I knew the telescope market was dying, but...
Rich
a new one. Combine two hobbies!
http://www.buytelescopes.com/Category/454-ar-assault-rifles.aspx
Chris.B
> ...Wow! If they'd offer a S&W handgun with each C-11 bought, I'd get
> a new one. Combine two hobbies!
>
What a great idea! I'm glad you're being so positive for a change!
No schoolchild should be without a handgun.
No retarded adult without an assault rifle.
AM
> On Dec 23, 3:04 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Wow! If they'd offer a S&W handgun with each C-11 bought, I'd get
>> a new one. Combine two hobbies!
>>
>
> What a great idea! I'm glad you're being so positive for a change!
>
Get your facts straight. They are not assault rifles,
they are semi automatic rifles. Sheesh...
Sorry you don't like them.
We here in the states love them :)
--
AM
wsne...@hotmail.com
How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
Quadibloc
> How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
> army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
Because it would have been quite pointless, Denmark being rather
smaller than Germany?
What one can really complain about is France's lack of foresight in
not extending the Maginot Line to the Belgian border. Had they done
that, Hitler would have just had to sit and fume while France prepared
for an invasion of Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland.
John Savard
AM
It might have helped, but the French troops were
just not as well led, and trained. VERY brave, and
tenacious but their training was for a static war.
Not the highly mobile, coordinated, well thought out
flexible one that was waged against them.
German mastery of maneuver warfare and thinking was far
ahead of anyone at the time. Except for a few British
officers back then.
No fixed obstacle has ever stopped a determined attacker.
The endgame was never in doubt there.
Pierre Vandevenne
> Get your facts straight. They are not assault rifles,
> they are semi automatic rifles. Sheesh...
Oh my God! Are you accusing Anacortes of false advertisements?
We need a lawyer, fast!
Pierre Vandevenne
> What one can really complain about is France's lack of foresight in
> not extending the Maginot Line to the Belgian border. Had they done
The Maginot Line did, in practice, extend into Belgium. And very
significantly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael
However, the use of gliders and paratroopers armed with shaped charges
was revolutionary, an event that changed warfare forever and is still
discussed today.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_2_93/ai_n6124007/
And of course, the utility of semi automatic rifles in the hands of
citizens as a means of defense is debatable today. AK47 don't seem to
be that effective against missile equiped drones these days.
When you think of it, the right to bear arms as written in the US
constitution gave citizen access to the most modern available weaponry
at the time. To be true to its spirit, it should now be amended to
allow citizens to operate their own missile equipped drones (quite
doable nowadays actually) and eventually their own tactical nukes,
just in case Iran invades.
Chris L Peterson
>How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
>army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
Plenty of Danes had guns, and they were used by the Danish Resistance,
although most of the activities of the Resistance were directed towards
rescuing Jews, not violent response (which almost certainly would not
have been productive).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Quadibloc
> Get your facts straight. They are not assault rifles,
> they are semi automatic rifles. Sheesh...
Don't complain to him. That's what the web site called them.
I'm just surprised one needs such firepower even if one is going to
hunt the wild birds instead of just looking at them in binoculars or
photographing them. Or is it now Anacortes Telescope, Wild Bird, and
Wild Elephant?
John Savard
AM
Hey they are fun to shoot, and a well made
one is quite accurate. I know.
Firepower is relative. I have hunting rifles that
are way more powerful cartridge wise !
Constitution says we can own firearms, not what
kind ;-)
Rich
news:YcKdnV4vDc_jYqzW...@giganews.com:
> Chris.B wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 3:04 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...Wow! If they'd offer a S&W handgun with each C-11 bought, I'd get
>>> a new one. Combine two hobbies!
>>>
>>
>> What a great idea! I'm glad you're being so positive for a change!
>>
>> No retarded adult without an assault rifle.
>
> Get your facts straight. They are not assault rifles,
> they are semi automatic rifles. Sheesh...
>
> Sorry you don't like them.
> We here in the states love them :)
>
>
>
Don't try to educate a stupid urban liberal about guns, it's a lost cause.
Rich
news:jmc4j555utlrake0b...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:51:26 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
>>army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
>
> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
> Plenty of Danes had guns, and they were used by the Danish Resistance,
> although most of the activities of the Resistance were directed towards
> rescuing Jews, not violent response (which almost certainly would not
> have been productive).
The North Vietnamese learned that in 1965 when they were slaughtered in the
thousands because they tried taking the Americans on head-on with massed
troops. Thereafter, they changed tactics.
TBerk
> And of course, the utility of semi automatic rifles in the hands of
> citizens as a means of defense is debatable today...
I'm thinking it would be good balance to have mandatory Citizen
Service, say post High School.
If you expect to exercise your Constitutional Right to Bear Arms you
must master basic proficiency first.
berk
Quadibloc
> Don't try to educate a stupid urban liberal about guns, it's a lost cause.
