Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/1/2004 6:23:09 AM EDT
If Kerry is at the helm, America will retreat in the face of agression. As the saying goes...he's not fit to command. But with so many liberal and ignorant voters out there, it's hard to say what will happen.

Those who hate Amercian chanted "Death to America" when we were passive and they continue to yell "Death to America" now that we've finally decided to be proactive. Why this simple fact escapes so many Amercians is beyond me.

VOTE BUSH
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:29:44 AM EDT
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:30:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Collapse, no. Change for the worse, and permanently, yes.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:34:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



No....I don't believe the US would "collapse". Yes...I am taking some "journalistic freedom" (just like the liberal media) to sell my cause. Even so, I do believe his overall leadership would be detrimental to this country and it's future. Just my two cents.

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:35:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:36:03 AM EDT
I'm not taking any chances...........W has my Vote
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:37:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 6:38:25 AM EDT by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:37:45 AM EDT
Oh goodie - another newbie telling us who to vote for!

It's been what? 15 minutes since that's last happened?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:41:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



You stated that very well rifleman2000. You are very wise and I agree with you 100%. Anyone who is pro-UN ... is a threat to Amercia's sovereignty.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:44:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:47:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.



Good point!

Mr. I LOVE THE UN, HATE GUNS, TRAITOR TO THE USA JOHN KERRY would be a much better choice.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:51:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.




Five words: Patriot Act _plus_ John Kerry


-LS
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:54:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:06:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.



One phrase: non sequitur.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:08:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Not the first term, but if he were able to win a second, I would say yes the USA could collapse. Look at how well terrorists organized under Klinton's 8 year watch. With every passing year the weapons are going to get deadlier. The democrats method of hiding their heads in the sand will cost us big one day.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:22:37 AM EDT
If Kerry wins, then we lost the war on terror. No doubt about it. The Arabs will know all they have to do is kill a few Americans and they can get their way.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:26:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



My predictions on what would happen if sKerry were to win:

1. John Kerry will re-join the Internation Criminal Court, allowing American's to be tried by International Judeges under the UN's definition of War Crimes.

2. John Kerry will sign the Kyoto Treaty, holding US manufacturers to a higher standard of environmental protection policies than third world nations with developing economies. This will force companies to move MORE factories overseas, and American jobs will go with them.

3. John Kerry will surrender the US veto power in the UN Security Council (something that the UN has been foaming at the mouth for years to have happen) in a sweetheart deal that will allow Bill Clinton to become the UN Secretary General.

4. John Kerry will end military operations to hunt down and kill terrorists, and shift gears to making the war on terror an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

5. John Kerry will send 70,000 additional troops to Iraq, thereby increasing America's percieved role as occupier and increasing the levels of insurgent violence (the same way that Johnson escalated Vietnam).

6. John Kerry will increase taxes, causing investors to pull back their investments, which will turn our slow growth economy into negative growth, bringing about a recession.

7. John Kerry will appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices who will reverse the court's opinon that Internation treaty does not supercede the US Constitution (justices are already admitting that they use international law as a compass in interpreting the US constitution).

8. John Kerry will implement stronger, CONFISCATORY "common sense" gun controll which will rob people of their Second Amendment rights.

And that's just for starters!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:27:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Collapse, no. Change for the worse, and permanently, yes.



Ditto. Collapse will come sonner than otherwise...
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:33:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Oh goodie - another newbie telling us who to vote for!

It's been what? 15 minutes since that's last happened?







Right on.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:39:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.




I dont. Bush is a bully. No one likes a big mean bully.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:40:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 7:41:15 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By longshot_va:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.




Five words: Patriot Act _plus_ John Kerry



How can you put the two together? Did Kerry hand us the Patriot Act?


Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:45:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By longshot_va:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.




Five words: Patriot Act _plus_ John Kerry



How can you put the two together? Did Kerry hand us the Patriot Act?





