Forum Post: US attacks Yemen AGAIN
Posted 12 years ago on May 7, 2012, 10:26 a.m. EST by hchc
(3297)
from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
No asking for permission from the UN, or NATO. We dont care. We bomb them and anyone else whenever we feel like it. Disgusting.
How many innocent people, or people who simply dont want AMERICA in their own country, died in this one?
YEMEN LOCATION
I thought most of the 911 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia
looks like core grinding al Qaeda figures. No question asked. 1, 2, 3, - clear. Buildings can kill! In fact the freaking explosive comes from nowhere but America. most likely US made
Where they are from and where they hang out are two different things. Many of their missions have been launched from Yemen, i.e. USS Cole
Yemen has been waging an offensive on Al Qaeda, whose fighters took advantage of the country's political turmoil during the past year to expand their hold in the south, seizing entire cities and towns and large swathes of land. Abyan's provincial capital of Zinjibar has been held by Al Qaeda for a year.
yes the USS cole was hit by an enemy ship while in habor by a boat full of explosives
not terribly sophisticated
but destruction is easier than construction so
True,
The WTC was hit by commuter plains. Not terribly sophisticated but very destructive.
it helped that the meta stable structure was destroyed and gravity brought the buildings down
I was amaze how long it took such a massive structure to fall
Yup. 18 guys from Saudi Arabia hijack planes, and this leads to an absolute middle east takeover, of everyone BUT saudi arabia.
Lord only knows what we dont really know. But I do know its fucked up and we need to stop.
Oil. Get it? A.k.a. many things which move -- cars, trucks, groceries, jobs. Saudi Arabia is actually a U.S. diplomatic success (nationalization averted through income tax) -- autocratic but relatively STABLE! All right, metastable.
I think oil comes from all over the planet
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html
Your information is very much out-of-date -- before fracking and deepwater drilling techniques came into widespread usage. Saudi Arabia had (or perhaps has) swing capacity for oil production. It could (or perhaps can) affect oil prices virtually overnight by simply announcing new oil production targets. With all of the U.S. dollars that became available in China and India (think about how THAT had happened?), demand for oil is much higher and will grow for the foreseeable future. Now Saudi Arabia's clout on oil prices seems to have waned quite a bit but still the U.S. does not want to rock THAT boat much lest the global economy (including the U.S. economy) suffers (yes, it could mean more people losing their jobs or paying more for oil products). Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have settled into a cozier relationship since the early '70s oil embargo. Even OPEC has seemingly become more benign due to its price stabilizing role nowadays.
it is sad that
we keep throwing around so much extra weight with our vehicles
You have made an important connection there. I hope that more people will understand the connections between many things. Nowadays, economies are intertwined to an unprecedented degree. Policies need to be thought out thoroughly. "Stimulus" often simply squirts overseas and not much domestic stimulation happens, for example.
Only because these stimulus programs aren't spent on the right things.
That is definitely part of it. Haste makes waste when actions are not fitted into a coherent framework that aims to achieve well-thought-out goals.
15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia according to the passports.
Some of the identities, maybe even all of the identities of the hijackers might even be unknown because some of the passports used are known as stolen.
Either way this was an act of terrorism from a group of crazies like Tim McVeigh... not a specific country.
or passed along
Thebonly contries in the UN that caer about us killing him are terrorist supporting countries like Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. England, France, Germany, and Israel don't give a shit because He was a TERRORIST. The government of Yemen was on our side. We were authorized to because we are working with them to get Al-Queda out. It says it right there in the article. I really don't understand how anyone can possibly be upset by this. We were working with Yemen government.
We are bombing for other nations now? Thats neat.
And if you think this had anything to do with the Cole, you are too dumb to fail,.
Were not just bombing for ther nations we are working jointly with Yamen to help them get their country back. They handle stuff on the ground and we give them some help with long range airstrikes. Yemen is a terrorism breeding ground. Do you think we should not give them a little help or do yo uthonk that their country should just remain a terrorism ridden shit hole.
The entire planet suffers from terrorism you clown. I dont think that dropping bombs in Yemen is going to keep a small handful of people from bombing us in the future.
