Originally Posted by NoWar

Read this article What do you think? Is it possible?

No, it's not. Whoever wrote it has given a severely flawed argument. As for no war being fought on US territory. In the past that's been true, but there are no guarantees for the future.

The writer is merely posing an argument based on similar conflicts such as WW2. However our weaponry has gone much, much further than anything we had then; to say there would be no conflict on US soil is not an argument that could be in anyway substantiated at the present time.

Starting a war in Europe would a very silly thing to do. Most countries would not rely on the US for weapons, support or finances these days - many European countries have their own allies (the EU being only one such organisation); there is no need to turn to the US as they did in the last world war.

This is the basic fatal flaw for the argument that's presented; all evidence is from past battles and conflicts. Nothing is based on current weaponry and financial status of the countries.

Also, if the US started a European War Britain would have to cut ties and side with the EU and its member states. America relies as much on Britain's doglike devotion to support it as Britain relies on the US - to fracture that 'friendship' would ultimately work against the US and that would need to be considered.

Don't under estimate either Bush or, more importantly, the US government - they're not as stupid as they look.

Originally Posted by NoWar

Read this article What do you think? Is it possible?

Yes, at the expence of possible mutual annihilation

Which is why it won't happen. Even government's as power hungry as Russia are not that stupid as to want to kill themselves.

Is it ( WW3 ) a possibility ? Absolutely ,imho.

We can surmise how stupid world leaders can be but what about the danger of a small human error or computer malfunction that could set off a chain reaction that would be catastrophic ?

The imposition of the NWO as prescribed by Washington is causing a tension that ,imo, increases the chances of such a fatal mistake.

The militarisation of space is another , but seldom discussed , bone of contention that could lead to pre-emptive strikes from endangered nations.

And if all else fails we can rely on Israel to set the ball rolling if they are threatened enough ( as they have stated )

Originally Posted by NoWar

Do you want World War III

Would we have a choice if our rulers can make money funding it?

IMO, the writer is under the impression it would be a conventional war...I don't think it would be. So, everyone loses.

That being said, we have as much to worry about from terrorist groups, as we do from countries like Iran, North Korea and others. I agree with TROUBLE43, starting a war in Europe would not only turn England against us, but the entire wide world. So how would we benefit.

Something else the writer failed to mention, in regards to the U.S., this country has had the reputation of rebuilding the countries it has gone to war with.

Is a World War possible? Yes. Will it happen? I pray it doesn't.



SNAKE

Originally Posted by NoWar

Read this article What do you think? Is it possible?

Ohh Ohh do i want WW3 oooohhh yes please i like evryone else love war and want more!!!!!Can we have conscription and send our kids to their deaths?ooohhhh pleeeeeeaaaaassssssssssse!!!!!!!
Sorry but to me its a stupid question to pose!
No one wants war war is not a desire anyone should have if they do they are crazy!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Ohh Ohh do i want WW3 oooohhh yes please i like evryone else love war and want more!!!!!Can we have conscription and send our kids to their deaths?ooohhhh pleeeeeeaaaaassssssssssse!!!!!!!
Sorry but to me its a stupid question to pose!
No one wants war war is not a desire anyone should have if they do they are crazy!!!!!!!!!

I agree, and i seriously doubt it will happen. If the US gove shared power a bit more though, that would improve all our relationships.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

I agree, and i seriously doubt it will happen. If the US gove shared power a bit more though, that would improve all our relationships.

I would agree with your idea of more power shared from my country, but don't forget...that would also mean more shared respondsibility from those we shared with. How many are ready for that?


SNAKE

No war. No death.
It is our duty to mainten world peace.
have you watched the west wing?

Originally Posted by cajunsnake

I would agree with your idea of more power shared from my country, but don't forget...that would also mean more shared respondsibility from those we shared with. How many are ready for that?


SNAKE

I think that's half the problem with the UN, they want to help but they don;t want the responsibility of it. It seems to me there is no easy answer to any of these questions.

But do I think another world war will happen? Probably not; but I'd still keep my eyes peeled, there's too many radical factions out there that could obtain weapons that might trigger a fight that could escalate.

With the world economy in such meltdown its also leaving some governments open to attack from more radical parts of their society; coups can take place anywhere not just in so-called 'third world' countries.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

No, it's not. Whoever wrote it has given a severely flawed argument. As for no war being fought on US territory. In the past that's been true, but there are no guarantees for the future.

Don't get your hopes up. We may be susceptible to missle attack, but that's about it. We will have absolute air superiority. Any invasion force will be sunk about 500 miles offshore. Then there's the issue of resupply. To make matters worse, we have 80 million gun owners and over 200 million guns. Granted, not all would fight, but even if only 10% did, you're still looking at 8 million irregulars. Many of those are sportsmen with rifles accurate long past the range of an AK.

Then there's always the issue of us using nuclear weapons against their home country. It would be difficult for China to send supplies while glowing in the dark.

