What would our government do? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: What would our government do?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    I would like to know why we continue to dump so much money into the UN if they can't or won't do their job. I must be missing something but I thought the UN was established for the purpose of keeping the peace world wide. Yet when there's trouble in the world the good old USA is the one expected to keep the peace. The League of Nations couldn't keep the peace and the UN can't keep the peace, what gives. Why isn't the UN a core part of this discussion. It appears to me the UN is nothing more than a front for our enemies to spy on us under the protection of diplomatic immunity. We taxpayers aren't only paying for it but we are also providing a building for them to work out of.
    The UN has spoken, and decided not to get involved. The U.S.A. did not like that, and decided to go it alone. I also wonder if we do not respect the decision of the UN, why do we remain a member, and why not expel the UN from NYC? Our government only agrees with the UN when it will violate our Constitution.
    Even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no Evil, for YOU are with me; Remington 44 Mag:

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek Michigan
    Posts
    1,269
    The U.N. HAS a solution for all of our problems. It will stop war and people will all get along. It's the NWO brought to you by Agenda 21. Coming soon. Several hundred cities in US are already "signed up."
    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia...Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hog Jaw, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,275
    Howdy,

    Quote Originally Posted by dcselby1 View Post
    It would possibly much more costly for the government here because we are MUCH better armed. Much better.
    Yep, your semi-auto AR and hi-cap 9mm is far SUPERIOR firepower than anything the Gov't could round up.

    Paul
    I'm so Liberal that I work at the Bill and Hillary Clinton Regional Airport!

  5. #14
    Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report
    Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    Video:


    Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day that our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy,

    Yep, your semi-auto AR and hi-cap 9mm is far SUPERIOR firepower than anything the Gov't could round up.

    Paul
    US police obtaining military vehicles to aid hunt for criminals | Fox News




    "The Further A Society Drifts From The Truth The More It Will Hate Those Who Speak It".

    ~ George Orwell ~
    ~ GOD HATES RELIGION ~

  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob in Bristol View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buckey01 View Post
    I believe the total dead in the Civil War is usually estimated at about 620, 000. With today's U.S. population that would be about 6, 000, 000. Britain, the world's major super power, did think about intervention. Fortunately for them they reconsidered. But the horrendous slaughter did horrorify the western world. Gettysburg with 52, 000 casualties alone was particularly tragic.
    I am not sure Britain wanted to put boots on the ground. Britain continued large scale trade with the United States, and limited trade with the Confederacy, including two war ships. Britain was making money and fueling the fire. Britain was not choosing sides and shooting at anyone, unlike what our Government is proposing to do in Syria. As you pointed out, our Civil War was a great tragedy. The civil war going on in Syria is also tragic. In 260BC the battle of Changping, Qin`s wars of unification, 700,000 casualties. War is hell, agreed. Our government implies that 100,000 dead in Syria`s civil war is unheard of, and that is a reason of many to get involved. Deaths in US Civil War=620,000, US population 1860=31,000,000= 2% death rate. Dead in Syria in 2 years=100,000, Syria`s population 2011= 20,820,000=.5% death rate. So by the numbers, Syria is not as bad as our Civil War, yet no one got involved, and we worked it out.

    The British did seriously consider actively aiding the South. Their textile industry was heavily dependent upon Southern cotton. The Northern blockade of Southern ports was a significant hardship on the textile industry in England. At least helping the South to brake the blockade would have been easily possible. Plus the Europeans, who always seemed to love war, were actually horrified with slaughter on a scale seldom seen in human history. England had observers (reporters) embedded with both armies. Gettysburg finally convinced the Brits that the South was a lost cause and any intervention would have been too costly.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast