Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why do Americans love war so much?

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 20, 2012, 2:58 a.m. EST by MikeMcKeel (-109)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why do Americans love war? Why do we buy guns and go to the shooting range? Why do we pay huge amounts of taxes to fund wars in other countries? Why are we proud of our military and president when we take down other nations? Does this stem from the root of our culture?

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Because it's sexy.

Really.

Not the ramifications or the actual reasons for going to war-but this

Many people in the US do not love war that is why fear propaganda works so well.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You talkin' to me?

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's friday night. You're going on a blind date as usual. What are you hoping for? A cop who knows how to handle a big powerful gun, or an occupier well versed in the people's mic?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Right. When you look at all of the weapons that the US has and look at all of what everyone else has, I think it has a huge "sexy" factor. Add in all of the machismo of the film industry and it is very cultural. It is good to be at the top, yeah? As long as all of the drama is not on the mainland then the media can carry on as if it isn't happening. When our people come home and have major problems, the media can carry on as if it isn't happening which reinforces the notion that there was never any drama to begin with.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Certainly, you are right, the media plays a huge role in America's love for guns.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Umm no the media wishes hey had that much pull. We love guns because its what helped us get our freedom. Guns (like than or not ) are the great equalizer, everyone who has come to this country knows that. Gov. Can't easily control an armed citizenry

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

How's that working in Syria?

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

The citizens of most developed countries have move freedom than US citizens, and they don't carry guns.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

What exactly do you mean they have more freedom? It's all in how we started as a nation, the gun gave us freedom and allows for protection. That's ingrained in the US it will never matter how other countries do or do not do things. We're unique (good or bad) I have a conceal to carry license and a .40 cal in my car that is dust covered (because I've never had to pull it out) and I hope it stays dust covered, I think your trying to compare apples to apples.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Homosexuals have more freedom in most other developed nations than in US. You lag behind in same-sex marriage, even when compared with Mexico. This is an important example of freedom. You also have laws put in place whereby the US government can arrest people without a trial, or without even proper evidence. There are many examples. US is not that free when compared to European countries, Canada, etc...

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Same sex marriage is not really a good example. Just because you don't hear about those things dose not mean they are not happening. Mexico is one of the most corrupt places on the planet you have to fear the cops as much as the drug dealers. I can't speak for Europe I've never lived there so......

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Homosexual rights is a great example. To judge the freedom of a country, one should look at how the minorities are treated.

[-] 1 points by MonsieurAvery (14) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

That's merely picking out an obvious example. One could argue that in the U.S. one's freedom of speech is far less likely to be infringed upon than in a European nation. France is a great example of how poorly treated religious minorities are in their country, especially Muslims.

Now let's stop this vitriolic "who is better than who" argument and agree that both the U.S. and the E.U. are fascist and imperialist institutions who are happy with oppressing the "lesser" people of the world.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Marriage isn't really a civil right, I think the two are completely separate.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's the question of having the same freedoms for every citizen. I read the story of a gay couple in US who had been together for 30 years. When one of them became terminally ill with cancer, his partner was not allowed to see him at the hospital because the family refused to allow him. Had they been married, he would have had that choice because he would have been family.

When some citizens have more freedom than others, then you cannot talk of a free country.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

For me that's a non issue there are some states they can some they can't. I def. do not put marriage and freedom in the same sentence. In fact no marriage is one of the best aspects of being gay IMHO. Sorry just not a issue for me.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's a non issue for you because you haven't been in the position of a gay person who has less freedom than an heterosexuals because he can't get married. If you cared about freedom, then you would care that everyone can benefit from the same freedoms.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

I'm not a fan of marriage period, my experience with it could nt be considered freedom. Marriage can take two people who care abou eachother and grind them down to hateful trolls who pay lawyers $250 an hour to fight over $4 kitchen ware. The divorce finically devastates one or both parties and lawyers are the only ones who make out. I would be very careful what you wish for you may just get it.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 2 years ago

We Love War because we have been taught to and because 'peace' does not pay the bills for our massive war-machine. Our nation was born in violence and we have a 'cult of the warrior' culture.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Is America proud of Vietnam? Iraq?
I do not think so
Why do we buy guns?
For the same reason we buy hair color or a new car every year -
WE ARE TOLD TO
and it is much easier to OBEY than to reason


note the connection between: the decendants of the worst traitors America has ever had
anti-abortion crazies
gun nuts
religious dictators
creationists
"all of the OTHERS will go to hell"

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Dunno...people eat it up though. Every time one of the candidates talked about strong arming Iran last night the people meter would spike....population eats it up.

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Everyone in this world have to follow the rules... lets pick up fight and bring love and peace http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=THux1z6JSWQ#!

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Listen Up:

1) The Americas were wild, were settled by pioneers & bandits, and were settled by people that knew it was going to be hard, take guns, and require you to fight for what you can get.
2) That was a different Culture even before the Great War (WWI) and WWII which were widely viewed as patriotic wars. And after WWI & WWII we were a changed nation. A nation that felt proud of going to war.
3) The Americas, South America, Central America, and North America are still looked at as Frontiers by Europeans even if US Citizens don't see themselves as Frontiersmen.
4) You can say that the US has perfected War more than any other nation in this Century.
5) The US Assumed the Role of Superpower after WWII and not only funded organizations to fulfill the role, but also engaged in detailed strategic planning to defend American style government from Communism and any left leaning governments in the Western World.
6) Hollywood is as big a factor as propaganda as TVs filled livingrooms across the US with all the movies about Western Cowboys, Indians, and war. Now boys grow up learning about criminals, guns, courts, how to avoid getting caught for commiting crimes, assassination, drug lords, and war.
7) The percentage of kids that come from military families is probably pretty low considering the percentage of military families in the USA.
8) It is always good to start a war every 10-20 years to refresh the training of our military men. Korea to Vietnam in 10 years, Vietnam to Grenada/Nicaragua/Guatamala in 10 years, Panama in another 5 years, Gulf War in 10 more Years, Afghanistan/Iraq in 10 more years... Etc.
9) But don't forget we had the Banana War in the Carribean, Central and South America which lead to the Monroe Doctrine. The point of the Banana Wars was to support our US Corporations in these regions. The implications of the Monroe Doctrine may still be yet to be determined. Here we can see deep US Willingness and Intensions to pursuit it's agenda in South and Central America.

[-] 0 points by zacherystaylor (243) 2 years ago

Military families come primarily from the most authoritarian segment of the lower or middle classes. They look for many people who have been taught to obey from an early age. this is why they get much more people from the bible belt. They also recruit more from Mormons who are also an authoritarian religion but not the rich of either. In both the Evangelical and Mormon communities they teach the different classes differently which is why Mitt supported the war in Vietnam but went to France instead of enlisting. That war was good as long as the lower classes fought and died for it not the privileged classes.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Yep, sounds right. There is an Irony here. If you listen to authorities and participate in education & Church, Listen to a Coach, Play team sports ... you learn a lot of things or traditions are handed down. But on the other hand you believe what authorities tell you about war, and can be controlled by fear-mongering, hate-speach, and conservative rhetoric,... and you are at risk for joining in risky behavior like military service and Financial Fraud.