He voted for it, so if you hate it, hate him, too!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:45:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 7:46:19 AM EDT by Da_Bunny]

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



I believe there is a greater risk of collapse with Kerry at the Helm. Kerry is not very quick on his feet, just slippery. That won't matter when somebody gets a hook in him. He will certainly further polarize and divide the country.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:47:28 AM EDT
cyanide - I'm fear your correct on every single point you listed. The worst ones being -

1. John Kerry will re-join the Internation Criminal Court, allowing American's to be tried by International Judeges under the UN's definition of War Crimes.

3. John Kerry will surrender the US veto power in the UN Security Council (something that the UN has been foaming at the mouth for years to have happen) in a sweetheart deal that will allow Bill Clinton to become the UN Secretary General.

7. John Kerry will appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices who will reverse the court's opinon that Internation treaty does not supercede the US Constitution (justices are already admitting that they use international law as a compass in interpreting the US constitution).

8. John Kerry will implement stronger, CONFISCATORY "common sense" gun controll which will rob people of their Second Amendment rights.

As for number 8 - they can carry my guns out of my home when they are zipping my body up in a body bag.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:50:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 7:51:23 AM EDT by mac130]

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:
cyanide - I'm fear your correct on every single point you listed. The worst ones being -

1. John Kerry will re-join the Internation Criminal Court, allowing American's to be tried by International Judeges under the UN's definition of War Crimes.

3. John Kerry will surrender the US veto power in the UN Security Council (something that the UN has been foaming at the mouth for years to have happen) in a sweetheart deal that will allow Bill Clinton to become the UN Secretary General.

7. John Kerry will appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices who will reverse the court's opinon that Internation treaty does not supercede the US Constitution (justices are already admitting that they use international law as a compass in interpreting the US constitution).

8. John Kerry will implement stronger, CONFISCATORY "common sense" gun controll which will rob people of their Second Amendment rights.

As for number 8 - they can carry my guns out of my home when they are zipping my body up in a body bag.




motown_steve posted those

ETA: Cyanide would have posted the opposite
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:52:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By longshot_va:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.




Five words: Patriot Act _plus_ John Kerry



How can you put the two together? Did Kerry hand us the Patriot Act?





He voted for it, so if you hate it, hate him, too!



It just proves my point that they both suck!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:53:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mac130:

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:
cyanide - I'm fear your correct on every single point you listed. The worst ones being -

1. John Kerry will re-join the Internation Criminal Court, allowing American's to be tried by International Judeges under the UN's definition of War Crimes.

3. John Kerry will surrender the US veto power in the UN Security Council (something that the UN has been foaming at the mouth for years to have happen) in a sweetheart deal that will allow Bill Clinton to become the UN Secretary General.

7. John Kerry will appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices who will reverse the court's opinon that Internation treaty does not supercede the US Constitution (justices are already admitting that they use international law as a compass in interpreting the US constitution).

8. John Kerry will implement stronger, CONFISCATORY "common sense" gun controll which will rob people of their Second Amendment rights.

As for number 8 - they can carry my guns out of my home when they are zipping my body up in a body bag.




motown_steve posted those have



Whoops....I'm bad. I was too quick to respond when I read the original post by mowtown_steve!
Sorry.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:00:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:
cyanide - I'm fear your correct on every single point you listed. The worst ones being -

1. John Kerry will re-join the Internation Criminal Court, allowing American's to be tried by International Judeges under the UN's definition of War Crimes.

3. John Kerry will surrender the US veto power in the UN Security Council (something that the UN has been foaming at the mouth for years to have happen) in a sweetheart deal that will allow Bill Clinton to become the UN Secretary General.

7. John Kerry will appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices who will reverse the court's opinon that Internation treaty does not supercede the US Constitution (justices are already admitting that they use international law as a compass in interpreting the US constitution).

8. John Kerry will implement stronger, CONFISCATORY "common sense" gun controll which will rob people of their Second Amendment rights.

As for number 8 - they can carry my guns out of my home when they are zipping my body up in a body bag.



(1.) How can you hold the rest of the world to one standard, but not our troops?