Well, people in urban areas do have to worry about crime. And gun
control is the only nice, liberal way to do something about crime.
What else would you have them do - support tougher penalties for
crime, or support some system where people who don't have a legitimate
reason for living in a city (i.e. they do not have an honest job, or a
lawful business, in that city, or are not family members of someone
who does) are not permitted to live there?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I'm thinking it would be good balance to have mandatory Citizen
> Service, say post High School.
It could come in handy if we - or the citizens of Buenos Aires - were
ever attacked by bugs from outer space.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> The North Vietnamese learned that in 1965 when they were slaughtered in the
> thousands because they tried taking the Americans on head-on with massed
> troops. Thereafter, they changed tactics.
This worked only because the Americans operated in an ethical manner -
just as Gandhi's struggle for the independence of India through
nonviolent resistance was only effective because the British were
constrained by ethics.
The Nazis would have responded to guerilla warfare on a large scale
the same way as the ancient Romans did - with genocide. In France,
they did respond to Resistance activities, guerilla warfare on a
limited scale, by killing civilians at random in reprisal.
Knowing history is important, but there is a lot of history that
happened before the 1960s.
John Savard
AM
> The Nazis would have responded to guerilla warfare on a large scale
> the same way as the ancient Romans did - with genocide. In France,
> they did respond to Resistance activities, guerilla warfare on a
> limited scale, by killing civilians at random in reprisal.
>
They did do that on a large scale in Russia. Never
quite mastered the situation, but held them at bay
somewhat. It took many divisions to do this, and took
a lot from the front line troops to pull it off.
In the end, they never really realized what they needed
to do. What was worse was the Russian treatment of these
so called freedom fighters, they got sent to the gulag
and worse for helping the motherland. Some payback.
The US did learn something from it, hence the way we work
in Iraq now. Believe it or not, (and my kid, my friends
kid's have already been there done that) it has worked
well for the most part. You are dealing with several groups
there as always. The local criminals, the local so called
resistance, the locals who just don't like anyone else,
and the foreigners. It's the local criminals, and the
foreign fighters that are the problem now. They don't
want to give up what they see is a good thing. They
can only be taken care of by elimination...
The other two groups are opportunists, and give up when
they see that they will get killed for their efforts.
You can tell by the reaction to insertions or VCP's
(Vehicle Check Points) in their areas. Used to be they
could react well within 15 min, now it takes around 45 min
and they are very sloppy in their methods. Believe it or
not, poor people, and primitave tribal people have a
very discriminating target selection list. Adhere to that,
and the local populace will come to your side.
We are doing this. And it's working.
Ask any infantryman who has been there, and he'll tell
you that the average Iraqi loves the US.
The German problem, and the Russian one in Afghanistan
was their failure to adhere to the locals target selection
standards to a large degree. Tho demographics in Afghanistan
pose a very different problem in winning the people over.
(sparsely populated areas are harder get people to get
along with their neighbors)
IED's, and booby traps are the mark of the losing side...
We are doing very well in Iraq.
War is a very serious game. The idea is to play anywhere
but your home turf. So far we have done very well at it.
Winning is secondary as war will always be with us sadly.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:51:26 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
> >army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
>
> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
> Plenty of Danes had guns,
Apparently not enough.
> and they were used by the Danish Resistance,
> although most of the activities of the Resistance were directed towards
> rescuing Jews, not violent response (which almost certainly would not
> have been productive).
It is interesting to note that Denmark had, by far, one of the
smallest casualty rates by percentage of population of all the
countries involved in the war. Even the United States had a
percentage that was several times higher. One could even say that
Denmark was a mere bystander. Given that, it is unseemly for a present-
day Dane (or should it be Denmarkian?) to have an opinion over the
type of weapons bought and sold by those in other countries, or what
stores sell them.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 23, 4:51 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > How come the subjects of Denmark didn't use their rifles against the
> > army that paid them a small visit about 70 years ago?
>
> Because it would have been quite pointless, Denmark being rather
> smaller than Germany?
Finland prevails against USSR (WW2)
Israel prevails against Egypt (1967 and 1973)
American colonies prevail against Great Britain (1775-1781)
USA prevails against Great Britain (1812-1814)
> What one can really complain about is France's lack of foresight in
> not extending the Maginot Line to the Belgian border.
What good would THAT have done? The Nazis would have just gone into
France via Belgium. Better to have extended the line to the English
Channel, leaving the low countries to their own devices (since they
know so much anyway.)
> Had they done
> that, Hitler would have just had to sit and fume while France prepared
> for an invasion of Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland.
Uh, the French had several months to prepare for an invasion of
Germany (remember the Sitzkreig?) Actually given Germany's military
build up during the 30's, the French actually had several years.
Pierre Vandevenne
> Finland prevails against USSR (WW2)
Except that they did not. They put up a great defense, but ended up
pleading for peace, abandonned a significant part of their industrial
output and territory and ended up being a virtual USSR satellite for
the next 40-50 years.