If there's ever a war on U.S. soil, it will be a civil war rather than from outside invasion.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Don't get your hopes up. We may be susceptible to missle attack, but that's about it. We will have absolute air superiority. Any invasion force will be sunk about 500 miles offshore. Then there's the issue of resupply. To make matters worse, we have 80 million gun owners and over 200 million guns. Granted, not all would fight, but even if only 10% did, you're still looking at 8 million irregulars. Many of those are sportsmen with rifles accurate long past the range of an AK.

Then there's always the issue of us using nuclear weapons against their home country. It would be difficult for China to send supplies while glowing in the dark.

If there's ever a war on U.S. soil, it will be a civil war rather than from outside invasion.

Good point, but a missile attack could still make a mess of the US even before any invasion force came within that 500 miles.

But a civil war is still a war, though I doubt that would be an issue these days. The south is hardly likely to rise again and the rest of country is struggling to hold their lives together as much as the rest of the world so wouldn't really be in the mood for a civil war.

But you make a good point about the amount of people who own guns and who could fight. Guerilla warfare is always the best way to go; its something your enemy can never cope with.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

But a civil war is still a war, though I doubt that would be an issue these days. The south is hardly likely to rise again and the rest of country is struggling to hold their lives together as much as the rest of the world so wouldn't really be in the mood for a civil war.

But you make a good point about the amount of people who own guns and who could fight. Guerilla warfare is always the best way to go; its something your enemy can never cope with.

If there were ever a civil war, which I'm not completely discounting given our current environment, it would be along political, rather than geographic, lines.

On the one hand you have those who feel that they've been "disenfranchised" and think that the government, and thus the taxpayers, should be doing more for them.

Then there are those who are tired of seeing 30-40% of everything they make going to Uncle Sam who, in turn, appears to be wasting it and coming back for more every year.

Our current economic crisis is a government manufactured one. Banks were forced, yes, FORCED, to make loans to people who were not credit-worthy. Then, you throw a little greed and curruption into the equation on the part of the banks.....with government collusion I might add, and you see our current predicament.

Now, if we start to see hyperinflation, fuel shortages, food shortages, and an attempt at disarmament of our citizens, as Obama supports, you're going to see a fine example of Social Darwinism. Those of us who prepared for such an eventuality will be in decent shape. Those who failed to prepare will expect the government to feed, clothe, and shelter them........but the government will lack the money to do so. So, what happens when the people who failed to prepare get cold and hungry? Yep, they'll get violent. What'll happen when someone who failed to prepare comes looking to forcibly take what I've stored up for my family? Yep, I'll get violent. THAT'S the civil war that's possible.

So, I'm hoping for the best, yet preparing for the worst.

Originally Posted by Tantal

If there were ever a civil war, which I'm not completely discounting given our current environment, it would be along political, rather than geographic, lines.

On the one hand you have those who feel that they've been "disenfranchised" and think that the government, and thus the taxpayers, should be doing more for them.

Then there are those who are tired of seeing 30-40% of everything they make going to Uncle Sam who, in turn, appears to be wasting it and coming back for more every year.

Our current economic crisis is a government manufactured one. Banks were forced, yes, FORCED, to make loans to people who were not credit-worthy. Then, you throw a little greed and curruption into the equation on the part of the banks.....with government collusion I might add, and you see our current predicament.

Now, if we start to see hyperinflation, fuel shortages, food shortages, and an attempt at disarmament of our citizens, as Obama supports, you're going to see a fine example of Social Darwinism. Those of us who prepared for such an eventuality will be in decent shape. Those who failed to prepare will expect the government to feed, clothe, and shelter them........but the government will lack the money to do so. So, what happens when the people who failed to prepare get cold and hungry? Yep, they'll get violent. What'll happen when someone who failed to prepare comes looking to forcibly take what I've stored up for my family? Yep, I'll get violent. THAT'S the civil war that's possible.

So, I'm hoping for the best, yet preparing for the worst.

Wow, the picture you paint is very plausible and shows a frightening version of the future around the world (global economies are suffering the same way and you can expect most people to react as you suggest).

I hope it doesn't come to that for the US and the rest of us; but as you say hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Originally Posted by Tantal

[ ... ]
Our current economic crisis is a government manufactured one. Banks were forced, yes, FORCED, to make loans to people who were not credit-worthy. Then, you throw a little greed and curruption into the equation on the part of the banks.....with government collusion I might add, and you see our current predicament.
[ ... ]

I find that somewhat strange given how right wing the Bush administration has been. I would understand it far more had it been a socialist government who were following totally misguided policies in their attempts to make the opportunity of home ownership more universal. I'm not knocking the USA in particular here (although if the cap fits, wear it!), but government collusion with big business, corporate greed and political decisions based on both those seems to be par for the course.

So, I'm hoping for the best, yet preparing for the worst.

Quite! Exactly what we should all be doing, wherever we live.

Originally Posted by Midas

I find that somewhat strange given how right wing the Bush administration has been. I would understand it far more had it been a socialist government who were following totally misguided policies in their attempts to make the opportunity of home ownership more universal. I'm not knocking the USA in particular here (although if the cap fits, wear it!), but government collusion with big business, corporate greed and political decisions based on both those seems to be par for the course.