(3.) This is pure tinfoil fantasy material.

(7.) I have a hard time believing any US president is going to hand over the U.S. to ANYBODY. This again, is pure tinfoil material made up by people who think the powerless UN is an actaul threat.

(8.) Has Kerry stated his plan for gun control? We all know that Bush was really no friend. I read and heard way too many statements like "I support a clean extension of the AWB" for you guys to paint this as a Bush + issue.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:03:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By longshot_va:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

A nation does not collapse. No people in history (unless conquered by war) wake up one morning and say "hey, we're oppressed." It is a gradual process, as freedoms are whittled away. John Kerry would be a significant step in that direction.



Two words: Patriot Act.




Five words: Patriot Act _plus_ John Kerry



How can you put the two together? Did Kerry hand us the Patriot Act?





He voted for it, so if you hate it, hate him, too!



It just proves my point that they both suck!



No, it simply proves that, as usual, you have no coherent point.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:06:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

(1.) How can you hold the rest of the world to one standard, but not our troops?

(3.) This is pure tinfoil fantasy material.

(7.) I have a hard time believing any US president is going to hand over the U.S. to ANYBODY. This again, is pure tinfoil material made up by people who think the powerless UN is an actaul threat.

(8.) Has Kerry stated his plan for gun control? We all know that Bush was really no friend. I read and heard way too many statements like "I support a clean extension of the AWB" for you guys to paint this as a Bush + issue.



Whoa! Hold on!

How can you hold our troops to the "worlds" standard? The UN is full of third world shitholes that would love to prosecute our troops for bullshit. You have got to be kidding if you think our troops should be subject to the law of anti-USA countries. And this is from John Kerry, who already thinks that our troops are "ravaging villages" like "Jenghis Khan."

John Kerry did say that he would place US troops under UN control. No, I have no link, and it was not recent, but this is the same guy that said the world must "approve" of our military's actions.

Even if you could make the case that GWB is anti-gun (whatever), you can't make the case that Kerry is better. That is retarded.

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:09:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

(1.) How can you hold the rest of the world to one standard, but not our troops?

(3.) This is pure tinfoil fantasy material.

(7.) I have a hard time believing any US president is going to hand over the U.S. to ANYBODY. This again, is pure tinfoil material made up by people who think the powerless UN is an actaul threat.

(8.) Has Kerry stated his plan for gun control? We all know that Bush was really no friend. I read and heard way too many statements like "I support a clean extension of the AWB" for you guys to paint this as a Bush + issue.



Whoa! Hold on!

How can you hold our troops to the "worlds" standard? The UN is full of third world shitholes that would love to prosecute our troops for bullshit. You have got to be kidding if you think our troops should be subject to the law of anti-USA countries. And this is from John Kerry, who already thinks that our troops are "ravaging villages" like "Jenghis Khan."

John Kerry did say that he would place US troops under UN control. No, I have no link, and it was not recent, but this is the same guy that said the world must "approve" of our military's actions.

Even if you could make the case that GWB is anti-gun (whatever), you can't make the case that Kerry is better. That is retarded.




Trust me, I never said Kerry was a friend of gunowners. His past record speaks for itself. I just do not agree this is a + issue for Bush. They both suck on this issue.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:17:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Trust me, I never said Kerry was a friend of gunowners. His past record speaks for itself. I just do not agree this is a + issue for Bush. They both suck on this issue.



Since Bush has been in office, the federal support for gun company lawsuits has been eliminated (a major change since Clinton), and the AWB has expired.

If Bush supported the AWB, he could have made a major effort to get it on his desk. He didn't make any effort, he in fact asked for a "clean" lawsuit protection bill.

Bush is a supporter of gun owners. Anyone who thinks we can have a stronger supporter in the White House (i.e., some of my fellow Libertarians) is living in a fantasy world.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:18:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 8:19:14 AM EDT by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Trust me, I never said Kerry was a friend of gunowners. His past record speaks for itself. I just do not agree this is a + issue for Bush. They both suck on this issue.