> Israel prevails against Egypt (1967 and 1973)
With total air superiority... Hardly connected to the matter, unless
one advocates citizens to fly their own fighters/bombers.
> American colonies prevail against Great Britain (1775-1781)
A time where, indeed, personal firearms were essentially the top
weapons. It also helped in the native genocide.
It did make sense at the time. But nowadays, you guys should be able
to operate your own personal drones or eventually offer classes in IED
at your local tech colleges.
> USA prevails against Great Britain (1812-1814)
Great Britain had other things to worry about (ever heard of
Napoleon?).
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 28, 2:22 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Finland prevails against USSR (WW2)
>
> Except that they did not.
Except that they did.
> They put up a great defense,
True.
> but ended up
> pleading for peace, abandonned a significant part of their industrial
> output and territory
Time to demand that territory back.
> and ended up being a virtual USSR satellite for
> the next 40-50 years.
No, they didn't. Look up the word "virtual."
> > Israel prevails against Egypt (1967 and 1973)
>
> With total air superiority...
Your point being?
> Hardly connected to the matter, unless
> one advocates citizens to fly their own fighters/bombers.
Huh? The government of Israel armed itself sufficiently. Denmark did
not.
> > American colonies prevail against Great Britain (1775-1781)
>
> A time where, indeed, personal firearms were essentially the top
> weapons.
In some ways they still are.
> It also helped in the native genocide.
No genocide, but the natives did suffer from introduced diseases
("crowd" diseases.) That is not an isolated phenomena.
> It did make sense at the time. But nowadays, you guys should be able
> to operate your own personal drones or eventually offer classes in IED
> at your local tech colleges.
>
> > USA prevails against Great Britain (1812-1814)
>
> Great Britain had other things to worry about (ever heard of
> Napoleon?).
They still lost the war, despite having a much larger population.
Chris L Peterson
>> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
>> Plenty of Danes had guns,
>
>Apparently not enough.
Every person in Denmark could have been armed, and it would have had no
impact on a German invasion.
>Given that, it is unseemly for a present-
>day Dane (or should it be Denmarkian?) to have an opinion over the
>type of weapons bought and sold by those in other countries, or what
>stores sell them.
Why? I've spent quite a lot of time in Denmark, and I have friends there
who own guns and shoot regularly- both hunting and range shooting, long
guns and handguns. There are a lot of restrictions, but in general
ownership isn't difficult.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:08:00 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
> >> Plenty of Danes had guns,
>
> >Apparently not enough.
>
> Every person in Denmark could have been armed, and it would have had no
> impact on a German invasion.
Sufficient tanks, some well-placed artillery, and an air force would
have helped.
> >Given that, it is unseemly for a present-
> >day Dane (or should it be Denmarkian?) to have an opinion over the
> >type of weapons bought and sold by those in other countries, or what
> >stores sell them.
>
> Why?
Why are you so dense? Denmark was, probably is, unable to defend
itself, yet some of its citizens see fit to criticize others in other
countries who would at least try to defend themselves.
> I've spent quite a lot of time in Denmark, and I have friends there
> who own guns and shoot regularly- both hunting and range shooting, long
> guns and handguns. There are a lot of restrictions, but in general
> ownership isn't difficult.
This isn't about restrictions per se, but more about attitude.
Chris L Peterson
>Sufficient tanks, some well-placed artillery, and an air force would
>have helped.
Not really. The U.S. had all those things, and it still took years to
defeat Germany. How long could Denmark have expected to hold out, even
with a well equipped army?
>Why are you so dense? Denmark was, probably is, unable to defend
>itself, yet some of its citizens see fit to criticize others in other
>countries who would at least try to defend themselves.
I don't see what's wrong with that. They choose to be non-militaristic,
and that philosophy means they believe others should be non-militaristic
as well. Why does being "unable to defend itself" somehow make it
unreasonable for its citizens to have opinions on how countries should
conduct themselves. You obviously have opinions on how they should
operate, despite living in a country that operates differently.
>This isn't about restrictions per se, but more about attitude.
Their attitude is what it is. It works for them, and the majority of
people are satisfied with things. That sounds like the definition of a
functional society.
Thomas Womack
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 10:13 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:08:00 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
>> >> Plenty of Danes had guns,
>>
>> >Apparently not enough.
>>
>> Every person in Denmark could have been armed, and it would have had no
>> impact on a German invasion.
>
>Sufficient tanks, some well-placed artillery, and an air force would
>have helped.
In that more Germans would have died and their governorship of
conquered Denmark would probably have been significantly more harsh.
Unless by 'sufficient tanks' you mean 'tanks enough to stop the
Wehrmacht', which Denmark could not conceivably afford. Too flat, in
too strategic a place and not interwoven enough with the commerce of
both sides (to explain why Switzerland and Sweden managed to stay
neutral and Belgium and Denmark not).
Individuals can't defend against armies; armed individuals defending
themselves against even a police force end up dead. Well-organised
groups of well-armed individuals can at best arrange that they delay
the army and die in a bombed-flat burning building rather than living
a relatively miserable life in subjugated Copenhagen.
Small flat countries with large actively-aggressive neighbours have
already lost; the hope is by diplomacy to make the large neighbours
not actively aggressive, and in the last sixty years that's pretty
much worked in Europe.
Tom
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In article <ad62fdbc-5f90-428c-b468-16d52c1e7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <wsnel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 10:13 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:08:00 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Because rifles would have been the wrong way to fight such an invasion.
> >> >> Plenty of Danes had guns,
>
> >> >Apparently not enough.
>
> >> Every person in Denmark could have been armed, and it would have had no
> >> impact on a German invasion.
>
> >Sufficient tanks, some well-placed artillery, and an air force would
> >have helped.
>
> In that more Germans would have died
Meaning fewer Germans to fight against the Allies, thus potentially
reducing the number of Allied casualties, which were much higher both
in sheer numbers and in _percentage_ of population than those of
Denmark.
> and their governorship of
> conquered Denmark would probably have been significantly more harsh.
> Unless by 'sufficient tanks' you mean 'tanks enough to stop the
> Wehrmacht', which Denmark could not conceivably afford.
The problem seemed to be that they didn't spend much of anything.
That's fine, just don't criticize others' decisions to arm themselves,
whether with a well-equipped military and/or personal choice of
firearms by civilians.
> Too flat, in
> too strategic a place and not interwoven enough with the commerce of
> both sides (to explain why Switzerland and Sweden managed to stay
> neutral and Belgium and Denmark not).
>
> Individuals can't defend against armies
Armies can defend against armies. Denmark just didn't happen to have
one.
> armed individuals defending
> themselves against even a police force end up dead. Well-organised
> groups of well-armed individuals can at best arrange that they delay
> the army and die in a bombed-flat burning building rather than living
> a relatively miserable life in subjugated Copenhagen.
>
> Small flat countries with large actively-aggressive neighbours have
> already lost; the hope is by diplomacy to make the large neighbours
> not actively aggressive, and in the last sixty years that's pretty
> much worked in Europe.
Along with US troops deployed in Europe to keep the USSR at bay. And
nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, modern jets, bombers and ballistic
missile subs.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:28:56 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Sufficient tanks, some well-placed artillery, and an air force would
> >have helped.
>
> Not really. The U.S. had all those things, and it still took years to
> defeat Germany. How long could Denmark have expected to hold out, even
> with a well equipped army?
Long enough for another country to mobilize? The problem was, Europe
let Fascism fester, as one country at a time fell to the Germans.
> >Why are you so dense? Denmark was, probably is, unable to defend
> >itself, yet some of its citizens see fit to criticize others in other
> >countries who would at least try to defend themselves.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. They choose to be non-militaristic,
> and that philosophy means they believe others should be non-militaristic
> as well.
Oh, good, then we should just just all sit around and sing "Kumbaya."
> Why does being "unable to defend itself" somehow make it
> unreasonable for its citizens to have opinions on how countries should
> conduct themselves.
Because then someone else who made the wise decisions to build an army
and forge alliances would eventually have to intervene on the
pacifists' behalf. Or not?
> You obviously have opinions on how they should
> operate, despite living in a country that operates differently.
>
> >This isn't about restrictions per se, but more about attitude.
>
> Their attitude is what it is. It works for them, and the majority of
> people are satisfied with things. That sounds like the definition of a
> functional society.
Except during an invasion. Which we assume won't ever happen anywhere
again, right?
Quadibloc
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:28:56 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Why are you so dense? Denmark was, probably is, unable to defend
> >itself, yet some of its citizens see fit to criticize others in other
> >countries who would at least try to defend themselves.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. They choose to be non-militaristic,
> and that philosophy means they believe others should be non-militaristic
> as well. Why does being "unable to defend itself" somehow make it
> unreasonable for its citizens to have opinions on how countries should
> conduct themselves. You obviously have opinions on how they should
> operate, despite living in a country that operates differently.
>
> >This isn't about restrictions per se, but more about attitude.
>
> Their attitude is what it is. It works for them, and the majority of
> people are satisfied with things. That sounds like the definition of a
> functional society.
In today's world, the only countries that can *really* defend
themselves are those with nuclear weapons. Thus, it is no _longer_
true that a country that can't defend itself is a country that *is
failing to perform one of the essential functions of survival*.
Denmark is a member of NATO, and its contributions of conventional
armed forces to that organization are certainly ahead of, say,
Canada's.
People in Denmark are entitled to their opinions, one way or another.
