Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

US Ranks 21 of 23 in Math

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by evlbruce, Oct 20, 2013.

  1. Witness the bold section...

    I tend to think anyone who signs up to serve their country of their own free will is worthy of respect as such. Similarly, holding opposing views is not an "infraction" worthy of disrespect. Our nation was founded on the ideals of everyone having a place, not just the people who believed a certain way. I'm sorry if you believe that one must fit an ideological mold to be a true American or some such nonsense. That's exactly the sort of thing we were fighting in Nazi Germany.

    Obviously, Germany was significantly different because of a whole host of reasons.

    1) we were actually attacked by their ally in an effort to keep us out of the war.

    2) our allies were being invaded and attacked by Nazi Germany.

    3) Nazi Germany was engaging in the wholesale, systematic genocide of its Jewish, Homosexual, and other minority populations.

    Obviously, there are many, many more reasons we got involved.

    The take home point is, 911 wasn't anything like Pearl Harbor. It wasn't even in the same moral equivalency universe as WWII. It was a terrorist attack. It was a horrible, unconscionable event, but it was not an act of war by a nation state.
  2. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Witness the bold selection. From a previous post. By you. Before I used the word "patriot" in my later post. You whipped out the "patriot card" and now you're backpeddling.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013

  3. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Exactly, so I don't see why your guy feels it's right to demonize those with opposing viewpoints and call them terrorists, extremists, hostage takers, suicide bombers, and all the other names. I also don't see how you can be a big supporter, but it's your right to be so. This is America, not Iraq under Saddam.

    Keep us out of the war? We were attacked by Japan, not Germany, and Japan had its own reasons for attacking us, not to somehow help Germany. I suggest you pick up a history book if you think Japan attacked the United States to help Germany. You might check into the U.S.S. Stark attack and the hundreds of illegal, unprovoked attacks on American aircraft in the No Fly Zone, as well.

    Like Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. ally was invaded by Germany before we got involved?

    You think Saddam wasn't engaging in genocide? You think homosexuals were well-treated in Iraq before we invaded? Do you remember the Kurds? Do you remember the attack on Halabja?

    So, now you will decide, based on degrees, when it's OK to violate another country's rights and attack, even when our country is not directly threatened. I suppose when you get elected President you can make those decisions. Our President at the time did exactly that, with the support of Congress.

    It was indeed an act of war, by a militant Islamic ideology against a Western, Judeo-Christian society. It is one more act of aggression in a 1200-year war. The planners were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush gave the leaders a chance to turn over the September 11 plotters. They refused.

    Similarly, Bush gave Saddam a chance to leave, along with his sons, and we would not have attacked Iraq. They refused. Bad miscalculation by Saddam. He ended up at the end of a rope because of it.
  4. Man... I love it.

    First off, Obama isn't "My Guy" as in I really don't like his arrogant ass.

    You can't seriously be trying to leverage moral equivalency between our war in Iraq and what happened in WWII. Nobody is that f-ed in the head.

    A buddy of mine from the Army was there when they found ole Saddam's stash of mothballed gas shells. The "Smoking gun" Faux news was all stoked about. He was like WTF lol.

    The problem with going to war over WMD's when you're talking Serin or some other chemical agent is that you can make the stuff in a halfway decent Community College chem lab. It's not like anyone with a brain was worried about Saddam handing it off to terrorists because terrorists can mix it up for themselves. It's not rocket science. If you can cook meth you can probably make a half decent nerve agent.

    Only thing is, without a really sophisticated delivery system, you're better off using your lab to cook meth. You'll wreck more peoples lives with Meth. Chemical weapons simply aren't that effective for mass casualties.

    But wait... The "Yellow Cake" thing and the Iraqi intel guy who supposedly met with one of the 911 hijackers. Right. Completely fabricated.

    So again, we went to war over smoke, mirrors, and BS. Bush managed to beat Osama's American body count by 2000, and idiots cheered him on.