Well killing the top leaders of terrorist cells sure will disorganize and slow them down buddy. PlusI don't think that helping a country get away for terrorism is actually a bad thing. A little help goes a long way.
Terrorism has taken on quite a few meanings this last decade. If the Russians were going door to door here, looking for terrorists, Im sure as hell not letting them in my house. And I would be labeled a terrorist/insurgent.
Us thinking we can BOMB away a problem that is as old as prostetution is insane. And the people that make these decisions are not dumb. Which means this is not about terrorism at all.
Look at how many threads get talked on, but this one that displays the 1% using bombs to get their way in another country, gets none.
There is a severe culture decay going on over here, and its the leading cause of our demise. Did the 1% perpetrate it? Im not sure. REgardless, its a two headed monster that isnt stopping anytime soon.
The US didn't "attack" Yemen. You don't need permission from NATO or the UN to do this if the government of that country allows it. The internationally recognized government of Yemen, allowed the US to do it.
Mexico has problems with the drug cartels. If they were to ask the US with some help capturing/eliminating a druglord (as they have in the past), would there be much difference?
[Removed]
people have generally believed al cada to be made up terrorist for years
S it is okay for the terrorists to kill us but not okay for us to kill them. I'm pretty sure that they did not ask the UN for permission. Besides the UN is absolutly horrible. They were in Rawanda during the massacre and left people to be slaughtered. I'm to saying that we did anything to stop it but we should not give a fuck about the UN.
There will come a day when other countries are bombing us here, and we are so broke that we cannot defend ourselves, and those countries will just claim they were insurgents.
You dumb motherfuckers that believe anything a corrupt being tell you are a real danger to society in general.
Never gonnna happen because they are all pussies. England and Germany don't care if we send strikes into Yemen. The fact that they will do nothing to help in Syria and Africa proves that.
it's pretty hard to shot bombs down
BRIC countries are laughing at your arrogance.
And so are the bankers. The money will leave this country soon. Too many regulations, too many dumb people, and too many greedy people willing to help sell it to the highest bidder.
A response that is not at all relating to the topic.
If you dont see how that will lead to us being the ones bombed, as we desperately try to hold onto the number one spot (which is kind of happening already) then you are part of the population that is chasing the money out of here,.
Expect more of this until November. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
Obama is amazing no matter what!!! It doesn't matter if he bombs countries that didn't attack us instead of using diplomacy! It doesn't matter if civilians die from these bombs at a 50 to 1 ratio against the "enemy." I am a blind Obama supporter and he's perfect no matter how many Monsanto execs he appoints to the FDA! I will vote for Obama no matter how many dollars Goldman Sachs gives him for appointing Goldman Sachs execs to his key economic positions. I'll still vote for him if he re-appoints Bush's Ben Bernanke to the federal reserve! I'm such a blind Obama supporter I don't even care if what Obama and NATO did to Libya is a short version of what Bush did to Iraq. Saddam is bad we have to kill him... even though he's not a threat and didn't attack us and that makes it against the law. Gaddafi is bad and we have to kill him. even though he's not a threat and didn't attack us and that makes it against the law.
Ignorance is bliss.
You are finally catching on. I knew there'd be hope for you if you just kept coming back. lol. Kidding of course. So who have you decided to vote for? Do you believe Mittens will end the war. DO you believe Ron Paul could end the war?
I don't believe any of those people really have power to end the war on terror. You'd be better off staging Congressional election campaigns to end the war. Or hire a lobbying group.
The GOP is never the answer.
Gadhafi was implicated in the Berlin nightclub and Lockerbie bombings. The U.S. and its allies have very long memories. Saddam's fighter jets killed with missiles U.S. servicemen on the U.S.S. Stark. Again, long memories. Sometimes amnesia is a much desired state of consciousness for peace but no, some events endure until they have been avenged (add Osama bin Laden).
And Saddam invaded Kuwait a while back. So now the war in Iraq is good and awesome?
And with Lockerbie and Berlin... What year was that? 1988? Neither of those were against the US. Also wasn't Gaddafi taken out in 2011 and not in 1988?
