Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seem to be many instances of the state and federal governments assuming powers not granted to them. They are not granted the power, so far as I know, to ban the consumption of substances, for example. That's why banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment. No such similar amendment exists to allow the government to ban cocaine, but this has not stopped them.

---

There are, but they're eventually declared unconstitutional. For example, segregation was found to be unconstitutional.

Also, there are certain powers that come with general powers that are granted. For example, the power to regulate the public welfare includes things like regulating drugs. The powers not granted to the federal government were retained by the people. That means the states. There was a time when that was taken a lot more literally than it is today. So, in the 1920s it tok a constitutional amendment to introduce peohibition.

After WWII, the courts began to interpret the reach of the federal government more broadly. Inter-state commerce and federal grants becae an excuse for reaching into the states to regulate things that were thought to be under state control. The restrictions of the Bill of Rights were held to apply against the states through the 14th amendment. So, the federal government was able to reach into states to control things like discrimination in schools and prayer in schools, and even activities by private organizations that received federal funds or used federal services.

So, you're right, the federal powers go well beyond specific grants in the Constutution, but that's where they come from. Every time the feds exercise power, it has to come from some grant. When you sue in federal court you have to show how the court was granted jurisdiction over the subject, not so in state court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Mr Lerch, you have made it very clear from a multitude of condescending posts toward me or my beliefs in the past, that you despise people like me. That's ok, 'cause I don't much care for you, either. Even so, I will try not to point it out to you in the future.

---

I don't despise you or "people like you", whatever that means. I have disagreed with you on some things (and we seem to agree on some). At some point we did have somewhat of a personal relationship and I always liked you. The problem started when I made some incidental remark that you took in a very personal way.

What I have responded to is you admitted unusual and unpleasant method of inidicating disagreement. To me it seems like an attempt at ridicule and personal intimidation, when it's entirely unwarranted. Is there any greater condescension than that?

What I despise is despotism, bigotry and barbarism, and I don't think any of these terms relate to you. I despise the present government, which denigrates the constitution, labels dissenters as traitors, and fosters devisiveness among the people in order to preserve its power. I am delighted by the election, not because I love the Democrats, but because I'm hopeful that with some opposition the balance of power will be restored and the constitution will once again be protected.

I have never had a problem relating to people who disagree with me, but I'm not sure you can say the same. Thank you for your sincerity and your honest expression of how you feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Enlighten me, Kees. What, exactly didn't work in Vietnam?

Do you even know what agent orange is, by the way?

IThat include you as well, does it?

---

What did work in Vietnam? The U.S. were forced to sign a peace treaty (to save their face) with a bunch of guerilla fighters having not much more than AK 47s and a few tanks.
As soon as the US forces had left Vietnam the VC marched uninhibited to Saigon, nowadays called Ho CHi Minh City after the VC leader. That way they had outsmarted the U.S. I was in primary school those days and I vividly remember we all gathered around the one TV set the school had to listen to Nixon announcing het had signed the peace treaty.

Agent Orange still ruins peoples's lives. Agent Orange was defoliating agent sprayed by U.S. forces on the trees in Vietnam. That way they hoped to find the underground hiding places of the VC. Why Agent Orange would include me I do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kees

What did work in Vietnam? The U.S. were forced to sign a peace treaty (to save their face) with a bunch of guerilla fighters having not much more than AK 47s and a few tanks.
As soon as the US forces had left Vietnam the VC marched uninhibited to Saigon, nowadays called Ho CHi Minh City after the VC leader. That way they had outsmarted the U.S. I was in primary school those days and I vividly remember we all gathered around the one TV set the school had to listen to Nixon announcing het had signed the peace treaty.

---

You have it almost right. We fought against the VC, but they were supported by the regular North Vietnam army. Ho CHi Minh was the leader of North Vietnam, and their army swept into the south as we left and took over.

An interesting side story is that an army has never won a war against an underground insurrection. You can go all the way back to our revolution, the Frenh in Vietnam, us in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan. There are a lot more examples.

I was in Vietnam a few years ago, and I saw the tunnels in which the VC lived. What we didn't know is their determination. 75% of them who lived there died in those tunnels. They were prepared to fight to the last man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

You have it almost right. We fought against the VC, but they were supported by the regular North Vietnam army. Ho CHi Minh was the leader of North Vietnam, and their army swept into the south as we left and took over.

An interesting side story is that an army has never won a war against an underground insurrection. You can go all the way back to our revolution, the Frenh in Vietnam, us in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan. There are a lot more examples.