    How about we pull most of our military home. Protect our country. Save a little money on Defense spending, and if/when we're attacked by a nation state we wage war on a scale that's so frightening that the world is like "damn" and then we leave. We don't rebuild. We don't do humanitarian service crap. We don't try and win the hearts and minds. We just do the job and leave. Basically what we should have done in Afghanistan.
  5. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    And yet, without any evidence, you describe George W. Bush as my "guy". Seriously? Are you that juvenile that you don't even recognize when I am being sarcastic and using your own insults against you. Go back and read your own verbal farting. It's quite amusing to anyone with a brain.

    The difference between Hitler and Saddam was a matter of degree, due to the nature of the German military and society, mostly. It certainly wasn't one of desire, since Saddam's desire for global domination were equally bad as Hitler's. The point is they were both evil dictators and both needed to go. Saddam started the war with us and we finished it. Hitler didn't fire the first shot on us, unless your secret military contacts have information that wasn't released to the public.

    Saddam had plenty of WMDs. Saddam didn't destroy them publicly. Saddam didn't keep them. Where are they? Where did they go?

    First of all it's Sarin, not Serin. And do you seriously think it's that easy to make WMDs? Why hasn't al Qaeda made them and used them against us, if it's so easy? Do you think they don't want to hurt us too bad? Are you that stupid? If it was truly easy, they would be made all over the place and used all the time by terrorists. They aren't. The evidence speaks clearly against you.

    Do you think al Qaeda is going to sell meth, or would they rather kill fifty thousand people in a major city with a WMD? I can almost not believe you are that dense. You must be kidding. You can't be that stupid. Nobody who can read could believe the stuff you write. It's a put on, right?

    Blame the British and Czech intelligence services, then. They came up with that information.

    And to rid the world of an evil, murderous regime.

    Yep, Saddam's demise was indeed beautiful for the world. Unless you are fan of rape, like Clinton. Perhaps you are. I don't know.

    That is what is happening now. And Iraq is falling apart. Great strategy. We are still in Europe after more than sixty years, to provide stability there. We cut and ran in Iraq and the country is falling apart. Nice way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. You and your Messiah must be proud.
  6. You left out the part where we wrecked the country, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and all that.

    Oh, and yes, I've got a bio-chem background. Nerve agents aren't rocket science. It's 60 year old technology which can be found on the internet if you don't mind ending up on every watch list there is.

    But as I said, and I know this from my time getting all that wonderful specialized NBC training, that delivery is key. Chemical agents are really hard to deliver properly. It's not like watching a movie with Nick Cage or some such.

    But if you think the war in Iraq made us more safe you're welcome to that assumption, but I seriously doubt it, and most people who study such things, including several friends of mine who are still active duty, including a very good friend who's serving a hitch as a spook in the AF agree that it didn't.

    The fact that you continue to play the moral equivalency card over and over cracks me up.

    Honestly, you have your version of history and everyone else has their own. I'm not going to debate it anymore. I frankly don't care enough to waste the time.

    (BTW, I mis-spelled the name of a certain organic chemical compound on purpose. Not really a fan of having my ISP targeted for scrutiny. Probably doesn't help anyway.)
  7. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Yeah, right. Every mistake I make is on purpose too. :rofl: I wish you could actually realize how you sound.

    You can believe the world would be a better place with Saddam and Uday and Qusay running Iraq, murdering people, launching rockets into Israel and Saudi Arabia, invading Kuwait and Iran. That's your right. Plenty of people died to give you the freedoms you don't care to give to Iraqis. Again, your right. Ignorance is curable, but it requires will. Natsos aren't famous for curing their ignorance, since voting for Natsos is easier and never requires much thought or justification. Carry on. I'm done with you. You never refuted my points, or my historical facts. You just resort to name calling. The end. :wavey:
  8. None of that was going on with him contained. We had effectively destroyed his ability to make war. He had nothing left. It took Clinton longer to take down the Branch Davidians than it took to take down Iraq.

    You're totally dicking up the time line. You're taking almost two decades of history and sandwiching it together as if it was still going on.

    Nobody disputes that Saddam was a bad guy but interestingly enough, if you understand the dynamic in the Middle East, he was necessary. He kept Iran off balance, which is much more of a threat to the region than Iraq ever was.