That covers about 5% of my post, what about the rest of the stuff you posted? And I do think Bush is pro-gun, the only thing against him was his statement about the AWB, which was made with the knowledge is was a non-issue.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:24:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Collapse, no. Change for the worse, and permanently, yes.



The poster boy of Vietnam defeatism and treason becoming president........I can't register how malignant that would be to the nation's spirit. I wonder if we'll ever be free of Vietnam and the motherfucking 60's generation that upended this country.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:26:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Collapse, no. Change for the worse, and permanently, yes.



The poster boy of Vietnam defeatism and treason becoming president........I can't register how malignant that would be to the nation's spirit. I wonder if we'll ever be free of Vietnam and the motherfucking 60's generation that upended this country.



+1
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:33:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Trust me, I never said Kerry was a friend of gunowners. His past record speaks for itself. I just do not agree this is a + issue for Bush. They both suck on this issue.




That covers about 5% of my post, what about the rest of the stuff you posted? And I do think Bush is pro-gun, the only thing against him was his statement about the AWB, which was made with the knowledge is was a non-issue.



Some Americans have always had a problem placing our troops under foreign command, but its happened many times. Montgomery at D-day or "The Battle Of The Bulge" are perfect examples. America did not collapse and the sky did not fall. It just happens sometimes during alliances. I think the paranoia concerning this issue stems from a few individuals who hide under there beds scared of the powerless UN. Do I personally like the UN? Hell no, its just a powerless organization too fragmented to do what it what suppose to do. On the international court issue, I find your opinion puzzling to say the least. Yes, the world is full of third world shitholes. How can you set one standard for them and another for us? It won't work. I agree the process would have to seriously looked over by our government to avoid "Pay Back" by some country with a score to settle.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:52:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 8:53:29 AM EDT by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
Some Americans have always had a problem placing our troops under foreign command, but its happened many times. Montgomery at D-day or "The Battle Of The Bulge" are perfect examples. America did not collapse and the sky did not fall. It just happens sometimes during alliances. I think the paranoia concerning this issue stems from a few individuals who hide under there beds scared of the powerless UN. Do I personally like the UN? Hell no, its just a powerless organization too fragmented to do what it what suppose to do. On the international court issue, I find your opinion puzzling to say the least. Yes, the world is full of third world shitholes. How can you set one standard for them and another for us? It won't work. I agree the process would have to seriously looked over by our government to avoid "Pay Back" by some country with a score to settle.



That is the biggest load of horseshit yet. WW2 has very little in common with today and the political environment. And, tell me, what US troops were under Montgomery? As I recall, he was under Eisenhower. And what the hell does your vague reference to "The Battle of the Bulge" mean? What US troops were under foreign command? Name them, if you can.

And powerless UN? No kidding it is powerless, unless SOMEONE agrees to abide by their rules. And the UN is composed of a lot of nations hostile to us.

As for our military, we have the HIGHEST standards when it comes to conducting warfare. NO OTHER COUNTRY shows the amount of restraint, professionalism, and outright decency then we do. If you disagree with that, then you and I have some issues. Other countries, and all of our enemies routinely ignore the laws of warfare. But here are other reasons not to place our troops under UN jurisdiction.

1. They are American citizens, and should be accountable ONLY to American courts run by Americans.
2. They would be prosecuted under bullshit charges by hostile nations.

In fact, I don't think I need anymore reasons than the first one.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:07:35 AM EDT
Does anyone here think that if Kerry wins gas prices will go up. Here's my theory: Kerry pulls out of Iraq early and doesn't give our troops time to let a goverment legitimize fully. If Iraq breaks out into a civil war without the pressence of US troops, that could cause oil prices to skyrocket.