I think over 70% of US Voters don't know about the Vietnam War, what we did to people in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, how the lands are still filled with land mines, the destabilization of the region that was the result of the war, Economic devestation, Loss of family property, Loss of family wealth, Loss of family members and the family unit, the mamed and crippled, the birth defects, poisoned water and land, refugees that become diseased, get raped, shot, or murdered in war.

But in the US I feel,... We don't teach history of despots and European History,...because our leaders are still using the politics, financial schemes, and con games which is all revealed in our History Book.

Ethoncentric History is history that has been cleansed and censored. We get only one side of history. History Text Books sound like there are only nice guys in Washington DC and in our governments.

Here is a link to James Loewen's Book with Chapter Summaries.

http://www.bookrags.com/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me/

He talks about War and Vietnam and Protesters changing history not only stoping Vietnam war, but also getting Civil RIghts.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 2 years ago

That book is much more accurate than what the establishment teaches children as is Zinn's "A People's History of the United States!"

I'm sure you're right about most people not being informed; the corporate propaganda machine still tries to portray politicians that obeyed orders and killed innocent people in Vietnam and elsewhere as heroes even though the Pentagon Papers and many other sources overwhelmingly indicate that these wars are based on lies.

The children in Oklahoma city shouldn't be considered "collateral damage" nor should they when it is done elsewhere by the US or their allies.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

No that is just all false. First off, our military is ALLLLLL volunteer. Second they don't target specific areas more than others. They are in every high school in every part of the country. People from the "bible belt" and rural countries have lower income and lower education, so they see the military has a good career and job skill destination.

There are plenty of well educated, not southern or western people in the military. Your facts are all made up and ridiculous

[-] 0 points by zacherystaylor (243) 2 years ago

The military doesn't officially target a certain segment of society as you say and it is all volunteer, sort of. However in practice they tend to target that segment even if it isn't intentional or official. There are other policies set in place that aid and abet in this even if they don't do this intentionally. One of those is the way these people are educated and taught to obey authority. People that are taught to obey authority are much more likely to be attracted to the military.

The reason they have lower income and lower education is partly based on how they were raised and that is part of the method that makes them more inclined to join the army. In fact this is why the fact that they "volunteer" is suspect; if they had other opportunities, or if they had accurate information to make their decisions and were inclined to accept it when they do, many of them might be less inclined to volunteer.

When educated people do join the military they often do so with a privileged background like John McCain son of an admiral or MacArthur Schwarzkopf also sons of generals who became generals and Beau Biden who all had political advantages that helped them gain power later on.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

No, there is no "sort of". Our military is 100% volunteer. No one is forced to join or sign a contract. Sorry, but that is the total truth. Anyone that joins wants to.

And no your completely wrong about the type of educated people that join the military. First off, usually officers that become generals usually go to a military academy like West Point. Second, ALOT of enlisted military men and women have a bachelors degree or are currently pursuing one. So the idea that only well educated people become generals is total bullshit. Third almost every officer has some sort of college degree. So either they went to a military academy, join post-college, went through ROTC in college, or got their degree while enlisted and went to officer candidate school.

There is not one part of the country that is taught to obey authority more than the other. If anything, the culture in the south and midwest just have more respect for people in general, so that is maybe where you get the idea they are more apt to obey.

Even people who have good opportunities join the military for a plethora of personal reasons that have nothing to do with finances.

Once again, the idea that most people in the military are poorly educated, and poor is just wrong, biased, propaganda. Almost every person in the military takes pride in what they do and are proud they joined. Of course there are people that once they join, they find out they hate it...and they serve their term and leave.

The total force is 100% volunteer.

Your just spreading mis-information that you don't have any specifics for or properly researched.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

These points could be said of Canada, but it is not full of guns.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Interesting you mention Canada. I travel between the U.S.A. and Canada every so often, and at many points along the border. The one thing I notice is the definite increase in tension in people every time I enter back into the U.S.A..

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

I always notice the difference in television news. America's news is full of fear mongering, and strange logic. Another point of difference is the size of meals. A large meal in Canada is a small one in the States. You ask for a large coke in US and they pour a 2 liter bottle in a popcorn bucket. Religions and conspiracy theories are also more prominent in US.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Yes. And so are fat people. Guess that comes from the meals.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Canada is not a superpower. Canada was never as rich as the US or had the power of US Corporations. Canada never had the depth and bredth of the US Consumer Market that made corporations wealthy and put many dollars into the US Federal Government in the Form of Taxes.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Does that mean that rich countries are rich because they go to war, or does that mean that rich countries should use that as an excuse to go to war?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

1) Yes, Defense Spending stimulates the Economy (Ronald Reagan mostly stimulated the Economy through Defense, as I understand it his goal was to do this, but wanted a bigger multiplier effect from his defense spending... in other words he was hoping for a bigger effect on the Economy than he got).
2) Going to War may be partly a self fullfilling prophesy when you call yourself a Superpower, Other countries call you a Superpower, and you build up your defense and covert capabilities.
3) Some people may still believe that going to war is good for the economy. I see where some economist don't believe this anymore. But think about it...War spending most directly goes toward defense industries, and these days we have plenty of news about how Executives are looting the corporations through complex salary & benefit packages including differed wages, stock options, houses, cars, private airplanes...oh and all defense corporations keep an office in Washington DC or have expensive Lobbyist in Washington DC.
4) Also having a big Military produces a lot of smart Retirees, who then become defense Contractors with new products and services for the Defense Budget to purchase. So Defense Spending increases the breadth and width of opportunities and war strategies which eventually have to be tested in Combat.
5) The word "Should" is out of place in your Question. War is Bad and is to be avoided. War is immoral and most of us don't know the cost of war.
6) Does having a Rich defense Industry or having a country with very large natural resources needs to sustain it's economy and consumers put the country on the Road to war? Probably.
7) Does having wars 1000s of mile from the US help hide what happens in war from the US Public? Probably.
8) Is there any real threat from a country over 500 miles away like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Iran? No or not until they have a strong Navy or Missiles capable of hitting the US.
9) What other Reasons do we use to justify defense spending and war? Besides control of Economic Stimulus, Security as a Global Superpower, Middle East Oil, or Rare Earth Metals... Communism as a threat to our government, possible political alliance with European or other powers like the Balkan War, and of course just corporate Interest like in the Banana Wars.
10) Historically Country like Spain, France, UK have gotten rich off of gold by going to war. But in the Long Run ...Empires wane or fall because they spend too much.
11) The US got rich as I understand it by being the last Western Country with Industry Built and people ready to produce whatever was needed after WWII. Europe was torn apart by war, Japan was worn out, China was either going through purges or revolution but had also been brutally attacked in Shanghai and Nanking. Some British blame the US for their poverty after the war because the US delayed entry into the Fight. Africa saw fighting too in the war. I guess the UK had set up North African Kingdoms before the war. Somehow Russia had enough people to create and enforce the USSR after the war. But the US was the Superpower who still had money and people for a strong economy.
12) You are pointing out that the Evil of Money may drive countries to go to war I think. Without Money countries seldom have the means to go to war. Everyone was surprised by the Rise of the Third Reich in Germany because Germany was supposed to be broke. Germany actually discovered a financial trick and was on the cutting edge of Finance. It was broke and its money was devalued after WWI... and it was forced to pay big restoration money for starting WWI. It was really broke and maybe here is the final reason to go to war. Germany was broke, the economy was broke, the people were desperate, they had to try to take wealth from it's neibors for survival.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't think Americans love war
they believe what they are told to believe