Gaddafi was terrible. But you don't solve a problem by taking out a leader who is abusive and kills those who oppose them with people who are abusive and kill those who oppose them. We don't know anything about the rebels and so far they have been worse than Gaddafi.
Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda ties with the Libyan rebels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video
NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This should officially classify them as "associated forces" under the NDAA of 2012. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw
Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
U.S. servicemen and civilians were murdered in incidents attributed to Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Yes, the U.S. was involved in toppling them but both died at the hands of their own people. I am not saying that widowed families of the U.S. might not have found closure in those cases. Only Osama bin Laden was directly executed by the U.S. and that was for 9/11, U.S.S. Cole, and U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. By international law, attacks on embassies amount to attacks on the country being represented by the embassies. The attack on U.S.S. Cole should have caused the U.S. to shift into high terror alert but the U.S. fumbled the intelligence handling due to the very chaotic (and adversarial) transition from Clinton's to Bush Jr.'s administration, due to the general-election cliff-hanger in Florida (those dangling chits, absentee ballots, etc.).
You completely dodged everything I've posted in regards to the failure of what was done in Libya. What Obama and NATO did to Libya was as great of an idea as throwing a bunch of money at Wall Street... it's not a real solution to the problem. In Libya crimes against humanity were the problem and crimes against humanity occurred during the bombings from NATO and as well from Libyan rebels as they murder, torture, and rape those who oppose them.
What attack on US embassy? What year? I don't remember Libya doing shit to the USA since Obama has been in office nor since Bush was in office. Nothing credible at least or Obama would have used those for his justification to join NATO and bomb Libya.
The attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa were NOT connected to Gadhafi but the Berlin nightclub bombing and the downing of a civilian airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland involved Gadhafi. Gadhafi did try to come clean eventually after years of sanctions and also give up on building a nuclear bomb after seeing what had happened in Iraq. Being Christian means forgiveness counts so that may have been why these were not used as justifications. Libya is of vital importance for Europe but is of peripheral interest to the U.S. due to geography and the oil trade. It made sense for Europe to do the finishing-up work and claim the victory after the U.S. had destroyed much of Gadhafi's air force. The U.S. had already had a bad reputation in the Arab world due to the war in Iraq but its passivity and later engagement with N.A.T.O. action only after U.N. resolution and Arab League request made its action more palatable in the Arab world.
So you're saying Gaddafi was not a threat to the USA and did not attack us in 2011?
So it was a war of aggression?
I'm not arguing with you whether or not Gaddafi was a terrible human being. I'm talking about legalities of war and the rule of law. If we have already used diplomacy in the past to get gaddafi to stop building a nuke... why would we skip diplomacy and jump straight to bombs in 2011? Could it maybe be that Obama is continuing the Bush war legacy?
"Iran is the prize in the center." - from the movie W
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw
The official representative to the U.N. from Libya helped pushed through the U.N. resolution and that IS legitimate under U.N. charter. Gadhafi made the fatal mistake of depriving water to a city and promising a massacre. Yes, a rebellious city but that was "out of bounds" even for the self-anointed "King of Kings." You sure know how the U.S. would have taken that. The U.S. did show restraints afterwards but shall we say that the die was cast?
Oh and this
The assassination follows NATO’s more than month-long siege of Sirte, the Libyan coastal city that was Gaddafi’s hometown and a center of his support. The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.
Sounds pretty bad. Well that's what happened from the bombs. How was that an answer if you're saying it was justified because Gaddafi deprived water to a place and said he would destroy it? Do you see the outrageous hypocrisy here?
Gaddafi built a damn and provided water to people
There's also rumors out there that he liked the idea of gold dinars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLJu0X14vmg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi
Gaddafi had it coming ... the end.
building bombs 'til bunkers boil
getting paid for shell filled toil
if I am to work tomorrow
lobe the load on foreign soil
Nice poem and all ... but the mother fucker murdered almost 200 of our citizens over Lockerbie Scotland. You don't just build dams and think you can get away with that shit.
pales against 500,000 Iraqi's
but ya killing is wrong
[Removed]
Our government denies important living materials to countries with the UN. It's called sanctions.
Remember the 500,000 plus children that died from sanctions in Iraq in the 90's? "The price was worth it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo
Diplomacy is the solution.