But on the flipside, if some how Kerry wins, I think he'll screw up and everything and we'll be in for a pretty sorry 4 years, but after that, he won't stand a snowballs chance in hell for reelection and he'll have pretty much screwed over the democrats for the next 10 years. I mean hell, if the Dems keep heading in the direction they're going, I don't see how even moderate Democrats can stick with them. I'm supprised that alot of moderate democrats are voting for Kerry and not for Bush. Kerry isn't just some moderate liberal, he's as bad as it gets. I think its a shame for America that he even stands a chance tomarrow.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:14:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 9:17:08 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
Some Americans have always had a problem placing our troops under foreign command, but its happened many times. Montgomery at D-day or "The Battle Of The Bulge" are perfect examples. America did not collapse and the sky did not fall. It just happens sometimes during alliances. I think the paranoia concerning this issue stems from a few individuals who hide under there beds scared of the powerless UN. Do I personally like the UN? Hell no, its just a powerless organization too fragmented to do what it what suppose to do. On the international court issue, I find your opinion puzzling to say the least. Yes, the world is full of third world shitholes. How can you set one standard for them and another for us? It won't work. I agree the process would have to seriously looked over by our government to avoid "Pay Back" by some country with a score to settle.



That is the biggest load of horseshit yet. WW2 has very little in common with today and the political environment. And, tell me, what US troops were under Montgomery? As I recall, he was under Eisenhower. And what the hell does your vague reference to "The Battle of the Bulge" mean? What US troops were under foreign command? Name them, if you can.

And powerless UN? No kidding it is powerless, unless SOMEONE agrees to abide by their rules. And the UN is composed of a lot of nations hostile to us.

As for our military, we have the HIGHEST standards when it comes to conducting warfare. NO OTHER COUNTRY shows the amount of restraint, professionalism, and outright decency then we do. If you disagree with that, then you and I have some issues. Other countries, and all of our enemies routinely ignore the laws of warfare. But here are other reasons not to place our troops under UN jurisdiction.

1. They are American citizens, and should be accountable ONLY to American courts run by Americans.
2. They would be prosecuted under bullshit charges by hostile nations.

In fact, I don't think I need anymore reasons than the first one.



Did you skip school when history class was taught? Montgomery was the field commander of the actual D-day landings. Thus all troops used during the initial invasion were under his command. Eisenhower was the overall commander of Operation Overlord. Montgomery also commanded the U.S. First and Ninth Armies + IX and XXIX Tactical Air Commands during the battle of the Bulge. This is not a secret. It can be found in ANY middle/high school history book. If your going to TRY and flame me it would be wise to actually know what you are talking about.


"U.S. troops served under the command of foreign generals in both World War I and World War II, contrary to PDD-25's implication that they were merely under foreign operational control. When the U.S. found itself dragged into World War I in 1917, it was ill-equipped to deploy an army in Europe, primarily because it did not anticipate participation in the war.108 Until the U.S. could raise sufficient forces to deploy its own army in Europe, President Wilson authorized U.S. troops to fight under the command of the Allies in Europe.109 Once in Europe, U.S. forces were integrated into British and French units and participated in several major battles under foreign command during 1917 and 1918.110 U.S. troops also fought under actual foreign command in World War II.111 In 1942, the U.S. and Britain agreed to conduct "coalition operations:" the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff became a component of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), which organized field units composed of U.S. and British soldiers.112 Britain's General Montgomery commanded U.S. troops in Europe for a time, but by 1944 U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had assumed command of all allied forces in Europe.113

U.S. forces have also served in traditional U.N. peacekeeping missions since the founding of the organization. Traditional peacekeeping operations involve the deployment of military and civilian personnel between formely warring parties in order to monitor cease fires and provide a "zone of disengagement" between the parties.118 Peacekeeping forces are ordinarily deployed only with the consent of all concerned parties; peacekeepers carry only light arms to be used only in self-defense.119 Peacekeeping forces are under the political control of the Security Council; however, the Secretary General is responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities of peacekeeping forces.120 The Secretary General delegates this authority to the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, who is assisted by the Military Advisor.121 The Secretary General selects the force commander, subject to ratification by the Security Council, and the force commander reports to the Under Secretary.122"
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:32:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 9:33:56 AM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
Some Americans have always had a problem placing our troops under foreign command, but its happened many times. Montgomery at D-day or "The Battle Of The Bulge" are perfect examples. America did not collapse and the sky did not fall. It just happens sometimes during alliances. I think the paranoia concerning this issue stems from a few individuals who hide under there beds scared of the powerless UN. Do I personally like the UN? Hell no, its just a powerless organization too fragmented to do what it what suppose to do. On the international court issue, I find your opinion puzzling to say the least. Yes, the world is full of third world shitholes. How can you set one standard for them and another for us? It won't work. I agree the process would have to seriously looked over by our government to avoid "Pay Back" by some country with a score to settle.