Given, however, that the United States is the country that bore the
cost of maintaining the nuclear deterrent that kept Western Europe
from being gobbled up by the Soviet Union, and is today bearing the
burden of protecting such endangered free countries as Taiwan, South
Korea, and Israel, whose fate no other country seems to be concerned
about - if there are people in Denmark who imagine that freedom
doesn't need defending, it's understandable that there will be
Americans who will be annoyed with them.
John Savard
Pierre Vandevenne
> Except that they did.
Strange victory indeed.
"Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace
Treaty. Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30
percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union."
> > and ended up being a virtual USSR satellite for
> > the next 40-50 years.
>
> No, they didn't. Look up the word "virtual."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Note: after reaing this you may also understand why your Denmark
example is a bit pointless.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 28, 3:52 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Except that they did.
>
> Strange victory indeed.
Compared to what happened to Poland and East Germany it was a victory.
> "Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace
> Treaty. Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30
> percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union."
>
> > > and ended up being a virtual USSR satellite for
> > > the next 40-50 years.
>
> > No, they didn't. Look up the word "virtual."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
>
> Note: after reaing this you may also understand why your Denmark
> example is a bit pointless.
Finland remained a more or less independent country before, during and
especially after the war _compared to_ much of the rest of Europe.
Poland was taken over by Germany in '39, then "liberated" by the USSR
a few years later, then run by a Soviet-backed communist regime for
almost half a century. Finland had a sort of "the enemy of my enemy
is my friend" deal going on with Germany and the USSR, which had
repercussions later, but it DID fight back. Helsinki even hosted the
Olympics in '52.
We might conclude that Denmark was merely a part of Germany before and
during WW2. Had the US not been involved in European War II from
1941-1945, Denmark and Germany might have spent decades under Soviet
domination.
Mike Collins
Britain did not lose the war of 1812. Both sides had made territorial
gains which were restored to pre war boundaries at the end of the war.
The main reason for the war - US trade with Napoleons France was
meaningless in 1814 with the abdication of Nopoleon.
Chris.B
and contains three separate, largely rural landmasses, covered in
tiny, scattered villages with only a ferry connecting the main islands
until very recently. The few cities are no larger than an American
mall. Denmark's borders in the South West are wide open to Germany
over perfectly flat, open farmland. Germany, the would-be occupier
could just as easily have taken the short sea route north. Just as
they do now to relax on unoccupied, Danish beaches. While the Danes
take a short drive south to do their bootlegging runs.
Any leadership which sees the writing on the wall does not leave its
citizens open to utterly pointless, totally destructive, aerial
bombardment which merely delays certain occupation by only a few days.
The Danish leaders of the time did their people an enormous service in
not resisting the absolutely inevitable. It takes real courage not to
put up utterly pointless token resistance to a massive bully like
Germany of the time. Even a resistance movement which causes heavy
civilian casualties, in retaliation for their paltry bee stings,
merely earns the evil occupier the ordinary people never deserved.
Your ignorance and arrogance are merely symptoms of delusion as to the
sea-worthiness of the unsinkable USS Aircraft Carrier. You are blind
to the economic realities beyond the high, media, electrified fence
which rings your flag-waving minds. It would be funny if it wasn't so
damned serious. (For the rest of the world suffering under your
present, corrupt, economic occupation) It could all have been so
different with Captain Obama at the helm. The world holds its breath
still. In complete disbelief that the rich and powerful can so
dominate the politics of a potentially great country. May your white
supremacist god help Mr Obama survive the back-stabbing secret
services and their real paymasters. When the Captain goes down with
the ship you may find there are no 6-lane anchor ropes to allow the
disloyal, albino rats to flee. And, no truly democratic country
willing to overfeed them in the manner to which they have become so
accustomed. Not unless they bring enough gold teeth to buy off a
dictator and their ever-loyal, Swiss bankers. ;-)
Quadibloc
> On Dec 23, 8:39 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > What one can really complain about is France's lack of foresight in
> > not extending the Maginot Line to the Belgian border.
>
> What good would THAT have done? The Nazis would have just gone into
> France via Belgium. Better to have extended the line to the English
> Channel, leaving the low countries to their own devices (since they
> know so much anyway.)
Huh? The Nazis _did_ go into France via Belgium. If the Maginot line
were extended... ah, sorry, _along_ the Belgian border might have been
clearer. I did not mean along the French border with Germany until it
touched the Belgian border (which I think it already did in fact) but
to the entirety of France's border with Belgium in addition to
France's border with Germany.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Your ignorance and arrogance are merely symptoms of delusion as to the
> sea-worthiness of the unsinkable USS Aircraft Carrier.
Since the post to which you are replying with this one is not one
decrying Denmark's failure to mount even as vigorous a fight against
the German invader as the French did... which I agree you can denounce
as unfair... but one making a point about the War of 1812, I am
puzzled.