---

The interesting thing is we see the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. An invisible enemy, lead by an oil millionaire in a cave somewhere in the mountains. So we are bound to lose again. Best thing would be to catch Bin Laden and then declare to the whole world: "Mission completed, now we'll withdraw". Just leave a few SAS guys in case some other warlord wants to finish Bin Laden's job.
I do not think most Iraqis and Afghanis care a damn about Bin Laden. They don't mind we kill him and his likes, but after that they'll wish to be left in peace and solve their own problems themselves.
We Westerners should not always think we have to solve other nation's problems and even if we do we should never outstay our welcome. Many people in Iraq feel they're worse off now than they were under Saddam.

Regardless of what is happening today, and based on what has happened in the past...in a war like this, the only answer is "total eradication". Period. When people raise their children to think that "dying for the cause" is good, then that is a bad thing. I don't like it. When a person believes that strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up among innocent people is a good thing, then something is wrong. The reality is...too many years ago a father preferred one son over the other. Thousands of years later, it's time to get over it. Move on.

RT

You cannot do now what the early settles did to the native Americans 100 and more years ago. If you start eradicating a people (e.g. the Arabs) China and Russia wouldn't ignore it. Russia and China would interpret that as a U.S. effort to steal the world's oil. You would start Armageddon. At least pres. Bush has the sense not to do that.

Moreover, I do not believe that mothers raise their children to carry suicide bombs. Youngsters with nothing to lose fall victim to ruthless guys who use them to serve their purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kees

What did work in Vietnam? The U.S. were forced to sign a peace treaty (to save their face) with a bunch of guerilla fighters having not much more than AK 47s and a few tanks.
As soon as the US forces had left Vietnam the VC marched uninhibited to Saigon, nowadays called Ho CHi Minh City after the VC leader. That way they had outsmarted the U.S. I was in primary school those days and I vividly remember we all gathered around the one TV set the school had to listen to Nixon announcing het had signed the peace treaty.

Agent Orange still ruins peoples's lives. Agent Orange was defoliating agent sprayed by U.S. forces on the trees in Vietnam. That way they hoped to find the underground hiding places of the VC. Why Agent Orange would include me I do not understand.

---

What did work was the success we had when we were allowed to fight without the politically correct rules we were forced to follow. When I first went over in 1967, we were all told that the reason we were there was because of a request by the South Vietnamese that they wanted a democracy and did not want to be overrun by the communist forces to the north. Probably a lot like what it appears to be between North and South Korea these days.

That seems like a good reason to be there, although I still believe we need to mind our own business. Many of the people in Vietnam showed genuine gratitude that we were there.

As time went on, more and more rules of engagement were placed upon the military units. We were fighting viet cong, North Vietnamese, Chinese army personnel, North Koreans, and Jane Fonda over there. The fighters with the most resolve were the Koreans. In firefights, they really had it together. As weekly American losses approached several hundred, protests in the US hindered the efforts even further than bureaucracy alone.

I went into the field as part of a 6-man reconnaissance unit specifically put together to gather intelligence about the enemy. We were put in places where we were told that we could shoot anyone on one side of a river, but not on another. We were told we could shoot anyone between 7 at night and 7 in the morning, but not during the day. We were also put in places where we were told we could not shoot under any circumstances.

Some things went on that I cannot discuss because they may still be classified. Our unit was often required to go on 5-day missions without any personal identification on us and without any back-up if we came in contact with the enemy. I have gone in many tunnels to search out vc. Sometimes just knowing I would not come back out. Every time I went into the field, I came back bloody. Eventually, after nearly 9 months of missions, I sustained a concussion that put me in the supply room for the rest of my tour. Although I thought we shouldn't be there, I also felt we were doing some good.

There were only a very few engagements in Vietnam where we got our butts kicked. We could have won that conflict easily, but we were not allowed to do it. More and more, we realized that this had become a political war with President Johnson emerging as a very wealthy man. It was my understanding that he owned the only construction company in Vietnam, one of the airlines transporting troops to Vietnam, and stock in every munition factory in the entire US.

Eventually, public outcry forced a withdrawal with every veteran becoming the scourge of the earth. Upon my return, there was a welcome wagon waiting for me at the San Francisco airport. I was spat upon and called a baby killer as I walked through the terminal.

The bottom line is that more than 50,000 good men and one woman were killed for nothing. For nothing...

Because of politics and pressure by the media and protesters, we lost. We did not lose because of any military weakness.

It breaks my heart that we have guys in Iraq. It has inflamed my PTSD beyond measure. It's Vietnam all over again because we will pull out before the job is complete. Then, these guys will have died for nothing. The only difference is that this time the protesters say they support the troops... that's pure BS. They have no idea what harm they are causing by giving the enemy an incentive to continue the terrorism and giving him the resolve to continue the fight because of this. I think the media makes it worse because they only report their own agenda. Ever notice how so many roadside bombs are conveniently filmed for everyone to see? It tells me that whoever is filming, knows who is doing it. You should hear how so many of the military over there would like to take these protesters to the woodshed. We are not going to accomplish any kind of victory by playing nice and following all the rules when the extremeist muslims won't.