That is the biggest load of horseshit yet. WW2 has very little in common with today and the political environment. And, tell me, what US troops were under Montgomery? As I recall, he was under Eisenhower. And what the hell does your vague reference to "The Battle of the Bulge" mean? What US troops were under foreign command? Name them, if you can.

And powerless UN? No kidding it is powerless, unless SOMEONE agrees to abide by their rules. And the UN is composed of a lot of nations hostile to us.

As for our military, we have the HIGHEST standards when it comes to conducting warfare. NO OTHER COUNTRY shows the amount of restraint, professionalism, and outright decency then we do. If you disagree with that, then you and I have some issues. Other countries, and all of our enemies routinely ignore the laws of warfare. But here are other reasons not to place our troops under UN jurisdiction.

1. They are American citizens, and should be accountable ONLY to American courts run by Americans.
2. They would be prosecuted under bullshit charges by hostile nations.

In fact, I don't think I need anymore reasons than the first one.



Did you skip school when history class was taught? Montgomery was the field commander of the actual D-day landings. Thus all troops used during the initial invasion were under his command. Eisenhower was the overall commander of Operation Overlord. Montgomery also commanded the U.S. First and Ninth Armies + IX and XXIX Tactical Air Commands during the battle of the Bulge. This is not a secret. It can be found in ANY middle/high school history book. If your going to TRY and flame me it would be wise to actually know what you are talking about.


"U.S. troops served under the command of foreign generals in both World War I and World War II, contrary to PDD-25's implication that they were merely under foreign operational control. When the U.S. found itself dragged into World War I in 1917, it was ill-equipped to deploy an army in Europe, primarily because it did not anticipate participation in the war.108 Until the U.S. could raise sufficient forces to deploy its own army in Europe, President Wilson authorized U.S. troops to fight under the command of the Allies in Europe.109 Once in Europe, U.S. forces were integrated into British and French units and participated in several major battles under foreign command during 1917 and 1918.110 U.S. troops also fought under actual foreign command in World War II.111 In 1942, the U.S. and Britain agreed to conduct "coalition operations:" the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff became a component of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), which organized field units composed of U.S. and British soldiers.112 Britain's General Montgomery commanded U.S. troops in Europe for a time, but by 1944 U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had assumed command of all allied forces in Europe.113

U.S. forces have also served in traditional U.N. peacekeeping missions since the founding of the organization. Traditional peacekeeping operations involve the deployment of military and civilian personnel between formely warring parties in order to monitor cease fires and provide a "zone of disengagement" between the parties.118 Peacekeeping forces are ordinarily deployed only with the consent of all concerned parties; peacekeepers carry only light arms to be used only in self-defense.119 Peacekeeping forces are under the political control of the Security Council; however, the Secretary General is responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities of peacekeeping forces.120 The Secretary General delegates this authority to the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, who is assisted by the Military Advisor.121 The Secretary General selects the force commander, subject to ratification by the Security Council, and the force commander reports to the Under Secretary.122"



While what you are stating regarding the historical placement of US troops under forgein command is true, it is important to note that those troops were placed under those commands at the discretion of the President and US troops were only placed under the command of American Allies at the time.

The problem with UN command of an operation is that if Iran or China were to offer up officers for a peace keeping mission, the Secretary General of the UN could realisticly place our troops under the command of an enemy of the United States.