some love freedom
some love thinking
too many love obeying
too many love money

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Americans love the idea of wars they can win, not war itself. Americans have never known war since the Civil War. They have since never suffered the tragedies of war that even WW2 Britain had experienced. War is a fantasy, not a reality, for Americans. That is why 911 is such a tragedy for Americans. For one brief moment, the fantasy became reality and they didn't like it.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't think the families of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans since 1865 would agree with you

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Whether they agree or not doesn't change the fact that they have never been subject to the death and destruction that war has brought to others throughout the world. War is always something that happens someplace else for post-1865 Americans, never what happens in their own front yard. America loses soldiers to war but other nations lose soldiers and civilians as well as a disruption to life from the destruction of businesses and infrastructure.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Right, 'cause those events were all post-1865. Great grasp of history ya got there.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Misread your comment. Sorry. I'll delete.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

You are kidding right? You don't believe families, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, and generation after generation ever feel actual repercussions from any war, on any shores, right here in America? So, what do we feel when our soldiers or leaders die? Does not our way of life change for us individually? What bubble are we living on again?

Here is one example of war that is felt even now, on these shores...

Think about the mental anguish, lives, cultures, destruction of families and the centuries of mental trauma's passed down generation after generation when the pale skin nations of Europe first invaded these shores of America....(now this has been done by the Europeans everywhere, for as long as history has been written!) Now, imagine being a part of the families of the original "dark skinned" people who lived here at that time, with civilizations, schools, businesses, religions, and economic structure that was destroyed, swept under the blankets of lies and distorted truths to ensure the social richness of the invaders......Now....I ask you......who the hell do you think believes the bull shyt statement you put on this forum?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I stand by what I said. If you dispute it, you're free to point out when post-1865 Americans have lost civilians as well as a disruption to life from the destruction of businesses and infrastructure.

The fact ever remains that post-1865 Americans don't experience anywhere near the repercussions of war that other nations suffer.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Dream on Mcduff......

You are one who lives for the moment, nothing more and nothing less.

Insignificant lives do nothing for no one, nor do they benefit anyone else in their thoughts, words or actions.

Pure and simple! LOL!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Dreaming is obviously what you do. You have the opportunity to freely point out any inaccuracies in a statement you have a dispute with yet you don't or rather can't. At least the other person who foolishly responded to it was able to recognize his error and apologize. You, however, would seem to rather avoid your incompetence in dealing with the statement which says a lot about your integrity or lack thereof.

It's pure and simple, even for you. Show when post-1865 America suffered a regular loss of civilians and disruption to life from the destruction of businesses and infrastructure in its wars.

When you can do that, you will have a valid dispute. Until then, I'm sure you'll keep dreaming.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

OK stupid, you asked for it!!!

American Antiquities: Discoveries in the West [Paperback] Josiah Priest (Author) "Being an exhibition of the evidence that an ancient population of many partially civilized nations differing entirely from those of the present day indians peopled America many centuries before its discovery by Columbus, and inquiries into their origin, with a copious description of many of their stupendous works, now in ruins, with conjectures concerning what may have become of them. Compiled from travels, Authentic sources, and the researches of antiquarian societies." - from the 1832 second edition by Josiah Priest.After visiting earthworks in Ohio and New York, Priest concluded that these mounds could be traced back to a lost race that had inhabited America even before the Native Americans. Whereas Benjamin Franklin stated in 1759 "That it was the same Officer, with Provincials, who made that long and admirable march into the enemies country, took and destroyed Fort Frontenac, with the whole French fleet on the lakes, and struck terror into the heart of Canada. That it was a Provincial Officer (* 2), with Provincials only, who made another extraordinary march into the enemy’s country, surprised and destroyed the Indian town of Kittanning, bringing off the scalps of their chiefs. That one ranging Captain of a few Provincials, Rogers, has harrassed the enemy more on the frontiers of Canada, and destroyed more of their men, than the whole army of Regular.. Whereas these same said armies ventured into the Ancient Americas, before destroying the civilizations of the alleged Indians (Moors)..... A Defense of the Americans by Benjamin Franklin Posted on May 12, 1759

KING GEORGE'S WAR 1744-1749-

I. THE SIEGE OF LOUISBOURG.

WHEN the traditional rivals, France and England, be- came involved upon opposing sides in the War for the Austrian Succession, it was inevitable that sooner or later their provinces of New England and Canada should be drawn into the conflict ; and the so called King George's War was but an episode in the great struggle over the balance of power between the European potentates. Nova Scotia, or Acadia as it was then named, including New Brunswick with boundaries ill defined, had been a British possession from its conquest in 1710, although its inhabi- tants vvere almost exclusively French Catholics ; while the islands, including Cape Breton, were retained by France. The news of the formal declaration of war reached Breton three weeks before it arrived in Boston, and was taken advantage of by the French to surprise and capture Can- seau, the inhabitants of which were carried prisoners to Louisbourg. The situation of affairs was ominous of ruin for Massachusetts. Her valuable cod fisheries must be abandoned, and her shipping lay at the mercy of French privateers. Acadia was nearly defenceless, and if forced to succumb even New England might not long be able to escape French domination. No boundary could be peace- fully permanent that divided Jesuit from Puritan, and while the Catholic French could plan forays from the safe vantage ground of the impregnable fortresses of Louisbourg,,,,

http://www.archive.org/stream/militaryannalsof00nour/militaryannalsof00nour_djvu.txt

Trust me....most of you don't have a clue of what actually took place on these shores and are too afraid to recognize.....ye children of the corn! Don't forget the battle of the Great Lakes whereas the last stand of the Moors was defeated on these shores in 1774...... Your history has been misconstrued my dears, go to the Library of Congress and read!.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

OK stupid, please show how any of that applies to

"Show when post-1865 America suffered a regular loss of civilians and disruption to life from the destruction of businesses and infrastructure in its wars."

Are you so trapped in your own world that you can't even respond intelligently to a simple statement or are you so dishonest that you simply want to pretend you don't comprehend it?

