What would our government do?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: What would our government do?

  1. #1

    What would our government do?

    What would our government do if Americans acted like the rebels in Syria? Wouldn`t they respond like Assad? Wouldn`t they kill their own people? Wouldn`t they use weapons of mass destruction against their own people (automatic weapons can do some mass destruction)? Wouldn`t our government tell others to mind their own business? I guess our leaders motto is, "do as we say, not as we do". I guess if Washington D.C. had any common sense we wouldn`t even be discussing Syria.
    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. #2
    I seem to recall a story from my Virginia History book about some dust-up in 1861 . . .

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    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.

  5. #4
    I'm afraid that a civil war here today would not be nearly as "civil" as it was in the 19th century. :-(
    Lewis - NRA Life - Oregon Firearms Federation - National Assoc. for Gun Rights

    Gun control is NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek Michigan
    Posts
    1,269
    It would possibly much more costly for the government here because we are MUCH better armed. Much better.
    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.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    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.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. Yeah, you're right I think that the U.N are a big 'JOKE'.

  9. #8
    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.
    The way I remember history, the South was far better equipped than the North, if for no other reason than that they were being equipped by wealthy patriots, where the North was being equipped by government bureaucrats. How many people do you know today who have better arms than our military?

    The South would have won the war, and fairly quickly if it hadn't been for Lincoln. Hey! We DO have a chance, don't we?
    Lewis - NRA Life - Oregon Firearms Federation - National Assoc. for Gun Rights

    Gun control is NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by mojoman View Post
    Yeah, you're right I think that the U.N are a big 'JOKE'.
    But too bad, the jokes on us.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  11. #10
    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.
    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:

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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