    That's the absolutely hilarious thing to me. From a tactical and strategic standpoint Iraq was just about the dumbest thing GW could have done. The only thing that could have destabilized the region more would have been to invade Turkey.

    But I'm honest enough to admit that and smart enough to see it while you're too invested in your point of view or ideological position to give up trying to play a 10 year old game of CYA.

    As I mentioned prior, now Iran has a ready made puppet state full of Shia to take over which will give them not only access to the most people in the region, but tons of oil.


    Hey dude, maybe ending up on watch lists isn't important to you but with my education background it's a big deal to me. I wasn't kidding when I said the science behind these horrific weapons is really fairly simple and anyone can do it with a good lab. Even the high energy physics behind a single stage atomic device is pretty basic by modern standards. My best friend is a Nuclear engineer and could probably design one on a napkin.

    The good thing about that is you can't ever hide where the fissile material came from.
  9. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    You're back!

    He had enough left to threaten his neighbors. You can't have it both ways. Either Saddam had enough left to keep Iran in check or he had nothing left. Which is it? Your own statements are contradictory.

    You have no concept of history. Saddam was an evil guy. He killed more Americans before we invaded than Hitler had killed before we invaded Germany. But, no matter how many instances of similarity between the two dictators I lay out, your only retort is ad hominem attacks on me. Very mature. Very constructive.

    That is precisely why a free, democratic Iraq, allied with the United States, and providing a base from which we could contain Iran was so valuable. Of course your guy has lost the peace, so that hope has evaporated.

    Once again, Captain Hindsight makes an appearance. As we didn't know there weren't any weapons of mass destruction left, we also didn't know how the peace would go. Was Bush naive in thinking that people around the world desire to live in a democratic society? Of course. It is the naivete that stems from his belief in the essential goodness of man. You can indeed fault him for that.

    Thanks, Captain Hindsight. Too bad you couldn't go back in time and let all the world's intelligence agencies know that the WMDs were gone.

    See Captain Hindsight above. Feel superior now? :rofl:

    Sure, whatever you say. You didn't misspell a word. You are a genius and outsmarted the NSA. Al Qaeda would never think of such a plan.

    Again, if they were so easy to build, why hasn't al Qaeda built one yet? Why has it taken Iran years to build one? Why are there so few nations on the planet that have them?

    And, if civilian casualties are your measure of success, do you even realize that millions of civilians were killed during World War Two? MILLIONS. Was it worth it? To you, of course, but tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq make that war unjustifiable. Pull up your pants, your hypocrisy is showing. Do you even know what happened in Hiroshima? Do you have any idea of the destruction we caused to Berlin, or Dresden, or Hamburg, or any of the other hundreds of targets in Europe and Japan? That makes our limited damage in Iraq look like a joke. Much destruction was and is being caused by terrorists, but that is hardly our doing, and we worked hard to prevent it. That is, until your guy got into office with his magical RESET button. How's that working out for you?

    No country in the history of mankind has spent a hundredth the amount of money and resources we have in an effort to reduce civilian casualties. We use precision munitions when feasible, because they are more effective but also because they reduce collateral damage.

    And, since I caught you in a falsehood, I will give you another chance to name the American allies that were invaded and attacked by Hitler before we got involved. I'll wait.

    Time after time I've shown that Saddam was Hitler-light. He was equally evil, but not as effective in his execution. "Good riddance" is what a normal person would say. "Too bad he's gone" and "I miss the good old days" is what a liberal says. Your historical knowledge is quite impressive. :upeyes:
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  10. How about this...

    Bush and evidently you, have this idea that we can just sprinkle freeberty around and people will become Americans. It's incredibly naive and frankly sort of childish.

    My attitude on this is if they want freedom bad enough they can f-ing take it for themselves. Otherwise they won't appreciate it and they'll piss it away.

    As such, we had (again) no business trying to liberate a bunch of folks who couldn't be bothered to liberate themselves.

    But keep making excuses for GW's dumb ass.