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Is that your personal reflection of total incomprehension replying to what I posted or just the denial part of your heritage showing?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

You're as looney toons as ever. You have a dispute with a statement I made yet can point out no errors in it. Instead, you try to avoid your own errorneous response with subjects quoted from grossly outdated century old sources that never even address the issue while speculating upon a heritage of which you have absolutely no idea. Dream on.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Like I really give a damn about your pale skin European nation notions, his-story or fake ideologies..... you make up shyt, just like your forefathers, as you go along in order to piggy back off the original peoples civilizations and histories, which in reality you wish had disappeared, along with their nationalities and flags!. Now, my question to you is....how did you and your kind get here, what did you find, and why are you all still here? Is war not the way, since you have no other means, to maintain your position here which is due to expire? But you won't answer, because then you would be tying the noose around your own neck...correct? All your rhetoric in the world won't change the fakeness of your lives. You have no real place or position in true societies (other than Europe of course)..no one wants you and.so.... just like most misplaced non-melanin derelicts you maintain this false sense of importance and alleged power when in reality you fail to acknowledge how you, your kind got here in the first damn place, What folly! Next time...look up the words I use before you try to repeat after me...LOL

Besides....you don't need any explanations from me now do you...since you profess to know every damn thing....RIGHT?? LOL

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

What a fool you are to rattle on with no clue as to my heritage. When have you ever seen my skin? I'm probably darker than you. When have you ever seen any of my ancestors? You have no idea who they are or when they got here. Point out an ideology I've stated that's in line with the Europeans. Ah, but here we go again with you saying something stupid and me challenging you to validate it only to have you seek to avoid the error of your own foolishness.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

"[-] 1 points by LeoYo (1048) 1 hour ago

Not of you, that's for certain. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink....."

LOL.....children are so funny when they think they know everything, yet, know nothing about their own naivete... So..o.o.o.o how old are you....no seriously, what is your age... really...child?

LOL...

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Old enough to recognize fools who can't support the things they say and cowards who can't face up to it. So, how old is that? Do you know? Do you even have a clue? Or are you still dreaming for answers?

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

" [-] 1 points by LeoYo (1043) 1 hour ago

You waste your own time with your head stuck up your arse dreaming away. If you ever wake up, maybe you'll learn something. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"

LOL....

What are you afraid of?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Not of you, that's for certain.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Like I sad before.....hole of the arse...You know EVERY DAMNED THING.... what could you possibly learn from me?

Be Gone!!! Stop wasting my time....and work with what little you have left...OK?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

You waste your own time with your head stuck up your arse dreaming away. If you ever wake up, maybe you'll learn something.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Thank you kindly...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Because they don't fight 'em. Because it is cheap fantasy. Because of both of the previous. Same reason. Yes, the root of what "we" believe is our culture. "American Exceptionalism." We used to call it other names like, "Manifest Destiny." Not true, no matter what you call it.

Herd mentality.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

A Failed Formula for Worldwide War: How the Empire Changed Its Face, But Not Its Nature

Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:48 By Nick Turse, TomDispatch | News Analysis

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12324-a-failed-formula-for-worldwide-war-how-the-empire-changed-its-face-but-not-its-nature

They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire -- dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans -- and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around “the world,” stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot planted firmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn’t left the friendly confines of Virginia.

Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon’s top brass could shuffle around the planet -- provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers -- as they thought about “potential U.S. national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts” (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington’s military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-U.S.) borders and national sovereignty.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

One Idea is that we fight because it is in our nature. I'd add to that and say it might be in our Culture and Nature...or in our Brain from learning.

Look how much people get into sporting events, people yell, people take sides, people fight and argue, then go back home and go to work. But if we had lives like monks that never argued and strived for peaceful lives of quiet work, creativity, study, and music ...maybe it is possible to deprogram.

The way I see it is we have different power groups that set upon each other.

A) Country to Country.
B) Democrat to Republican.
C) Liberal to Conservative.
D) Sons to their Fathers.
E) Brother to Brother.
F) Male to Female.
G) Union to Management.
H) Rich to Poor.
I) Religion since some religious texts spell this out.
J) Ethnic Groups since there were wars.
K) Colonists and Kings.
L) Citizens against immigrants.
M) Disenfranchised and the Establishment.

Think of the Violence between Managers and Miners or labor strikers and their Managers. What do you make of Civil wars. How about Domestic Violence as an example of a Power Struggle or Misuse of Power.

Examples of Peaceful Countries:

1) Switzerland, has mandatory gun ownership & Training, and mandatory Military service. Conservative Banking laws and policies kept the country out of the financial crisis.

2) Costa Rica has no military and no war.

3) Japan is protected by the USA, has a self defense force, but has a pretty violent past. You have to see the peaceful art which Japan creates also.

I guess it is a dumb idea to look at peaceful democratic countries, because much of Europe has Recession, Depression and Protests. Australia seem to be run by Neocons. Brazil has big gap between rich and poor. USA is pretty peaceful except we export war and try to act as a world leader, and now our financial world for consumers has become so complicated that many of us don't know what is happening to things that touch our lives.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

I forgot to add the Financial Schemes make this Economy Strong and Also Finance our Wars.

1) Fiat Money is different from money with a gold or silver value. Fiat money floats in different exhanges and it's value goes up and down. Seems mostly like we are deflating the value of the US dollar as we expand the money created. (I'm no expert)
2) Banks create more money than the printing presses, federal reserve, and the US federal budget (as I understand it).
3) Much of Economic Expansion is done through Financial Instruments/devices/bonds/stocks/derivatives, etc.
4) I can only guess at what financial scheme is most important in going to war or funding someones war.
5) If you look at wars in Africa, I suspect there is a European or American that is funneling arms to Africa all through the last 100 years. So say what you want about war in africa, the guns came from America and Europe. There were probably a lot of guns left after WWII ended, but they didn't have M16s or AK 47s.
6) I would bet that someone knows who the gun runners are that have put weapons into Libya and Syria. Some say it was the CIA.
7) I'm pretty sure the US used to control the Middle East through it's Navy in the Mediterrean Sea and the Pesian Gulf. Now it seems like we want war in the region. Like we will just go in with our contractors and pump the oil and let the factions fight and do whatever.
8) So if I am anti-war and think the people should take care of their own country...and I think I am ...then my only worry is that maybe we have people guiding Al Quada onto Libya and Syria and guiding weapons into the region.
9) After all we overthrew democratic governments in South & Central America ...and we supported and put in place dicatators in those countries. Hell it even looks like we assasinated the leader of Chile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Kingdom of Hawaii
1.2 Russia

2 During the Cold War
2.1 Communist states 1944-1989
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955-70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960-65
2.9 Iraq 1960-63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970-73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979-1989
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980-81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981-1990
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA Assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras

2.20 Cambodia 1980-95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War 3.1 Iraq 1992-1996
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Iraq 2002-3
3.4 Venezuela 2002
3.5 Palestinian Authority,
2006-present
3.6 Somalia 2006-2007
3.7 Iran 2005-present
3.8 Libya 2011
3.9 Syria 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

Cuba and Puerto Rico, U.S. intervention in Cuba and invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898. Panama, 1846 Mallarino-Bidlack Treaty, Watermelon War of 1856. In 1903, Panama seceded from the Republic of Colombia, backed by the U.S. government,[2] amidst the Thousand Days War.
Nicaragua, 1912 through 1933.
Cuba, 1898-1902 1906–1909, 1912 and 1917–1922; governed through 1934.
Haiti, occupied by the U.S. from 1915–1934, Including the First and Second Caco Wars.[3]
Dominican Republic, action in 1903, 1904 (the Santo Domingo Affair), and 1914; occupied by the U.S. from 1916 to 1924.
Honduras, 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925.[4] Writer O. Henry coined the term "Banana republic" in 1904 to describe Honduras.
Mexico, the same general commercial and political causes, but stand as a special case.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Well our country was founded in war, by war. We have been engaged in some sort of war for a long time. We are good at it. That is like asking why do football players like playing football? Duh, cuz they are awesome at it and get paid ALOT.

We, like the old European countries, see war as romantic.

It is just our culture. Right or wrong, our country grew out of war and asserted our dominance via war. Every generation has had their war in the US. To me, ignoring or denying the role warfare has played in the evolution of our country and culture is wrong. We have made mistakes but the role of war in our society can not be ignored or taken lightly. We simply would have not existed as an independent country or continued to be without it. It is our history, some just embrace it more than others. Some oppose it, but realistically, those opposed might not be aloud a voice, or even exist if it was not for our wars.

Thankfully, we don't live in a country where people are executed for being part of the opposition despite our love of war and violence. Also, don't even say people are executed in the USA for protesting. That is just rude and shows your ignorance compared to the millions that have died throughout history in horribly oppressive and murderous regimes. In other times, in other countries, anyone posting on this board would be rounded up and jailed or killed.

So yes we are borne of war, but how many nations aren't? How many countries and cultures didn't exist purely in war hundreds of years before the United States existed? Europe, Asia, Africa all saw hundreds of years of constant war. We are no different, we just happen to dominate now. Our country has existed only a small fraction of history.

Don't mistake our current state with being any different than history.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 2 years ago

Part of this is from our culture; and other parts of the reason involve other things including the fact that the most powerful people control the media and they use their control to spread massive war propaganda to keep people hooked on war although they may not understand why they do this themselves. That brings up the chicken and the egg question. Which comes first.

Another major contributing factor is early childhood abuse that escalates later in life going on to bullying in grade school hazing in college and military indoctrination etc.

[-] 1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

Liking guns and going to the shooting range does not mean we love war. As for the rest it's because most Americans aren't really touched by it. For most of us the pizza is hot, the beer is cold, and the porn is good.

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

For many people in the world, the pizza is hot, the beer is cold, and the porn is good. Still, they wouldn't accept their government being involved in war after war, certainly when their taxes have to pay for it.

[-] 0 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

Only half the population pays taxes tha go for war. And not enough of the rest care.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

I don’t know if Americans love war. The problem is the vast majority of Americans don’t really know what war is. Not since WWII have Americans been “involved” in a war. Our “wars” don’t touch the average American in the slightest. Americans continue to live their serene lives and the effect of war never touches them. It’s just a quick news update on the nightly news for most people. I think it’s more of indifference than love. War doesn’t touch them so they’re not interested.

As for personal ownership of guns. I separate that from war. Depending on who’s figures you believe there are between 220 – 300 million privately owned guns in America. An estimated 85 million gun owners. However the NRA only has about four million members. The NRA is somewhat of a toothless tiger. Simply overhyped.

I own guns, lots of them. It’s a hobby. I think the average gun owner buys a gun for home protection, takes it to the range, shoots two boxes of ammo, takes it home, unloads it puts it in a drawer next to the bed. Then two years later they decide they want carry a weapon. They buy a second gun small enough to carry, get the CCL, buy a expensive holster and carry the gun for about two months. Then realize carrying a gun is uncomfortable and a hassle. They stop carrying it most of the time.

Personally I think if the US outlawed guns like the UK and Australia. Most people would hand over their guns with a minimum of grumbling. Just like the UK and Australia did. The image of a gun loving America really is over hyped. True gun nuts are a minority.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Because we have over 12,000 miles of coastline. If there were countries on our east and west borders instead of oceans our leaders would not be so eager for war.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

we also have a huge border with Canada who is a very neutral country

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The issue you need to address is, why are such disparate states united?

Who wanted them all united? There's really no reason, other than the IRS bankster mentality of herding for taxation purposes, for the faux uniting.

What are the benefits of uniting states as dis-similar as Florida and Michigan? Or Hawaii and Maine?

Only the one percenters benefit from this uniting BS. The US is parochial. That's what makes it unique. Push for statehood. That will phukk the whole planning of the 1%.

Call it the Genuinely Original New American Dream State. Or GONADS for short. ;-)

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

It is called diversity. That is why it is good to have different states that don't seem to have something in common. Same thing in business, and schools, and every facet of life. You thrive when you diversify your assets and workforce.

We became a union because we all had similir interests and to protect ourselves as a whole. Otherwise we would be countless tiny countries or city-states that would fight all the time. Look at Europe's history throughout time until post WWII. That is what would happen. Endless wars and tension.

The United States is all under one roof and functions under an umbrella federal government. Individually each state is weak, but as a nation we are strong. One state could not possibly be self-sufficient. That is why we diversify. So NO it is not about taxes.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

You mention diversity.

In modern business studies, the saying is; "Diversify and Die".

While I appreciate the tone of your post, the reality is waaaaaaay down the track to the dying bit. WTFU.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

It is pretty much the same thing. Diversity means a difference, while diversify means to become more diverse/different. lol.

The saying is "Diversify OR Die" not AND lol. Why do you think so many corporations have their mitts in so many different things? Expand their portfolio/profit making abilities. You don't get to the top by corning one little aspect, you dominate by being the top of many. Same thing with the USA.

The reality is, we exist as a strong nation because we are diverse. We have a lot of diversity amongst our population, economy, etc.

So no, the reality is, exactly as I stated it.

Once again, look at Europe. How well did that whole thing play out for centuries? Not well.

So while I appreciate the tone of your original conspiracy theory post, the reality is waaaaay down the track to the dying bit.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Perhaps, you're right, and, if so, we should ask why only a few States have talked about being independent. Unless the people want to separate US, I don't think it will happen. So far, the demand has not been strong.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

No, it stems from the roots of man and mankind.

When man forgets what and who he really is, he needs to feel his importance through the blood of others....Nothing hard to understand about that since on this earth there is enough for everyone...Mother earth made sure of that but man is a destroyer because of his own fleshy weaknesses!