Helping brutes like the rebels was not the right way.
Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda ties with the Libyan rebels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video
NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This should officially classify them as "associated forces" under the NDAA of 2012. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw
Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
This shit is not an answer. It's warmongering.
Reducing tensions is best. Diplomacy can help in some cases but it is totally useless in others. Military power is an ultimate extension of "diplomacy" for recalcitrant cases. Gadhafi did NOT get IT, unlike our former generals Douglas MacArthur and Stanley McChrystal. There were ample warnings and pleads given him from many different quarters to simply "fade away" and enjoy a life of comfort and pleasure but he desired to live and die in Libya. What a foolish "patriot" he was, so he got his wish, a most unfortunate ending for him, and way too much bloodshed for others but that was the lot for human beings, alas!
Who killed more people in Libya? Gaddafi in 2011... or Obama, NATO, and the rebels?
Sadly the correct answer is not Gaddafi.
So how was the military force a solution if it was supposed to be a humanitarian effort?
The city of Sirte is literally destroyed.
What was done in Libya was not a solution. Stop defending it. You're like the GOP trying to defend Iraq back when Bush was in office.
I am not defending the killings. I am stating the fact that being wise could have helped Gadhafi get out of danger. It was obvious that his people wanted him out if you had seen what TYPES of people were taking up arms against him. These were NOT the people that we would have associated with being revolutionaries nor were they militarily competent (which explains why it had dragged on for so long and was so gory) but no matter they were willing to DIE to rid themselves of Gadhafi. After many decades of Gadhafi's accumulating bad karma, Newton's third law became somewhat "invalid" -- the reactions became much greater than the actions and it yielded much gore. At least the end result is that those who wanted to live free or die had their wishes fulfilled -- many died so others may live free.
"The official representative to the U.N. from Libya"....wow, this guy falls for just about anything.....
There is no convincing someone who has a closed mind. I WILL fall prostrate in front of the real truth so yes, I can be a real sucker, sometimes. I hope that other people know how things may NOT be what they seem and do their homework.
here's an interesting take on why libya happened: http://thekwanbox.blogspot.com/2011/10/follow-money.html
The video seems to have been deleted. In any case, it will amount to a hypothesis. There are consistency, data, motive, and logic checks that need to be done on it before it gains credibility. Hopefully it will also get some corroborations from multiple independent sources.
It won't. He's dead. It will be written as Obama saved the people from a mass killing.
There were other countries which had joined the effort to use their currencies instead of the U.S. dollar but the U.S. did NOT take up arms against them.
Honestly, who knows what happened. After they faked the Tonkin thing that led to 60,000 deaths, can you really believe a word they say.
"Made it more palatable in the Arab world"....Is this guy for real?
I didn't get that part either.
There ARE Arabs who get very upset about other Arab civilians getting killed for no good reasons aside from their speaking out. There ARE also Islamists who get very upset about other Islamist civilians getting killed for no good reasons aside from their speaking out. U.S. involvement became more palatable to THESE people. I sure hope that Americans will live up to at least the same standard of these people when the U.S. government starts killing OWS Americans.
They almost killed one in Oakland.
What about all the civilians that the government has killed, including in countries we're not at "war" with, and then dismiss as "casualties" ? This is why the wars must end. No more war crimes. Not from republicans and not from democrats.
If you agree with ending the wars... then stop backing them and stop voting for politicians that keep them going.
Innocent civilian deaths are lamentable. So-called surgical strikes sometimes go horribly wrong and there are also crackpot cases sometimes, unfortunately. It is realistic to reduce wars/"actions" and the collateral damages through reducing tensions and improving understandings among peoples. Let people stop seeing other countries as monolithic blocs and start seeing them as individuals. That may help reduce the clamors for going to wars. Exposing even the best of our military professionals to long-term conflicts can cause tremendous mental-stress disorders, not to mention the horrors visited upon the civilians.
You've really concvinced yourself of a lot of bullshit, havent you. Clinton was a Bush guy, there was no transition.
