---don't get so prickly about it. Although our combat units on the line did not get their butts kicked out "We" did as a nation and it is that pronoun I used, not you nor did I refer to our combat troops. There was dissension on the home front. It is the people at home who let you guys down and who led to your being pulled out. As I remember correctly Americans did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam and I don't remember their losing a small one either.

 

However our politicians who brought us into this war took us into battle against the wrong side. We should have fought with Ho Chi Minh, not against him. This little error was similar to the one where a surgeon takes off the wrong leg by mistake.

 

Number two, this war was impossible to win short of killing just about everyone in the entire country because of the deep nationalistic commitment of the other side to unify the country so it would no longer be victimized by imperalistic nations such as the French and later the Japanese. The Viet Minh had the hearts and souls of the people. We didn't. And certainly the very corrupt South Vietnamese regime didn't have the hearts and souls of the people behind it. Furthermore, the more we bombed the more politically unaligned people we killed. Well.....we certainly got them aligned after that didn't we, lined right with the other side and against us. So the more fire power we applied the more enemy soldiers we created.

 

This war was a tragedy. Those in our government who should have done their homework believed the North Vietnamese were the puppets of the Communist Chinese. Clearly this was not the case. Our belief then was in the domino theory.....that if we let the North Vietnamese have Vietnam, China would have ruled Vietnam, and with Russia controlling China the dominos would be falling all over the world with Europe soon to fall to the conquering Red hordes.

 

No, you guys, the ones in the trenches didn't lose the war---we did as a nation because of our insufferable arrogance and stupidity.

 

1. You might want to brush up on your history. The USA never fought the Viet Minh in RVN. The Viet Minh had ceased to exist long before U.S. ground combat troops entered the country. The Viet Cong (which was not the same entity as the Viet Minh) ceased to exist as an effective fighting force after the horrendous losses they suffered during Tet 1968. When I fought in RVN, my adversaries were NVA regulars in-country and Democrats in the USA. For reasons I’ve never understood, I was legally prohibited from killing members of the latter group.

 

2. Your assertion the USA could not have militarily won the Vietnam War is preposterous. If the USA had fought World War II under the same ludicrous restrictions it did in RVN, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan would still be in existence. It’s tricky to win a war when a government forbids its army from crossing the border of the country it’s ostensibly fighting.

 

3. While I’ve fought in wars in six countries on two continents, I’ve never fought in a trench. You evidently have the Vietnam War confused with World War I. BTW, who were the "politically unaligned" people the USA bombed? The South Vietnamese people I met had as much enthusiasm for living under communist subjugation as I do in becoming a BATF or IRS agent. The ARVN troops I trained were still fighting in the Mekong Delta months after Saigon fell in 1975.

 

4. I’m not aware of any senior U.S. officials who seriously believed North Vietnam was a “puppet†of Red China. The USSR had far more influence in Hanoi than the Chinese communists did. Your notion the USA should have fought on behalf of Ho Chi Minh is bizarre. Did you want American paratroopers to aid the Soviets in suppressing the rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, too?

 

Originally posted by bigfoot:

TROOPER

You conveniently neglected to explain why the USA had any moral or legal obligation to intervene in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign

since when did USA even worry about legal obligations when it comes to occupying other countries.of course they had a moral obligation they were in Cambodia and left when the NV and KR were moving into Phnom Penh.

 

The only reason you're alive and/or not speaking Japanese is because of armed Americans.

Here we go again  another wanker thinking the USA saved the world

when i fact they use WOMD then get them banned 

 

Is there a reason why you Aussies didn't intervene?

YES we knew the Americans were involved so a complete fuck up would have taken place like they have everywhere in the world.

 

the last time I checked, Australia was a lot closer to Cambodia than the USA is thanks for that i couldn't think of having USA as a neighbour

 

1. Other than a temporary cross-border operation to clean out NVA troops in the Parrot’s Beak region, the USA never had any significant number of troops in Cambodia (unlike North Vietnam which had tens of thousands of soldiers there for years). We certainly never had a garrison in Cambodia which fled before the fall of Phnom Penh as you baselessly and falsely asserted.

 

2. Since U.S. forces weren't in Cambodia as you alleged, you'll have to concoct another lie to account for why Australia didn't intervene against Pol Pot's henchmen.

 

3. Would you care to cite the name of the country that prevented the Japanese invasion and occupation of Australia in 1942? No, I didn’t think so. BTW, the USA soundly defeated Japan before it dropped two fission bombs. It’s hard to discern which is the most ungrateful group of louts—the French, Brits or Aussies. I suppose morally conscious behavior is too much to expect from the descendants of penally transported English highwaymen.

 

4. I’m also happy the millions of gutless, docile statists that comprise Australia are on the other side of the world. I turned down a free trip to Australia in 1998 as I had no desire to visit a populace so ignorant and supine as to have just willingly surrendered the greatest individual liberty a free people may possess. Unfortunately, Americans have a bunch of amoral, Tory statists living just to the north of us. It’s an insignificant, obscure nation called ... wait, it will come to me ... ah, that’s right ... Canada.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The time for passive resistance and legal redress is past, and the time to take up arms has come. — John Ross, Unintended Consequences (1996).

 

Those who are capable of tyranny, are capable of perjury to sustain it. — Lysander Spooner

 

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. — Thomas Jefferson, 1824

 

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. — Dwight D. Eisenhower