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

I think its inherent in mankind but not by when he forgets what and who he is.

Mankind is greedy and seeks power. What is the ultimate way to get and keep power? War. Not all wars are fought with bombs.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Man, in his utter de-programing, has forgotten who and what he is. He is not god, he is not a superhero, he is not some type of fantastic entity put here to dominate or destroy anyone or anything.

Therefore...he has forgotten who and what he is and requires new eras of time to arrive, whereas through his own brought about suffering and eventual demise...(if he doesn't get it) to REMIND HIM that he needs to wake the F*** up!

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Really, so I guess according to you, we have been led astray and wrong our entire existence?

Mankind has followed the same exact patterns for thousands of years. The patterns are evident on the global level, and on the personal one on one level.

I think ignoring and denying our inherent issues is what causes them to get worse. You want to pretend that we should be holier than thou and "wake up", but embracing our imperfections will help make us better overall.

So in your opinion what are we here to do? As long as history has recorded we have tried to dominate and destroy, to bring about suffering for a particular group of people's gain. This has happened in every part of the world, with all levels or lack of technology. Explain that if it is not human nature.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Explain what? What exactly is the argument here? I have no argument other than the fact that man is weak, always was and always will be.
Pure and Simple.....man makes up shyt "for his own convenience and purposes" as he goes along in life...

Weak and simple minded is man, regardless of all his "alleged" accomplishments he still can't create, give or sustain life, in all its magnificence! All things are basically out of his control anyway! That is it pure and simple... Show me anything different and I will definitely back out of this game!

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

"When man forgets what and who he really is, he needs to feel his importance through the blood of others..."

So you tell me who man "really is" then. By your statement you implied that we have forgotten who we really are...so we turn to bloodshed. So who are we really?

Well actually yes mankind creates life through procreation, and we give and sustain it through modern medicine....so....

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

women, not men....if men did not exist, well lets put it this way.....women give birth....men just help plant the seed....I am sure if the male species did not exist there would still be A MOTHER EARTH....get my drift? Man ain't that big a deal in the real scheme of things.....right now he is only a destroyer! Yet, I must admit, tho, the majority of the men I have met in my lifetime are strong, upright, moral and extremely loving individuals....so they do not fit into the above equation. These are the men who know who they are, and their history and the ancestors of greatness from which they descended.

The "alleged" men I mentioned before are nothing but the Barbarians of the many nations, the murderers, the rapists, the whoremongers, those whose selfish greed have never given anything positive to this EARTH! Those are the lost souls....so everyone take your pick...where do you fit in?

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

You are pretty ridiculous. "if men did not exist" ?? Last time I checked, women do not get pregnant asexually...so.... Go ahead, lets play the chicken or the egg game...lol...

Mankind is a BIG deal in the grand scheme of things, especially to your mother earth. A species dominating the planet, changing its ecosystem and natural order of life and death IS a big deal.

I still don't get if we are inherently greedy and barbaric, how did we lose our way? I fit in with everyone else. I am part of mankind with a plethora of complex emotions to fit different situations. Whether I am empathetic, hostile, loving etc. That is human nature. We are all of those things naturally and should embrace them equally.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Then you my dear are just another part of that mentality that believes LIBERAL thinkers are our salvation!

How totally European!

I don't believe in European ideologies... it has never done us any good...

You think and remain inside of your boxed world... We (those who love their freedoms) will continue to travel, think, and create outside of your self imposed limitations. Nothing is impossible for the spirit of men and women.
I don't believe everyone truly has one tho..(a spirit)......do you? It's like the purity of melanin, some of us have it and some of us don't... No in between..... So, once again....your arguments are moot in the scheme of man-kind and his war games....

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

LOL! This whole statement is absolutely hilarious. Thank you for making my morning better.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

You are welcome, come back to me again when you are able to deal with your OWN reality...then perhaps we can really discuss your limitations....

.LOL Double time!!!

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

No problem, just let me know when you come down from whatever high you are on and are ready to talk about reality.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

High? Oh, you mean the highest of thought which goes beyond that of the pale skin nations of European gods, domination and way of life?

Oh, HELL NAW..... I'll NEVER let go of that high...ever, ever, ever again!

LOL

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

lol I get your being sarcastic now....and I really hope you were earlier too....otherwise...oh boy...

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Look girlie man, stop worrying about what is on my mind...you can't do a damn thing about that whatsoever, and it wouldn't change the majority who agree with my way of thought either!

So, my advice to you is...step out of your dream world, this is what you all should worry about...not who is in office....since that is business as usual. Worry about something that is bigger than all our asses put together! And while you are at it.....find out who has the "power" to do something about it before you all are toast! IDIOTS!

"The frightening fact, in the larger scheme of things, this storm wasn't that big, certainly not the perfect solar super storm. Worst case scenario: if transformers and capacitors were really fried, power could be out for months, essentially transporting us back to the pre-industrial age.

Hopefully, neither you nor a relative will be in a hospital if that ever happens.

The good news is that, while our technology is making us more susceptible to the impact of solar activity, it can also help prevent the problem. As scientists learn more about the solar wind and what it can do, more protections can be built-in to our electronics to better ensure that they don't get fried by a powerful blast of solar energy. (Hope they have that up and running ASAP) For even better news, this solar storm is not expected to be of the severe variety that can fry electronics, either.

On the other hand, with solar maximum rapidly approaching, stronger storms could be in the future, which means that we had better prepare, anyway."

http://www.examiner.com/article/sun-erupts-monster-solar-flare

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

No American that I know loves war. They love freedom. And we'll fight for it, our own or that of our allies, even with our very lives if we have to.

I buy guns to protect myself and my family physically in the event that someone attempts to interrupt/damage/harm our rights in a physical manner. I go to the shooting range for many reasons. 1)It's fun. Science and loud noise at the same time. 2) The better shot I become the less innocent people are likely to get hurt and the more bad people are.

I am proud of our military for their selflessness. Their willingness to defend and protect others even at their own peril is a hard and noble thing. I don't celebrate bloodshed, I celebrate courage and valor.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

totally agree

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Most wars US are implicated in have nothing to do with protecting American citizens, or with courage and valor. What was courageous about sending 18 year olds in Vietnam, 18 year olds who knew nothing about the circumstances of that war? What was courageous about Bush's dream to control the oil in the Middle East so that he made up fake stories of WMD to invade Iraq? What's courageous is fighting for what is just, and that is seldom done on the battlefield. You joined WWII late, only after being attacked directly. A courageous country goes to help it's neighbors even if it is not under attack.

If Americans really cared about freedom, things like same sex marriage would have been a reality in all States a long time ago, like it is in truly free countries.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Thanks for passing judgement on America and Americans as a whole. Are all Australians as bigoted and arrogant as you are?