Clinton and Bush can serve the same masters but that does not mean that their staffs were amicable to each other or believed each other about the severity of the terrorist threats from al-Qaeda. There were many U.S. agencies which all supposedly worked for the U.S. but they did NOT cooperate with each other to thwart 9/11 because of turfs. Abraham Lincoln was right -- a house divided against itself cannot stand. Let both major parties keep that in mind as they go about their political fights.
They arent divided. They could care less. They are all getting rich up there.
"Its a big special club, and YOU aint in it!!"....
Our President IS in it now. You see, the real problem is that Washington can change people. "I'll change things when I get to the top." "I would not mind being on top just for a short while because I am here to get things DONE." "Oh, I'll change things a bit and not quite what I had promised but you have no better choice so keep me on top on you." "Better be screwed twice than to leave your aroused lust go unsatisfied."
Washington has such an easy time changing people because of a few things:
A) we let them and the corps preselect our "choices" B) we dont vote for real people, only good two shoes who have never lived C) its isolated up there, and the people continue to vote in more D and R
You almost cant blame them for not giving a fuck.
Give a frack, no regret, before 30 days. Ooooo! Ahhhh! See what I mean? What IS the difference between a Brazilian sea dog and a Portuguese water dog?
and this
On August 17, 2003, newspapers reported that Libya had signaled to the German government that it was ready to negotiate compensation for the bombing with lawyers for non-U.S. victims.[9] A year later, on August 10, 2004, Libya concluded an agreement to pay a total of $35 million compensation.[10] In October 2008, Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the following: Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20% of the sum agreed in 2003; American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing; American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and, Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi
doesn't quite make up for what was done in the 80's... but still just proves how much less of a threat Libya was that they had decided to compensate for their attacks in the 80's
You should top post this one
I would but I'm sick of arguing with the "Obama is our savior" people because that is the response I get from them.
too bad
I was thinking about putting up a sign
Congratulation our company has been bomb free for X days
NO UN APPROVAL. But if a corrupted government says "Go kill these guys" then we just fuckin love to do it!!!!!!!!
US Predators strike again in southern Yemen By Bill RoggioApril 16, 2012
US drones killed five al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula fighters in a strike today in an area that is currently under the terror group's control.
US strikes in Yemen
The US has carried out at least four airstrikes in Yemen this month; the last strike took place on April 14 in Baydah province. The US launched at least six strikes against AQAP in Yemen in March.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/04/us_predators_strike_35.php#ixzz1uCnC8HYe
You do realize the gov't of Yemen gave us permission to bomb their nation. I know that don't jive with your "brutal President" narrative. I see a president enforcing the laws of the land. Even if I don't agree with them, the war on terror was implemented by Congress.
Although I'm probably just as much pacifistic as you, it is really hard to tar a President when he is technically helping to coordinate "an offensive against al Qaeda ordered by Yemen's new President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi and supported by a broader U.S. drone campaign," as quoted from your article.
The "war on terror" policy is a bad policy, but criticizing the President for enforcing the policy is kinda short sided. Are we to blame the cops for the prison incarceration levels, or the policies that create the high numbers?
I sure hope my government does give permission to bomb me
..
The "war on terror" policy
is a policy propagated by those that profit through the production and use of warfare weaponry
"New president" and now we are bombing people for him.
I wouldnt blame the cops anymore than I would blame the troops.
If there was a commander in chief for the police department, who could change things but refused to, then yes, I would blame the commander in chief of the police.
And I love how "Al Queda" whatever the hell that is, is now everywhere, as we seem to be everywhere also.
I guess my analogy would have worked better if i said: would we be mad at legislators or the Governor for the high incarceration rates?
I don't believe that presidents make decisions on their own. The Council on Foreign Relations and bureaucratic chiefs have a strong influence on which policies the President enforces. Although some people believe the President decides on his own what actions he will take, I don't believe that is how it works. At least, I've never seen that type of decision making done in any job or interaction I have had. There has always been a few people making the decisions after weighing pros and cons.
I do understand your frustration with the pejoratively elusive term, El Queda. It reminds me of the Red Scare. Gov't needs their boogie men. The masses eat them up. Though you'd think they would have learned their lesson by now.