Also, the International Criminal Court was not in place during the World Wars. I have a serious problem taking a someone from Iowa, sending him to Africa, placing him under chinese command and telling him that he could be prosecuted under international law, by international standards for violation of an international definition of War Crimes. "Major Smith, your decision to evacuate that village constitutes the displacement of an indigenous people, and is therefore a war crime. You are under arrest."

That just doesn't fly with me.

And besides, even if US troops were under british command during D-Day, the British Commander was under American command. Plus the Americans and British had a common goal!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 9:49:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 10:02:28 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
While what you are stating regarding the historical placement of US troops under forgein command is true, it is important to note that those troops were placed under those commands at the discretion of the President and US troops were only placed under the command of American Allies at the time.

The problem with UN command of an operation is that if Iran or China were to offer up officers for a peace keeping mission, the Secretary General of the UN could realisticly place our troops under the command of an enemy of the United States.

Also, the International Criminal Court was not in place during the World Wars. I have a serious problem taking a someone from Iowa, sending him to Africa, placing him under chinese command and telling him that he could be prosecuted under international law, by international standards for violation of an international definition of War Crimes. "Major Smith, your decision to evacuate that village constitutes the displacement of an indigenous people, and is therefore a war crime. You are under arrest."

That just doesn't fly with me.

And besides, even if US troops were under british command during D-Day, the British Commander was under American command. Plus the Americans and British had a common goal!



Exactly why I stated the entire process would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I would also have issues with North Korean/Iranian/Chinese officers commanding U.S. troops. But, I also think that situation is very far fetched. Even the U.N. is not that stupid. The U.N has always had trouble picking commanders for its peace keeping operations, becuase it has to find a commander everybody involved will accept. As far as the International court, I think the U.S. would have to look over the entire process. If U.S. troops were actually being charged with stupid crimes like you described, the game is over and U.S. troops would be pulled and protected. U.S. troops have served under foreign command numerous times in the past. Can anybody show an example of even one time this power has been abused?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 10:44:50 AM EDT
Again, you are wrong. What people fear is not the use of UN troops for peacekeeping missions (trust me, I know that they are), but allowing the UN to decide when and where we can use our troops. That is something that John Kerry intends to allow. And stop with the World War II bullshit. It is irrelevant. I cannot possibly list the number of ways it is not, but it is.

Ok and you defend the UN like it is some seperate body from nationalism. Who and what is the UN? It is a body composed of representatives from many different countries, most of whom are either actively hostile towards us, or resent our power/laws/influence and would work to undermine them. So, sure, let's give them authority over us.

And no shit about Montgomery, but what is the distinction there? He was under US command.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 10:49:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 11:01:11 AM EDT by The_Sgt_Rock]

Originally Posted By rifleman2000

Ok and you defend the UN like it is some seperate body from nationalism. Who and what is the UN? It is a body composed of representatives from many different countries, most of whom are either actively hostile towards us, or resent our power/laws/influence and would work to undermine them. So, sure, let's give them authority over us.




There are those in the UN who believe that advancing "global cooperation" is more important than protecting national sovereignty and individual freedoms. They view the US Constitution and American citizens rights as barriers to achieving this kind of integration. For them to reach the goals they would like to achieve, all rules and laws must apply equally to all people and America is the greatest hinderance to this process, minus the massive amount of funding we provide. But Kerry and Clinton believe it's okay to whittle away at our freedoms so that we participate in this united utopia. To me, America's sovereignty is sacred and anyone who is willing to sacrifice our rights should be treated as a traitor!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:18:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000

Ok and you defend the UN like it is some seperate body from nationalism. Who and what is the UN? It is a body composed of representatives from many different countries, most of whom are either actively hostile towards us, or resent our power/laws/influence and would work to undermine them. So, sure, let's give them authority over us.




