[paraclete]

Gee... I seem to remember my parents generation having to bail out BOTH those countries. Both of which actually never had any constitutional right to arm themselves for self protection.


Incidentally the UK crime rates are way too high for them to be prancing around claiming to be "safe". Lack of a gun isn't a deterant to criminals to commit crimes....they use knoves, clubs, explosives, battery acid....anything else that can cause bodily harm.

I hardly think Austrailia is crime free either.

What is it you thought you were bailing us out from while you sat on your duffs and watched. You entered both wars as a matter of convenience because you were attacked so don't give us that bail you out crap. you did what you did because it suited you. Your help was gratefully received at the time but you would have let us go to hell in a hand basket if it suited you, oh saviour of the world

As far as weapons in general are concerned yes a frenzied mind will use anything but if you don't provide them with the expedience of a gun our experience is that less people get hurt. Australia is not crime free but the incidence of violent crime is much lower than in the US, this is documented, also gun related crime is rare and associated with the criminal classes. You have exported your problems all over the world but we resist

[cdad]

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

Maybe you havent been keeping up with the news lately. Let me run some of it down in short form. Since the Libs have taken over and managed to run roughshot over the constitution and seem to think they ARE the higher power and know whats best for the great unwashed. It tends to make people nervous. That is why so many are so diligent and vocal today about our government. Do you really think that they (the government) knows better how to run your life then you do?

From Wikki:
For some scholars^{[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]who?[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]}, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without the consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of its people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power. In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's lives) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions).

Dictatorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Libs want to fit people into boxes because once boxed in it is much easier to control. Think about that with all this stuff going on that is suppose to be good for you and really isnt.

[smoothy]

What is it you thought you were bailing us out from while you sat on your duffs and watched. You entered both wars as a matter of convenience because you were attacked so don't give us that bail you out crap. you did what you did because it suited you. Your help was gratefully received at the time but you would have let us go to hell in a hand basket if it suited you, oh saviour of the world

As far as weapons in general are concerned yes a frenzied mind will use anything but if you don't provide them with the expedience of a gun our experience is that less people get hurt. Australia is not crime free but the incidence of violent crime is much lower than in the US, this is documented, also gun related crime is rare and associated with the criminal classes.

You'd be speaking Japanese today... and the UK would be speaking German if we had stayed out of that war. If Obama was president then... he would have been appologizing to Michinomiya Hirohito for being attacked. And would have told Adolf Hitler...he would have more 'flexibility" after the elections.

[paraclete]

Do you really think that they (the government) knows better how to run your life then you do?

.

the point of government, which seems to escape you, is to govern, which involves bringing about change to address social issues. I know some people hate change particularly if it comes with personal cost but inevitably we all have to accept change, it is part of life. Now you can go kicking and screaming with a "they will never take my freedom away" or you can embrace what is happening and work constructively to make it better. In a democracy things happen which we don't like and we get the opportunity to register our disgust at the ballot box. The point of not having an armed population is abundantly clear in the Ukraine right now, they have failed to embrace change and the gun rules

[paraclete]

You'd be speaking Japanese today... and the UK would be speaking German if we had stayed out of that war. If Obama was president then... he would have been appologizing to Michinomiya Hirohito for being attacked. And would have told Adolf Hitler...he would have more 'flexibility" after the elections.

The Japanese were never going to invade Australia, they only had a couple of regiments in Papua New Guinea and I seem to remember that Hitler never actually invaded England long before you came into the war. Australia had one million military personnel in WWII and was the sixth largest armed force engaged in the conflict

You believe what you want about Obama, maybe he is like Neville Chamberlain, you do get them. You keep telling yourself those lies and live in past glories. Having an armed population didn't protect you from the Japanese, it doesn't even protect you from the mexicans

[cdad]

the point of government, which seems to escape you, is to govern, which involves bringing about change to address social issues. I know some people hate change particularly if it comes with personal cost but inevitably we all have to accept change, it is part of life. Now you can go kicking and screaming with a "they will never take my freedom away" or you can embrace what is happening and work constructively to make it better. In a democracy things happen which we don't like and we get the opportunity to register our disgust at the ballot box. The point of not having an armed population is abundantly clear in the Ukraine right now, they have failed to embrace change and the gun rules

I know what government is suppose to be doing. But the point of what I wrote is about what this government isnt doing for the people and only for itself and its croneys. The libs want to label what the dont agree with and smear with name calling tactics until they pitch such a hissy fit they get their way. They are also giving away money at record levels and still not working toward the common good. They are attempting to strip away the constitution and mold it to their political needs. The list is endless.