While I agree with you about Denmark, though, I disagree with you
about the United States. It is true that China and Russia are building
up their nuclear arsenals, and I am very concerned they will
eventually find reasons to severely restrict the freedom of action of
the United States in countering terrorism.
But I wish for the United States, as well as Canada, the United
Kingdom, Ireland, and the democracies of both western and eastern
Continental Europe, and Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan,
South Korea and Israel, to be, and remain, "unsinkable". I wish that
other nations would join them as stable democracies commited to human
rights.
It is unfortunate that so many people in the world do live in
countries that are poor and miserable - most often more from misrule
than from poverty. This is not a new thing, and it happens that we are
not so rich and powerful that we have the power to fix it... even if
we should have done more, and done better, during the colonial period.
The freedom of the other countries on my list above mostly depends on
the military might of the United States, so I wish that it remains
"arrogant" enough to think that it can defend the world's other
democracies and not just itself, and "arrogant" enough to do what is
necessary to deal with threats to *all* our safety such as al-Qaeda.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
In the decade prior to the War of 1812, the British had been
interfering in the affairs of the USA, and so got themselves into a
war in which they lost many/most of the battles. Napolean abdicated
in early 1814, but the War continued until December of that year
(Treaty of Ghent,) and beyond (the Battle of New Orleans) so US trade
with France was not really the main cause, only a contributing factor
that lead to the war. Of course the USA had every right to trade with
France and defended that right by going to war. So the British did
lose the war.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 28, 6:22 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 8:39 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > What one can really complain about is France's lack of foresight in
> > > not extending the Maginot Line to the Belgian border.
>
> > What good would THAT have done? The Nazis would have just gone into
> > France via Belgium. Better to have extended the line to the English
> > Channel, leaving the low countries to their own devices (since they
> > know so much anyway.)
>
> Huh? The Nazis _did_ go into France via Belgium.
IF the Maginot had been extended TO the location where the Belgian
border with France started, THEN the Belgian border with France would
have still been undefended. I was suggesting that the Maginot Line
should have been extended to the English Channel, leaving the low
countries outside of the Line, giving France more opportunity to
defend itself against Germany.
> If the Maginot line
> were extended... ah, sorry, _along_ the Belgian border might have been
> clearer. I did not mean along the French border with Germany until it
> touched the Belgian border (which I think it already did in fact)
It appears that the Line actually ended short of that location.
> but
> to the entirety of France's border with Belgium in addition to
> France's border with Germany.
That would have been prudent and that is what I suggested. There might
have been political repercussions with Belgium though.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> Not strong on European geography? Denmark was/remains tiny and flat
> and contains three separate, largely rural landmasses, covered in
> tiny, scattered villages with only a ferry connecting the main islands
> until very recently. The few cities are no larger than an American
> mall. Denmark's borders in the South West are wide open to Germany
> over perfectly flat, open farmland. Germany, the would-be occupier
> could just as easily have taken the short sea route north. Just as
> they do now to relax on unoccupied, Danish beaches. While the Danes
> take a short drive south to do their bootlegging runs.
If all that is true, then Denmarkians are in no position to criticize
how others, the USA for example, who are better able to defend
themselves, defend themselves. If private citizens of the USA, decide
to own weapons such as the ones you criticized, which are sold and
purchased in the free society that the USA has spent money and lives
to establish and protect, then that is none of your business, none of
your concern and your opinion is utterly childish and naive, if only
because it comes from you, a defenseless Denmarkian.
> Any leadership which sees the writing on the wall does not leave its
> citizens open to utterly pointless, totally destructive, aerial
> bombardment which merely delays certain occupation by only a few days.
> The Danish leaders of the time did their people an enormous service in
> not resisting the absolutely inevitable.
It wasn't really clear how well the UK could have held out, but it
fought back anyway.
> It takes real courage not to
> put up utterly pointless token resistance to a massive bully like
> Germany of the time. Even a resistance movement which causes heavy
> civilian casualties, in retaliation for their paltry bee stings,
> merely earns the evil occupier the ordinary people never deserved.
There are resistance movements in most occupied countries. Some of
them are even legitimate.
> Your ignorance and arrogance are merely symptoms of delusion as to the
> sea-worthiness of the unsinkable USS Aircraft Carrier. You are blind
> to the economic realities beyond the high, media, electrified fence
> which rings your flag-waving minds.
The US soldiers and sailors who liberated your tiny "nation" (and I
use the term loosely) earned the privilege of waving as many American
flags as they wanted.
> It would be funny if it wasn't so
> damned serious. (For the rest of the world suffering under your
> present, corrupt, economic occupation)
You are free to do as you choose economically, since you were
liberated from the Nazis.
> It could all have been so
> different with Captain Obama at the helm.
With any luck, we'll have a Republican president again by 2013. At
this point it doesn't even really matter which Republican. (Well,
except maybe for Senator Snowe.)
>The world holds its breath
> still. In complete disbelief that the rich and powerful can so
> dominate the politics of a potentially great country.