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

I just don't see courage and valor in the wars America is waging. If you do, then I respect your opinion, but I don't share it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

A lot of people get into the military because they need a job, and don't know what they are really getting into; all of which has little to do with protecting our nation.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

That is wrong for so many reasons. Tell the millions that have 100% volunteered during 2 wars. Everyone knows what is going on and what it means to sign up.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

I'm part of a military family; carry a military I.D. Been there, done that, seen the scene, and saying it the way I see it.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Your not the only one. There is a difference between not liking being in the military and not knowing what your getting into. No one joined under the disillusion that we are NOT at war.

Yes there are people that join because of a failure to get a job, but that is by far not the majority. But they still understand the risks or joining the military during a war.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Most people don't know what war really is.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

No one can until they experience it. BUT no one joined not knowing we were at 1-2 Wars. So you join expecting to be sent there.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Some joined well before any of those wars in the Middle-East ever started.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

True, Ok I will give you that.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It's not war, it's guns we love. And that is a product of our heritage.

We don't pay huge amounts to fund wars; we are literally robbed of tax dollars as government seeks to create a more favorable environment for business - it's blatant theft.

We are not proud of the banality of these actions; we are proud only of the enemies we defeat - these are not our enemies.

Because we are fully capable of energy independence. And Europe and the Middle East should be fully capable of their own defense. But they're not because we are conducting business.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The guns could be argued as wanting to protect one's family.

The rest is the result of brainwashing through the television.

[-] 3 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

You need guns to protect family's against people with other guns, then your daughter pulls the trigger while cleaning her lugger and you have a 13 year old dead daughter on your floor.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Then you didn't teach your daughter to check both the chamber and the clip BEFORE cleaning her gun. And it's Luger.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

I don't know much about guns. Never held one, never want to.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I hope you never have to. Good luck with it if you do.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

That is why proper education about firearms is necessary. Not wild accusations and propaganda. If the daughter was taught properly how to clear and clean a weapon, there would be no issue.

It is amazing what real education can do to a variety of concerns.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

We could say the same about grenades, or bazookas. People could own them and learn how to use them. Or, they could simply not own them, like many countries don't allow people to own guns. That's even more effective.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Oh please, You could use that argument for anything. People get hurt using snow blowers!! More people get hurt while driving than from guns!!

However, proper education and reading the manual is all people want to do to reduce bad driving and accidents, or stop someone from putting their hands in a wood chipper.

When it comes to guns...all of a sudden it is this crazy thing and people would rather ban them than properly and unbiasedly educate.

To me, an inexperienced driver allowed to speed around in a multi-ton metal death machine unsupervised and in possibly adverse weather conditions, possibly intoxicated, and possibly at a time of day with limited visibility is WAAAY worse and more dangerous than owning a gun. Not to mention road hazards, pot holes, animals, other drivers, trees, sharp turns, vehicle failures. Yea ALOT can and does go wrong everyday. People get horribly injured or killed by vehicles daily. Innocent people too. But HEY no one is protesting that right??

Well grenades and bazookas are totally different than guns, but sure why not! With proper safety education, they too can be used properly. How do you think the military does it without hurting themselves.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Sure, but snow blowers and cars have alternate purposes. They aren't designed primarily to injure of kill like guns are. The fact remains that many civilized and developed nations do not allow guns, and they don't have crime rates which are higher than in US, in fact, they have crime rates that are lower than in US. Statistics show that guns only create more problems.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Yes your right, guns primary function is to injure or kill. However, doesn't that say something in itself? More people get killed or have accidents with something NOT designed to kill, to me that is worse! Guns are meant to harm, yet cars aren't but do more damage...and guns are stigmatized?? Where is the logic in that?

There are a lot of factors, not just firearms that cause countries or areas to have lower crime rates. You can not attribute 1 factor to that. It may be part of the reason but not all of it.

Guns in America are not going anywhere. That is the reality. So instead of casting them as some demon thing, maybe we can have better education across the board. How to properly handle or use a firearm safely, what to do in case of an emergency. Basic first aid.

Remember, robberies and murders have happened long before we had firearms anyway. The key is to offer as much educational resources to avoid accidents. The same thing we do with motor vehicles.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

More people get killed or have accidents with something NOT designed to kill, to me that is worse! Guns are meant to harm, yet cars aren't but do more damage...and guns are stigmatized?? Where is the logic in that?

Because cars are a fundamental part of society that most people cannot do without (I never had one), but guns are not necessary.

Guns in America are not going anywhere. That is the reality. So instead of casting them as some demon thing, maybe we can have better education across the board

That is a lame position to take, sort of like an argument people would have said against slavery a hundred years ago. There's no reason why we can't fight to abolish guns. No reason at all. Things can change very quickly in America. Look at the difference in the mindset of people towards gays. It changed completely in 30 years time.

Remember, robberies and murders have happened long before we had firearms anyway.

There are more robberies and murders in American than in Canada. People commit crimes when they have no money. America needs to stop fighting wars and start taking car of its economy. You need health car and education for everybody. Take care of the poor, that's the solution to lower crime, not add more guns in the street.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

"There are more robberies and murders in American than in Canada. People commit crimes when they have no money. America needs to stop fighting wars and start taking car of its economy. You need health car and education for everybody. Take care of the poor, that's the solution to lower crime, not add more guns in the street."

-Now your just pulling random stuff into your argument because your responses are thin. People DO NOT just commit crimes because they have no money. There are A LOT of reasons people commit crimes. I just read a story 2 teenagers killed a 12 year old girl by strangulation. Not for monetary reasons. BUT that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

My position is not lame. Guns and gun ownership are protected in the United States. The 2nd amendment to our constitution says they are not going anywhere. Talking about slavery and gay rights is TOTALLY different. That has to do with treating people like equals and giving them the same rights as every other human being. Gun ownership and human rights are 2 totally different topics, especially in America. The reality is we have the 2nd amendment and Americans LOVE their guns, so it is better to embrace the reality of the situation and create an environment of education to avoid accidents.

Americans have had guns WAY longer than cars. Society existed perfectly fine without cars. I agree in today's society they are necessary, and I am in no way suggesting they should ban cars, that is dumb. What I am suggesting however is that something not intended to kill does at an insane right and is inherently unsafe, but that is acceptable in society. We accept those losses because we "need" cars. Right?

Criminals will get guns regardless of the laws. They operate outside the law because they don't abide by them, so gun laws will not change their operations.

Owning guns is somehow seen as terrible thing though. So you want to punish all the legal gun owners because a few idiots choose to act like idiots and shoot up places. Car accidents, road rage incidents, DUI, traffic violations happen everyday but do we blame the cars, auto industry, manufacturers?? NOPE. We blame the operators. We blame those behind the wheel for their actions. We fine, jail, suspend the person causing the problem. Some incidents are accidents, others are malicious. People commit suicide using cars too. We don't sue Ford, or the local dealership do we? NOPE. Why should the firearm industry be any different?