[paraclete]

being on the wrong side of politics is maddening, we all experience it from time to time. Right now in this nation we are trying to undo the problems created by a left wing government so we understand the angst, however we must also understand that government only does these things because it had the support of the majority at least part of the time

If you had a system where compromise rather than obstructionism was a tool then you might achieve more but in a polarised electorate all you have is emotive issues

[smoothy]

The Japanese were never going to invade Australia, they only had a couple of regiments in Papua New Guinea and I seem to remember that Hitler never actually invaded England long before you came into the war. Australia had one million military personnel in WWII and was the sixth largest armed force engaged in the conflict

You believe what you want about Obama, maybe he is like Neville Chamberlain, you do get them. You keep telling yourself those lies and live in past glories. Having an armed population didn't protect you from the Japanese, it doesn't even protect you from the mexicans

Tell that to the people in states that border the Mexican border... I think they would find trouble in that statement. Because where those illegals go... crime follows.

We had 12,209,238 military personnel in WW2 to your 1 million (assuming that's a rough number)

The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: US Military

THe Japanese war machine and the German one both would not have been brought to an end without our being there. THe Germans basically overran Europe and North Africa.. and would have overran the UK without our help.

THe Japanese basically had the run of the Pacific Theater in the beginning too. They were knocking on your door.

[paraclete]

The first defeat the Japanese faced on land was at Milne Bay, we were lucky but nevertheless they weren't in sufficent numbers to prevail so much for run of the theatre, there is such a thing as over confidence and extending your lines too far, a lesson the British learned in Malaya and sadly so did we. the Japs had what they wanted the oil fields in the dutch east indies.

I'm not saying greater numbers wern't needed for victory although in Europe, left to the task, the soviets would have eventually prevailed. Hitler forgot you need more than guns to win a war. It was a world war for a reason but it was a world war before you got there. If the Japanese hadn't made the mistake of attacking you, you would have sat on your duff a little longer, but MacArthur having his butt kicked in the Phillipines would have brought you in without Pearl Harbour. The Japanese didn't fear your armed population they feared your aircraft carriers

[Catsmine]

The Japanese didn't fear your armed population they feared your aircraft carriers

Actually, they were concerned with OUR logistics capabilities, as Admiral Yamamoto so succinctly put:

Anyone who has seen the auto factories in Detroit and the oil fields in Texas knows that Japan lacks the national power for a naval race with America.
Isoroku Yamamoto

As far as the armed populace:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Isoroku Yamamoto

[tomder55]

The Japanese Navy proposed creating bases on Australia's Northern Pacific region. They instead decided to isolate Australia by occupying South Pacific islands. The fear of a Japanese invasion was real enough however and explains Aussie's alliance with the US .

The Japanese decided to attack south instead of north against Russia after they got their a$$es whupped at Khalkhin Gol by Soviet tank commander Zhukov .
The decision by the Japanese to go south allowed Zhukov to use all his resources in the defenses of Lenigrad and Moscow .

[paraclete]

Come on, Tom, Australia was a convenient staging post in the South Pacific, Yes after Britian showed it's true colours and the US entered the war we became allies in the war against Japan, prior to that you could care less about us and were prepared to sacrifice northern Australia once Generalissimo McAthur got here. I doubt Japan ever intended to take on Russia, even though they were an old enemy, the Japanese followed the idea of fighting the battles you could win, their one mistake was to bring the US into the war

[talaniman]

I know what government is suppose to be doing. But the point of what I wrote is about what this government isnt doing for the people and only for itself and its croneys. The libs want to label what the dont agree with and smear with name calling tactics until they pitch such a hissy fit they get their way. They are also giving away money at record levels and still not working toward the common good. They are attempting to strip away the constitution and mold it to their political needs. The list is endless.