You probably meant to say "a great country" not "a potentially great
country." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
Money does buy quite a few powerful, effective and terrifying weapons,
aircraft carriers being among them.
> May your white
> supremacist god help Mr Obama survive the back-stabbing secret
> services and their real paymasters. When the Captain goes down with
> the ship you may find there are no 6-lane anchor ropes to allow the
> disloyal, albino rats to flee. And, no truly democratic country
> willing to overfeed them in the manner to which they have become so
> accustomed. Not unless they bring enough gold teeth to buy off a
> dictator and their ever-loyal, Swiss bankers. ;-)
See if you can re-write the above paragraph so that it reads in a more
coherent manner. Include a few facts while you are at it.
Chris.B
>
> See if you can re-write the above paragraph so that it reads in a more
> coherent manner. Include a few facts while you are at it.
Not strong on English either? ;-)
Here are a few patriots for y'all to admire:
Quadibloc
> Here are a few patriots for y'all to admire:
>
> http://alturl.com/uje9
It is regrettable that the United States is heading down the same
sorry path as Italy, trying to tax its subjects on income they earn
abroad.
German, Japanese, and Italian taxpayers should have been the ones
paying for the Cold War, just as Russian taxpayers should now be
bearing the cost of the War on Terror. It isn't the fault of people
living in democracies that dictatorships commit aggression against
them.
John Savard
Pierre Vandevenne
> German, Japanese, and Italian taxpayers should have been the ones
> paying for the Cold War,
Well, that was what was attempted after the first world war, with
somewhat disappointing results.
> just as Russian taxpayers should now be bearing the cost of the War on Terror.
Whats the "War on Terror" beyond a marketing concept?
> It isn't the fault of people living in democracies that dictatorships
> commit aggression against them.
Anglo Saxon democracies have a long history of starting aggression
wars whenever it suited them economically. The opium wars being of of
the many examples. Just go and kill as many Chinese as possible so Mr
Jardine can sell his India produced opium to the Chinese customer. The
"War for Drugs" as opposed to the "War on Drugs" which was the other
popular marketing concept a while ago.
As far as WWII is concerned, Americans (New Year's Eve, I am trying
not to hurt his feelings) like wsnel actually opposed intervention and
the American public opinion was pushed into it by its elite, who knew
better about the long term risks of allowing Mr Hitler and his minions
to prevail on 2/3rd of the then developed world... Just ask Mr
Lindbergh.
Alliances come and go. The US was on the side of Napoleon, for simple
practical economic reasons, and probably because of the cold spell of
the Independence war. One century later, they were UK's best friend.
What is past is past and new people are around. Wars in Europe make
about 80% of our history books, which is quite understandable given
the fact that until the first half od the twentieth century, most
major world powers were crammed in that tight place.
As far as military might is concerned today, the main long term goal
of the US of A is to be able, one way or the other, to default on his
debt. Unless they have a credible threat to focus on (such as the
Chinese in the next 50 years or so), the US tax payer isn't going to
change its behaviour and even less accept to see his debts fiscalized.
Monetization is the only other choice and that could potentially lead
to long term USD devaluation (which essentially has been happening for
the last 10 years) or simple debt default or restatement. At that
time, the last thing you want is to see the Chinese blockade the US to
protect its due.
Looking at the triple deficit curves, 2015-2020 is likely to be a very
interesting period, especially since the current data is often
measured against other indicators which take a linear US GDP growth of
5-6% into account.
While a significant number of USians will no doubt stock duct tape,
ammunition and guns, I'll be thinking asset reallocation.
Happy new decade to all!
Quadibloc
> As far as military might is concerned today, the main long term goal
> of the US of A is to be able, one way or the other, to default on his
> debt.
This whole mess is caused by the OPEC nations seizing oil concessions
that belonged to U.S. and European companies. If the oil revenues
gained by Middle Eastern countries were spent legitimately on consumer
goods, rather than on armaments (for use against Israel) and
terrorism, the money would flow back to the United States - more of it
if China were part of Taiwan, with rising incomes that meant that
their products would not undercut everyone else's by so much - or if,
after Tienanmen Square, China had been embargoed, so that people would
instead buy from Taiwan and South Korea, which could spend their money
on armaments - because they would be for a legitimate purpose, so
Western democracies could supply that market.
John Savard
Pierre Vandevenne
> gained by Middle Eastern countries were spent legitimately on consumer
> goods, rather than on armaments (for use against Israel) and
> terrorism, the money would flow back to the United States - more of it
They haven't used their weapons against Israël for a while, those who
did were generally not using US weapons for the job, and most of their
current purchases do go back to the US through its weapons industry.
Last but not least, to some point oil is their resource, and it seems
somewhat reasonable to do as they please with it.
Quadibloc
> Last but not least, to some point oil is their resource, and it seems
> somewhat reasonable to do as they please with it.