So because you deem cars as necessary, any deaths, injuries, damage, fines, jailtime, are acceptable. Yea your logic seems a bit flawed.

Proper laws and education is the way to go for everything. Doesn't matter the subject area. Proper education is FUNDAMENTAL.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

You misinterpret the 2nd amendment which clearly states that Americans have the right to bear arms in the context of a people's militia. The point was to eliminate the possibility of a totalitarian government which would create a military attacking it's own citizens. The idea of a people's militia is to provide the people with a way to defend themselves in this eventuality. The 2nd amendment does not mean that random citizens should be allowed to carry a gun, only in the context of a militia.

Your right to bear an arm as an individual comes from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

There's no reason why this could not be overturned.

So because you deem cars as necessary, any deaths, injuries, damage, fines, jailtime, are acceptable.

Not acceptable, that's why we have all kinds of safety tests and measures in place, but something that unfortunately needs to be tolerated since people need cars. People don't need guns, so there's no reason to tolerate them and the injuries and killings they cause. There's nothing wrong with this logic.


There are other ways to protect yourself than by using a gun that shoots bullets to kill. You could use guns with sleeping darts or another mean that does not kill. There's really no excuse for people have guns.

[-] 0 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

First off, the supreme court has argued this many times by people who dedicate their lives to interpreting the constitution. If they uphold our rights as citizens to buy and own firearms, then who should anyone but constitutional lawyers disagree? My interpretation is that we as citizens have the right to own firearms in that we may form a militia if needed. However, My interpretation has nothing to do with the law. I follow the law and buy or sell firearms according to state and federal laws. It is not my job or my place to interpret the constitution. If the law changes, then I will follow that.

If the 2nd amendment was going to be overturned, it would have been already. It just won't happen. The same reason why they won't enact stronger gun laws because they are actually widely unpopular. Whether some people like it or not, the laws and 2nd amendment have been upheld, guaranteeing our right to own arms. We can't speak in hypothetical or "what-ifs".

So based on the reality of the situation, the fact guns on America have been here and will be here to stay, we should embrace the culture and the laws and act accordingly and responsibly. Proper education. Proper law enforcement.


You offer a double standard. Death and injury are OK because we deemed cars necessary. Guess what, firearms were necessary at one point and still are. People still need home defense and hunt for various reasons. People make a living off hunting in some parts of the country. Not to mention all the business that thrives off of shooting sports, and firearms sales and accessories.

Non-lethal means to stop an intruder or assailant can be ineffective. Bean bag rounds may slow down but not stop someone. Sleeping darts, that would be deemed "safe" on humans may not react fast enough. Also the threat of bruises or going "to sleep" is not enough to deter people. There is no risk of real injury or death. That fear is what helps stop people. The power of a firearm is not just kinetic but psychological too.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's the job of every citizen to push for what they believe in and protest laws they do not feel adequate. If people never stood up, then women would still not be voting, interracial marriages would still be illegal, and so on. The changing of laws always starts with people who then bring the matter to court.

It's not a reality that guns are there to stay. It's only a possibility. If we protest against this, this reality can be changed. Imagine if people said that about black people having to stand up in buses instead of sitting down. Oh, this is the reality and it cannot be changed, we must accept it! America is based on changing realities, on improving. It has always done this. Your argument for status quo is very weak indeed.

Again, why not use guns that shoot sleeping darts instead of bullets. Why do you need to kill people, why not simply put them out of commission so they can stand trial and have a fair hearing.

[-] 0 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Well I just explained by sleeping darts would be ineffective.

Yes it is our job to challenge unfair and unjust laws. Gun laws are not either of these. You also forget A HUGE part of the US support and want gun ownership. NYC/NJ/California/New England are the strictest areas on gun laws but that is a small percentage of our country. Don't let those areas over saturate the opinion of the rest of the states.

No the reality is guns are here to stay. There is history to back this up. They have been here since our country was founded, the laws and courts uphold this, and there is a HUGE industry related to it. There is more evidence, and years of historical evidence to back this idea that guns are staying up. Could somewhere in time guns be banned? Sure anything is possible, but realistically from ALL the evidence and historical evidence present, it does not seem likely. Especially not anytime soon. Ignoring the present reality does not change it. That is like ignoring the fact teenagers will have sex or saying they shouldn't will lead to less STDs and teenage pregnancies etc. We adopted better educational programs because we stopped living in an ideal fantasy world and put ourselves in reality, in the problem. Guess what? Education works. Look at smoking. Same deal. We offered better education and enforcement of laws and less younger people are smoking and getting health complications due to smoking and second hand smoke. Once again, education works.

My argument is not for status quo, but to stop living in a fantasy world and deal with the problems of today. You have a better chance at EDUCATING people properly than to overturn centuries old laws that are popular. You can either make a real difference in peoples lives or fight for some intangible fantasy that may never materialize. I'd rather do what I can in this life to properly educate people and help keep them safe that way. Rather than tell everyone what they can and can not do, make them responsible for their choices and actions. Set them up for success by giving them the tools to do the right thing and act in a safer manner.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Guns don't seem to be a good deterrent like you say. US is one of the countries with the most guns per capita, and one of the countries with the most guns per capita. The death penalty also does not function well as a deterrent. Once you look at the evidence, it becomes clear this is a bogus argument.

My argument is not for status quo, but to stop living in a fantasy world and deal with the problems of today

Fantasy world? US is on of the few developed countries with so many guns. The fantasy is now with so many guns on the street which makes US look like a hollywood movie. The idea of a nation with very few guns is no fantasy; just look up north at Canada.

[-] 0 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Sure in other parts of the world this is not a fantasy. BUT we are not talking about Canada. We are talking about the United States. It is not only protected by law, but is part of our culture. There are protected areas of culture in every country. Americans are just different culturally from a lot of the world. Why is our culture wrong but Canada is right? That is just a perfect example cultural bias. Because you don't agree with our culture, does not mean the culture of gun ownership is wrong.

It is a fantasy to think guns would just go away and become totally outlawed in the United States. It just won't happen. All in All there just isn't enough public support on top of all the other reasons why. There are MILLIONS of law abiding citizens that never have an illegal or accidental firearms issue. The few stories that get national attention are not the entire gun toting nation. Just like guys that are rapists don't represent the entire male culture and species. A few bad eggs don't represent everyone. The US is FAR from a hollywood movie. Most criminals get their guns illegally anyway. So stricter laws just limit law abiding citizens who do nothing wrong anyway.

Death penalty is almost obsolete. Many states banned it, and even then its rare. Death penalty is a delayed response. You spend YEARS on death row before execution. People that commit crimes bad enough to warrant death row do not care about the consequences. So using the death penalty isn't relevant to this discussion.

Guns are a good deterrent like I say lol. If someone pulls a gun on me, or a sleeping dart...there will be a different response. There is a big difference between getting killed, or getting put to actual sleep.