You don't believe CIA committed a coup d'etat in Yemen? do you? You believe they pulled a Chile on The Arabian Peninsula? It wouldn't surprise me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#US_involvement
[Removed]
2 Things on Al Queda:
I love how if we are friendly with the governement, then its "Al queda" that is fighting them. If we dont like the government, then we back the "rebels".
Nary a wimper from the either side of teh isle on this massive bombing campaign in the ME and Africa is exactly why Obama isnt going anywhere in the 2012 elections.
This guy is one smooth operator.
We didn't kill anyone except for a person that attacked a United States war ship and killed Americans. I'm pretty sure everyone is okay with it. Does anyone believe we should not have sent the strike and let him be out again plotting more attacks ?
I am NOT OK with killing anyone
strikes
hell no
bombs are area of effect
that's how Ghadaffi's grandchildren where accidentally killed 2 days before the assassination of Bin Ladan
yes i think we should be out of that place 5 years ago. funny how five years ago there wasnt any bombing of yemen, there wasnt any big thing going on in afganistan. no it was iraq. why do you fall for this bullshit. in 5 years from now it will be some where else. all agianst what? they have no airplanes, they have no navy. they have nothing. why the hysterical fear ?? and why arent you over there if you believe this? join the army today or shut up
Were not talkong about Iraq. Were talkong about millones a man that has keller US Sailors.
"plotting more attacks" we are talking about 1998, right?
if you really think that the USS cole had ANYTHING to do with that, then you are an idiot.
If this guy hasnt been able to blow anything up for 14 years, then HE is clearly an idiot too.
Either way, we could do without both of you.
If you believe that story, I have some great swampland for you....
[Removed]
Did the terrorist ask for UN permission to attack us on 9/11?.
You do realize that the attack on the WTC and the later attacks on 9/11 were a direct result of U.S. foreign policy. We have spread a pernicious influence of imperialistic corruption throughout the world, and many people hate us for it. Past examples have been Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden, et al
The U.S. seeks above all else some semblance of stability in the world. Yes, metastability IS better than instability and true stability is better than metastability. True stability tends to exist in freer and more open societies and metastability tends to exist in authoritarian or autocratic societies. Che Guevara and Osama bin Laden are dead and Fidel Castro with his age is not far behind. Hugo Chavez has had cancer so he may be questionable. His nationalizing oil company assets in Venezuela is retreading what the U.S. had gone through many decades ago with Iran and in the Middle East. The lingering effects of "nationalization" are still with us today. Zimbabwe also went through de-facto property confiscation and experienced hyperinflation. We should all be careful not to make the same mistakes again for the sake of many parties involved. Argentina comes into mind as a recent example.
The old flag of Texas that had a rattlesnake and the motto, "Don't tread on me." captures the U.S. sentiment well. After all, at one time or another, many ancestors of ours forsook the Old World for the New World to find freedom and build a new society. One thing that can really upset us is to discover that the Old World had come to us here, too, and the U.S. can be very overbearing when it is really upset and roars a reply. It may be irrational but it probably took some lunacy to begin with to move to an unknown land.
people feel they have control to the land the live on
Yes, that is why I feel that we should tread lightly when people's properties are involved. I also know that we are a country that bristles with guns, guns, and more guns. Teddy Roosevelt's "Talk softly and carry a big stick" may not work well here.
I don't own a gun
none of my friends do
I live in san diego
City folks tend to own fewer guns so I am not surprised. It may also have something to do with ones' upbringing. In some perfectly safe neighborhoods, I still know people who own quite a few guns but they had owned them for a long time.
there's no room to shot in the city
Yes, indeed. It does not make much sense at all but some bring back fond childhood memories to people.
we used to fight with sticks until I lost a tooth
Ratcheting it up can turn it into an excellent argument for why we should work on nuclear non-proliferation earnestly. "We used to fight with nuclear bombs until we lost New York and Shanghai," anyone? really?
Jackie Chan is my favorite prop artist
many nations sit with nuclear weapons in their back pocket
none should have to
I recall that Albert Einstein said something like NOT knowing what weapons would be used in the next great war but he was SURE that STICKS would be used after that one. You may be one step ahead of many other people if we are still on track.
[Removed]
So we should hold us to the same moral level of terrorists?
Go ask building 7 about that one..
[Removed]