There are those in the UN who believe that advancing "global cooperation" is more important than protecting national sovereignty and individual freedoms. They view the US Constitution and American citizens rights as barriers to achieving this kind of integration. For them to reach the goals they would like to achieve, all rules and laws must apply equally to all people and America is the greatest hinderance to this process, minus the massive amount of funding we provide. But Kerry and Clinton believe it's okay to whittle away at our freedoms so that we participate in this united utopia. To me, America's sovereignty is sacred and anyone who is willing to sacrifice our rights should be treated as a traitor!



I would love for either of you two to prove a damn world of this paraniod fanatasy BS. I truely do not understand this paraniod facination with a completely powerless organization like the U.N.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:35:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I believe we would be better off with Bush as far as terrorism is involved.

But truly you do not believe that the USA will collapse under Kerry.



Collapse no, no one could actually "take us over." But then, no one will need to. America will become an ineffectual economic backwater, basically banckrupt under Kerry. We will have little to no say in world events, even the ones that directly affect us. The people who work hard will pay for those that want to stay at home and make crack adict babies. The people who can pay insurance will have to pay the outrageous bills for those who don't. The people who enjoy the traditions of America will have them outlawed and made "non PC." Illiterate NAZI like Eurotrash will have as much say in the policing of our nation as us.

I think it will be an ugly ugly place.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:48:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By The_Sgt_Rock:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000

Ok and you defend the UN like it is some seperate body from nationalism. Who and what is the UN? It is a body composed of representatives from many different countries, most of whom are either actively hostile towards us, or resent our power/laws/influence and would work to undermine them. So, sure, let's give them authority over us.




There are those in the UN who believe that advancing "global cooperation" is more important than protecting national sovereignty and individual freedoms. They view the US Constitution and American citizens rights as barriers to achieving this kind of integration. For them to reach the goals they would like to achieve, all rules and laws must apply equally to all people and America is the greatest hinderance to this process, minus the massive amount of funding we provide. But Kerry and Clinton believe it's okay to whittle away at our freedoms so that we participate in this united utopia. To me, America's sovereignty is sacred and anyone who is willing to sacrifice our rights should be treated as a traitor!



I would love for either of you two to prove a damn world of this paraniod fanatasy BS. I truely do not understand this paraniod facination with a completely powerless organization like the U.N.



"I believe that Americans should have to follow the same rules as the rest of the world" - Rebecca Peters, Head of IANSA

"I believe in Human rights" - Rebecca Peter Response to the question regarding her belief in the validity of the American Bill of Rights

And that's just one UN Mouthpiece.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 12:03:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
I would love for either of you two to prove a damn world of this paraniod fanatasy BS. I truely do not understand this paraniod facination with a completely powerless organization like the U.N.



How about you prove your naive fantasy BS.

Since you cannot read, let me break it down in small words. People fear the UN because this "powerless organization" is composed of countries hostile to US interests, and as mentioned above, view our Constitution as a barrier to "international cooperation."

More specifically: People fear American politicians (and Americans) who are willing to agree to the UN agenda, ie sacrificing American sovereignty to "international law," laws passed by other nations without regard to the Constitution.

Even more specifically: You keep claiming the UN is a "powerless organization." Please explain. Power being the ability to influence, ok, if American politicians (liberals) agree to subordinate American interests to the UN (the "World Test" before military action, placing troops at the disposal of the UN), then we are granting them the ability to influence US laws and policy. THAT IS POWER.

Let's see an example of the powerless UN getting people killed, history guy. Sierra Leone is a small African nation that was overrun by the standard African rebel force, killing and torturing civilians as they went (documented). The Sierra Leone military was the standard inept African military and the rebel forces were on the outskirts of the capital. Sierra Leone hired a mercenary group Executive Outcomes, who spanked the rebels within a year. The UN could not abide by the Evil Mercenaries, and with the backing of Clinton, forced Sierra Leone to cancel the contract. UN troops were sent in to "peacekeep." EO pulled out, and the slaughter resumed. Thanks, UN, for using your lack of power to kill civilians. That's one example of their stupid policies fucking things up.
Top Top