That's a rather broad statement, which may be inaccurate on its face as it pertains to the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right, no matter the issue, and the court loses sustained not only in state courts as well as federal and national, and the evidence certainly points to error in the conservative interpretation of the constitution.

Afraid your feelings don't accurately reflect the facts and conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle. That may change in the next cycle but for now seems all you got on the right is hype and rhetoric that hasn't turned into sufficient majority votes.

Just saying your view on the intent of ancient man (the founding fathers) is as skewed as you say ours is. Your notions on the common good differs greatly from ours, obviously.

[tomder55]

check out the battle of Khalkhin Gol .It was annihilation. Yes the Japanese orginally planned to take on Russia. Germany begged them to do so ;but they had gotten their tail's whipped in 1939. Politically, the Japanese military was always divided between the Northern Expansion Doctrine (in which the Japanese Empire would expand north into Siberia) and the Southern Expansion Doctrine (in which the Japanese Empire would instead focus on South-East Asia and the greater Pacific). Their defeat at Khalkhin Gol discredited the Northern Expansion Doctrine.

[paraclete]

Had a look at the record Tom, the Japanese army in Manchuria acted independently and obviously underestimated soviet strength. the doctrine you speak of was a local military plan, not the idea of the imperial planners. What that battle did was to get a pact between the soviets and Japan which freed both for other theatres. Big difference between 1939 and 1941 and what it did do was cause the Japs to take on the US and Britain. I think they actually did the Russians a favour by allowing them to perfect their tactics. In the big picture of WWII it was really the opening shots

[tomder55]

and what it did do was cause the Japs to take on the US and Britain.

I think that's what I've been saying . To go with a Southern Doctrine meant that a clash with the US was inevidible . Reading a good book now on the topic Called 'Japan 1941 Countdown to Infamy ' by Eri Hotta . It explores the logic of the Pearl Harbor attack from the Japanese leadership perspective.

[tomder55]

In the big picture of WWII it was really the opening shots

The Japanese war in China was really the opening shots ....although it could be argued that the die was cast with Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic mistakes( encouraging Japanese imperialism) .

[Catsmine]

the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right,

Been going on a lot longer than that.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused

The whole name calling bit has a long and storied history in politics.

When politics were truly ugly: Jefferson vs. Adams » Opinion » The Edmond Sun

conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle.

Yet the cycle previous to that showed that conservative policy was precisely what the electorate wanted.

US midterm election results herald new political era as Republicans take House | World news | theguardian.com

As the meme says: "When the right showed their true colors, we voted in the left. When the left showed their true colors, we voted in the right." Or maybe I got that reversed.

[NeedKarma]

As the meme says: "When the right showed their true colors, we voted in the left. When the left showed their true colors, we voted in the right." Or maybe I got that reversed.

You got it right. It's an endemic problem in both parties. They tell you what you want to hear during the election campaign, once in they then proceed to do the bidding of those that line their pockets. They retire rich people and live lavish lifestyles... you don't get that luxury.

[cdad]

That's a rather broad statement, which may be inaccurate on its face as it pertains to the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right, no matter the issue, and the court loses sustained not only in state courts as well as federal and national, and the evidence certainly points to error in the conservative interpretation of the constitution.

Afraid your feelings don't accurately reflect the facts and conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle. That may change in the next cycle but for now seems all you got on the right is hype and rhetoric that hasn't turned into sufficient majority votes.

Just saying your view on the intent of ancient man (the founding fathers) is as skewed as you say ours is. Your notions on the common good differs greatly from ours, obviously.

Enlighten me on some of the facts that I seem to be missing out on. I dont recall all the labels being made before libs started screaming them just because a person has an opposing veiw. This push on health care is much to do about nothing when you consider that most of the people that have it can't afford to get sick and now are out monies that could have been used for actual health care. Remember those shovel ready jobs?

I let the facts speak for itself. Im not into sugar coating it or trying to change it afterwards. We still have record unemployment going on. We still have a housing crisis. We still are spending money way beyond what we take in.