DaVinci

Well, it could be that they buy into their own hype and really think a .50 cal is too dangerous for regular people to own. They already think that handguns are too dangerous, so I could see how they would think anything can be too dangerous. And lets be honest there are not many reasons to own a .50 cal other than "I want one". For me, and the Second Amendment, that is reason enough IMO.

Ya know, like how you can't find a hand gun in NY

I do, and thats the point. Today people want quick and easy. They want it now, or they will not even try. Just like the number on issue people have with SL vs AFF is that it takes too long.

A few things I just love Said often times by people with no degree, much less an MBA from Harvard or a BA from Yale. Again with the not being smart....But they claim he can rig an election and smart enough to lead an entire country in a direction they all claim to be against. TWICE if you can believe the nerve! Again elected not once, but TWICE...So much for "un" President huh?

They have only recalled him once. Huh?!?!?!?! It is about a guy that signed up for 8 years being asked to actually do what he agreed to do.

Look it was written in black and white that you, me, and him enlisted for a period of 8 years. Any time not met "active" was to be spent in the IRR. And these circumstances are not "new". War is always inhumane. But he knew this could happen, and he signed up anyways. Based on? And they should

Anyone find it funny that the website is part of "The United States Freedom Alliance"?

So do you encourage people to lie if asked?

OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later.

Some would say both. Some would say Iraq was contained. Some would say the same in BOTH cases. In fact Pres Ford said in an interview that he thought Saddam was an evil man that needed to be removed. He did say he would have tried other means and disagreed with the invasion being based on WMD's. "Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,"-Ford July 28, 2004 "I think Rumsfeld, Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.-Ford July 28, 2004 So lots of people thought that Saddam was evil. He commited Genocide, supported terrorists...ect. But the debate here is about the people of the two times. They fought for what they believed in, and didn't waiver, unlike todays generation who tires of a causes and feels no regret over starting something, and then bailing when they feel like it.

And I agree, but that does not change the fact he signed up to the *current* terms. I think a person should be held accountable to what they agree to do. This it seems is not a popular position today. The size of the war is not covered in the contract. They could call you up to stand around and look stupid in Utah if they felt like it. Or an increase in the pay and benefits for those who do serve.

Sure, but do you know that this same situation has not resulted in a dishonorable? Would you agree that he enlisted of his own free will? If so then he in fact was responsible for his being in the Army and that includes maybe going to war. He is not within his rights based on the contract he signed. For the record, I was also called up from the reserve (called IRR for Inactive Ready Reserve). So I don't have much pity on this guy.

Not really. Some people could argue that radical Islam is a bigger threat than Hitler. My point EXACTLY. There was a popular push for the invasion of Iraq. Polls stated that we should invade, Congress supported the use of force...ect. Then people grew tired of it; Like a child with a puppy, they really want one and then they fail to care and feed for it when it gets hard. This war is the same and it sickens me that people who supported the invasion are now angry at others who did what they wanted them to do. So you would be OK with calling up someone who is out as long as it is not this guy? Who gets to make that call?

Sure, it is called *adulthood* where you pay attention to what you are doing and abide by the choices you make. Also, this guy is 34...He has been out 2 years and served 4. So he enlisted at age 28. What age do you think a person should finally able to sign a contract, 30? Here in the US it is 18. I am sure you did your time, but your statement to me in reference to the 8 years was "I guess your recruiter wasn't as much of a fucking scumbag as mine was". That sounds to me like you blame him. And while I agree, it does not eliminate the duty to uphold your end of an agreement. One of the big problems I see today is that no one wants to be responsible for their actions. He signed up at age 28, his contract said 8 years (just like yours, mine, and countless others). Now he wants to bitch about upholding his part. I feel the same way when NG units got called up and people who were more than happy to spend the weekends and two weeks playing Army while the rest of the time they enjoyed the money for school and the benefits suddenly bitched about being in the Army. I have sympathy, but feel they should finish the contract they signed. You, it seems, want to excuse people for not being willing to uphold their part of the contract they signed. Would you feel the same way if you were contract labor and the company decided to ignore the contract when they felt like it?

I can. I know people who did several tours but still got kicked out with a dishonorable. Anyone is free to do as they please if they are willing to accept the consequences IMO. But I will not expect there to be no consequences, and blame others.

But Gates and the Generals think it is the correct path. Who are you and I to argue? Also, you must admit that some (not you that I know of) bitched saying that Bush should have listend to the Generals before, but are now bitching that he might listen to them now. That is playing both sides.

Creative? Do you provide jobs or schooling? There is a difference. Or any job that requires a clearance or background check. That includes banking, and any SIDA jobs.

He is talking about the *people*. You are talking about the conflicts. Both are seperate. Back then the people made sacrifices and took risks to make the world a better place. Today most people seem to forget we are even in a conflict and bitch about gas prices....They had rations on almost everything back then. Yet today people seem to bitch more. That is the difference he is talking about.

Do not credit my recruiter, nor blame yours, for your failure to read and understand what you signed. I do not blame others for my mistakes.

Then you can't blame them for you not READING the contract you signed. Go find your contract, it is in there and it is not anyone else fault but yours that you didn't read it. It is clearly on mine in simple english and in the same type and size as the rest of the document. I also paid attention when I was told about it more than once before I signed up.

Enough said. Don't like it, don't sign the contract. And in your 6 years, have you ever gotten a person with a dishonorable discharge a job?

They also speed, run red lights, carry a gun, have red or blue lights visible from the front of the car...ect. How much you want to bet that if they pulled you over for speeding and you had a pregnant wife in the car they would not ticket you? I was once caught doing 100mph trying to get a guy that was ODing to a hospital. I didn't even get a lecture, I got directions. So, it is not hypocrisy. Just you being pissed off for not getting your way when you want it. They have valid reasons for not wanting to wear a seatbelt. Reasons that could put them in harms way...You do not. Also the article is so poorly documented. Any really critical thinking would show all the holes in the story and the use of leaps of false logic used to tie it together.

A normal unit will not have a nuke. No. A regular unit will not have access to nuclear arms. I could not get one to use, and was not trainined to use them. It could be argued that way. I can easily see your point. But most normal units will never be near a nuclear weapon, much less use one.

Not quoting, paraphrasing. It says that since a militia is needed to secure a free country that the people will be permitted weapons.

Yet the Bible is full of killings in the name of justice or religion. Why do you oppose the dealth penalty? I support it based on the old school "eye for an eye". I don't think that a cold blooded killer should be ever set free. I don't think they can be rehabilitated and I really do not see the problem with putting them to death.