    I mean why draw the line at Iraq. By your standards we should have gone into Africa decades ago. We should have invaded N-Korea already.

    Can't pick and choose dude. Either we adopt preemptive war and apply it across the board or we go back to a sane strategy of only using military force when it's needed.
  11. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    As I said above. For naivete Bush can indeed be criticized. Read what I said.

    So, you are against what we did in World War Two, liberating France. And Germany. And Belgium. And Holland. And Norway. Really, dude, you need to be logically consistent. Either you're for preemptive war, as we launched against Hitler and Saddam, or you're against it.

    Bush is so stupid he went to Yale and has a Harvard MBA. You barely finished high school and spend your days trolling Glock Talk. I think we know who's "dumb" by the personal attacks.

    Yep, can't pick and choose, dude. Either you're for preemptive war in Germany in 1941 or you're not. Can't have it both ways, Captain Hindsight.

    You really are something special. Nice try, though.
  12. MZBKA


    Apr 14, 2004
    Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attacked. That's not a preemptive war.
  13. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    So you think in 1941 Germany posed a direct threat to the United States?
  14. Stubudd


    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    Not gonna read all that because i can guess what all was said. I'll just say, you have to understand you can't have both. You can't have a government that takes over countries on the other side of the world and think they won't take over healthcare and everything else too.

    War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistable forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense...the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war...

    ...the State represents all the autocratic, arbitrary, coercive, belligerent forces within a social group, it is a sort of complexus of everything most distasteful to the modern free creative spirit, the feeling for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. War is the health of the State. Only when the State is at war does the modern society function with that unity of sentiment, simple uncritical patriotic devotion, cooperation of services, which have always been the ideal of the State lover...A nation's patriotic history is solely the history of its wars, that is, of the State in its health and glorious functioning. So in responding to the appeal of the flag, we are responding to the appeal of the State, to the symbol of the herd organized as an offensive and defensive body, conscious of its prowess and its mystical herd-strength...

    ...Once the State has begun to function, and a large class finds its interest and its expression of power in maintaining the State, this ruling class may compel obedience from any uninterested minority. The State thus becomes an instrument by which the power of the whole herd is wielded for the benefit of a class. The rulers soon learn to capitalize the reverence which the State produces in the majority, and turn it into a general resistance towards a lessening of their privileges. The sanctity of the State becomes identified with the sanctity of the ruling class and the latter are permitted to remain in power under the impression that in obeying and serving them, we are obeying and serving society, the nation, the great collectivity of all of us...
  15. Stubudd


    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    There is only one way out. Less of it, of all of it. They will keep you played against each other, battling each other over whether you need them to save you from boogeymen terrorists or boogeymen insurance execs until they've taken all there is to take.
  16. MZBKA


    Apr 14, 2004
    Germany at the time had the largest, most advanced military complex in history. Yes, a declaration of war by such a country is a direct threat...nobody should have to spell that out for you.
  17. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    And Iraq repeatedly attacked American aircraft, violating the terms of the cease fire. It declared war on the United States by doing so. It also refused to allow full and unfettered access to chemical and nuclear weapons sites, possibly hiding WMDS and also posing a direct threat to the United States. Nobody should have to spell that out for you. Except for Captain Hindsight, who makes another appearance. :wavey:
  18. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    After 8 years, when does Barry take some responsibility.

  19. Oh crap! I guess that means 5000 dead US military personnel is totally justified.

    Do you have a non-partisan bone in your entire body? Can you at least admit that Iraq was a huge blunder at least once?
  20. fortyofforty


    Jul 9, 2005
    Can you and your Captain Hindsight buddies in the Natso party at least admit that the reasons (plural) we invaded Iraq were well-intentioned and that the world is better off without Saddam?

    Germany posed NO DIRECT THREAT to the United States in 1941. Germany with all her military might could not even manage a cross-channel invasion. Can you and your buddies admit that, or are you so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you can't see the obvious similarities in why we went to war in both cases?

    Seriously, your knowledge of history is pathetic and speaks ill of the state of education in America.