Why anyone thinks we will be able to negotiate with these terrorists is beyond me. In my view, that philosophy is plain and simple ignorance.

Anyway, when you said that carpet bombing and agent orange were the reason people were infuriated with us, I felt it was just a pretty uninformed opinion, and wanted to get a further take on it from you. Spraying trees with agent orange was not the goal. It was sprayed to defoliate the thick brush and bamboo beneath the trees to save American lives. Because of a lack of testing by the company that made it, it has probably cost more lives than it had saved. This next part is sarcasm, but I think President Johnson probably had his fingers in that too.

I'm sure you already knew, but, President Kennedy got us involved, President Johnson escalated it, and President Nixon bailed because of political ambition. The first two statements are facts, the last is an opinion.

Bill,

Firt of all, I do not blame any individual soldier who did what he was told to do. I admire the courage they showed under difficult circumstances. I think the ones who were there are the heroes of a lost cause. It is just sad that history seems to be repeating itself in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I wonder how democratic the South Vietnames govt was BTW.

Whether the use of AO was justified or not from a military point of view is not relevant for the damage it did to the image of Uncle Sam in the rest of the world. The trouble with the U.S. often is they want to do good but the means they use seem not to justify the cause in the eyes of many, both within and outside the U.S.

A war is not lost because soldiers do not do the best they can but because political restrictions imposed by public opninion at the home front. and the rest of the world.

Fighting a war is not only being cleverer and stronger than the enemy on the battle field, it's also about the feelings of the home front. When the home front starts to have serious doubts about the validity of the war than the it becomes a lost battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kees

Bill,

Firt of all, I do not blame any individual soldier who did what he was told to do. I admire the courage they showed under difficult circumstances. I think the ones who were there are the heroes of a lost cause. It is just sad that history seems to be repeating itself in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I wonder how democratic the South Vietnames govt was BTW.

Whether the use of AO was justified or not from a military point of view is not relevant for the damage it did to the image of Uncle Sam in the rest of the world. The trouble with the U.S. often is they want to do good but the means they use seem not to justify the cause in the eyes of many, both within and outside the U.S.

A war is not lost because soldiers do not do the best they can but because political restrictions imposed by public opninion at the home front. and the rest of the world.

Fighting a war is not only being cleverer and stronger than the enemy on the battle field, it's also about the feelings of the home front. When the home front starts to have serious doubts about the validity of the war than the it becomes a lost battle.

---

History will continue to repeat itself if the media and the politicans keep on their same pattern, which is go in balls out and then at the first sight of the ugly part of war the focus changes to the problems and the thoughts of hurting our men and women or the enemies and the immediate response is to start planning a pull out regardless of the outcome. All of these mothers for peace and bleeding heart liberals are killing or own men and women almost as much as if they poisened the water supply, if they shut the hell up the military could work on fightin a war instead of spending god knows how much time and money on public damage control. I am sorry you lost your son in Iraq ma'am, but he joined the military for a reason, there is no draft, this was part of the deal, why are you so shocked that something like this could happen. Yes its a tragic, but you will not bring him back by breaking the minds and spirits of the rest of the sons and daughters over there. IF you are that against the military, perhaps you should have discussed this with your child BEFORE you decided the GI benefits were a great deal. People by nature are sheep who want to be lead and they will basically listen to and follow anyone who has somethign to say as long as they dont suffer public ridicule. This is why organized religion goes over so well. We have soldiers that are well trained and have so much pride in what they do, only they KNOW at this point they will never actually be allowed to win.

Bill, what you were saying about making negative comments in the pentagon, I think your eyes would pop out of your head and your heart would sink if you got to hear what is often said about the current policial climate and the trust that our men and women have in the government. I do not know if it is worse learning while you are over seas fighting in hostile territory that the government might be holding you back, or to know before ever going that the only support you will have is from those fighting along with you. In my opinion, here is a very sharp divide between politics and war, and while many may think they go hand in hand, the truth is, politics are the weak link in war, it is like asking our military to go in and fight with on arm behind their backs for the good of the people.

On another note, speaking of war on foreign soil, I find it VERY hard to beleive that any foreign government or small groups of religious nuts would ever consider envading our country outright due to the massive amount of resistance the armed american people would provide mostly due to how well armed they are. Yes bombs can still be smuggled in and this is an issue, but I do think that if it was not for our heavily armed population we would be much more at risk for a war on our own soil.