That would certainly be true if they were responsible members of the
international community.
But, in fact, they were very irresponsible. In October 1973, there was
the oil embargo against the Western world. This was *before* the fall
of the Berlin Wall.
What is expected is that the oil-producing countries will be like
France or Japan - *peaceful*. Not attacking Israel, which doesn't
belong to them.
Co-operating in partnership with the United States against such global
threats as international Communism - not taking actions that injure
the economy and military readiness of the United States. In 1973, they
showed that they were not on the side of the forces of freedom against
the Communist menace. After such treason against humanity, the
question of "their oil" drops off the map.
John Savard
Chris.B
>
> Co-operating in partnership with the United States against such global
> threats as international Communism - not taking actions that injure
> the economy and military readiness of the United States. In 1973, they
> showed that they were not on the side of the forces of freedom against
> the Communist menace. After such treason against humanity, the
> question of "their oil" drops off the map.
>
> John Savard
How would you react if a foreign country wanted your coal reserves at
knock-down prices?
How has the American stance affected China? You have supported their
communist dictatorship by exporting your industrial production and the
purchase of Chinese made goods. The communist monsters would have run
out money to support their evil regime by now if the world hadn't
directly supported them financially. Russia is enjoying a rebirth of
an equally evil regime thanks to the purchase of their natural
resources by Europe. America's posturing is a soap for media home
consumption. America.com is massively in debt. Was the recession a way
to deliberately reduce interest rates to an affordable level so the
tin pot republicans could continue the military parade ground charade?
Mike Collins
>
> - Show quoted text -
The war was inconclusive and it's main result was the improvement of
relations between the US and Britain.
The way history is taught in any country is biased.
As an example the US navy visits Whitehaven in Cumbria every year to
celebrate the John Paul Jones successful attack on the town.
The British view can be summed up in this article:
http://www.whitehavenandwesternlakeland.co.uk/johnpauljones/raid.htm
"In truth, despite being audacious, having the advantage of surprise
and Jones’s inside knowledge, the attack had been a bungled failure.
This seems to have been due largely to the American crew’s reluctance
to "destroy poor peoples property" as Wallingford had put it. However,
the shock waves, that it sent throughout the country were completely
out of proportion with the mere few hundred pounds worth of damage
actually caused and turned John Paul Jones into an infamous pirate.
Importantly, it awakened everyone to the threat of invasion. The
defences of not only Whitehaven but also the entire British coast were
improved and more volunteers joined the militias. In short, John Paul
Jones did Britain a favour because his actions probably prevented a
full-scale French invasion."
wsne...@hotmail.com
Losing the war did lead to an improvement of Britain's in the years
and decades following.
> The way history is taught in any country is biased.
Ask Japan about WWII.
> As an example the US navy visits Whitehaven in Cumbria every year to
> celebrate the John Paul Jones successful attack on the town.
> The British view can be summed up in this article:http://www.whitehavenandwesternlakeland.co.uk/johnpauljones/raid.htm
>
> "In truth, despite being audacious, having the advantage of surprise
> and Jones’s inside knowledge, the attack had been a bungled failure.
> This seems to have been due largely to the American crew’s reluctance
> to "destroy poor peoples property" as Wallingford had put it. However,
> the shock waves, that it sent throughout the country were completely
> out of proportion with the mere few hundred pounds worth of damage
> actually caused and turned John Paul Jones into an infamous pirate.
> Importantly, it awakened everyone to the threat of invasion. The
> defences of not only Whitehaven but also the entire British coast were
> improved and more volunteers joined the militias. In short, John Paul
> Jones did Britain a favour because his actions probably prevented a
> full-scale French invasion."
So now you are saying that the American Revolution was inconclusive?
Did the British not lose that war?
yourmommycalled
> AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote innews:YcKdnV4vDc_jYqzW...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > Chris.B wrote:
> >> On Dec 23, 3:04 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ...Wow! If they'd offer a S&W handgun with each C-11 bought, I'd get
> >>> a new one. Combine two hobbies!
>
> >> What a great idea! I'm glad you're being so positive for a change!
>
> >> No retarded adult without an assault rifle.
>
> > Get your facts straight. They are not assault rifles,
> > they are semi automatic rifles. Sheesh...
>
> > Sorry you don't like them.
> > We here in the states love them :)
>
> Don't try to educate a stupid urban liberal about guns, it's a lost cause.
Especially when the one trying to do the educating is a mentally
handicapped dittohead living on the public dole like you Rich
yourmommycalled
> On Dec 29, 6:30 am, Pierre Vandevenne <pie...@datarescue.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 3:52 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Except that they did.
>
> > Strange victory indeed.
>
> Compared to what happened to Poland and East Germany it was a victory.
>
Nothing like redefining terms
wsne...@hotmail.com
Finland remained independent, thwarting the Soviet goal of taking over
the whole country. Sounds like a victory.