I quite agree - but I think the governments, ours included, thought they could raise more taxes from personally owned homes rather than rented ones. It's the only explanation I can think of for the policies on home ownership that were brought in.

Quite! Exactly what we should all be doing, wherever we live.

I think that many people are now watching things more carefully to see how they go; I think it's also why many are reluctant to spend money, despite politicians (regardless of country) telling us 'the worst is over' and 'you need to spend to save the economy'.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I hope it doesn't come to that for the US and the rest of us; but as you say hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

This thread's gone WAAAAAAAY off topic, but I'd like to suggest that you stock up on some food for yourself and your family. A 10 lb. bag of rice will provide carbohydrates for 25-50 meals for a family of 4. The current U.S. price of that bag is $6.37, so it's a pretty good deal. Beans (buy them uncooked) are an excellent source of protien, carbohydrates, and fiber and are cheap as well. Then, there are canned meats like tuna, chicken, or even SPAM (mostly fat, but very high in calories) that will literally store for YEARS. I'm what you might call a "hopeful pessimist". I'm hoping everything goes well, but I WILL NOT be caught ill-prepared if things take a turn for the worse.

Also, if you store up some food, don't tell ANYONE that you've got it. Your government saw to it years ago that you'd have no way of defending it.

Originally Posted by Midas

I find that somewhat strange given how right wing the Bush administration has been. I would understand it far more had it been a socialist government who were following totally misguided policies in their attempts to make the opportunity of home ownership more universal. I'm not knocking the USA in particular here (although if the cap fits, wear it!), but government collusion with big business, corporate greed and political decisions based on both those seems to be par for the course.

These lending practices were due to the Community Reinvestment Act which was started under Carter, then bolstered under Clinton. Since there seemingly wasn't a problem, Bush let them ride. Home ownership by blacks was going up, so any measures taken to scale-back the program would have been denounced as racist. Politically, it wasn't a hot topic, so Republicans decided not to rock the boat. Well, John McCain actually got worried about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a few years ago and spoke up, but Barney Frank assured everyone that Freddie and Fannie were sound. Since it wasn't a pressing issue at the time, it was dropped. As usual, Barney Frank (who receives quite a few campaign dollars from banks) was wrong, so here we are. This was exacerbated by the fact that interest rates were so low. During the housing boom, lenders were giving 100% financing at low rates to those who should've never qualified. The problem was that it was all a house of cards that was dependent on there being no economic downturn of any kind. Once gas prices went up and slowed things down, people lost jobs, couldn't afford gas, and all consumer goods (including food) went up. This caused those who were barely making it to be unable to afford their mortgages, thus causing foreclosures. With rampant foreclosures, housing prices went down to less than what was owed on them. The lenders had a role to play in all of this too. With such "creative" loan packages as Adjustable Rate Mortgages and interest-only loans.

As you can see from this brief historical synopsis, this wasn't Bush's doing........he just didn't UNDO things that had been done by previous administrations.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I quite agree - but I think the governments, ours included, thought they could raise more taxes from personally owned homes rather than rented ones. It's the only explanation I can think of for the policies on home ownership that were brought in.

Not so much. In the U.S., homes are taxed at the local level rather than at the Federal level. The tax bill is initially paid to the county, who takes their cut, then distributes the rest to the cities and school districts. In fact, taxes are HIGHER on rental homes because the landlord can't claim what's knows in Texas as the "homestead exemption" whereby a lower rate is paid on your place of actual primary residence.

The reason for the lending policies is social engineering. The government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that they would strongarm banks into making loans in poor neighborhoods to help minorities with getting into a house. It worked for a while, but, like most things the government does, it failed in the long run.

So, what's the government's answer now??? You guessed it......put the costs of the losses on my childrens' and grandchildrens' credit cards. Most politicians are old people that are only interested in their own power. They figure "what the hell......I'll be dead before the bill comes due." My opinion is that even when their intentions are noble, the government screws up almost anything at touches. THAT'S why I don't like the government to get its hands on anything. Once the government's got it, consider it gone never to return.

Originally Posted by Tantal

This thread's gone WAAAAAAAY off topic, but I'd like to suggest that you stock up on some food for yourself and your family. A 10 lb. bag of rice will provide carbohydrates for 25-50 meals for a family of 4. The current U.S. price of that bag is $6.37, so it's a pretty good deal. Beans (buy them uncooked) are an excellent source of protien, carbohydrates, and fiber and are cheap as well. Then, there are canned meats like tuna, chicken, or even SPAM (mostly fat, but very high in calories) that will literally store for YEARS. I'm what you might call a "hopeful pessimist". I'm hoping everything goes well, but I WILL NOT be caught ill-prepared if things take a turn for the worse.

Also, if you store up some food, don't tell ANYONE that you've got it. Your government saw to it years ago that you'd have no way of defending it.

Okay, you're going to think I'm crazy, but I've not done this on purpose. But my larder is well stocked with canned and dried stuff like you suggest. I honestly didn't do it on purpose, but I always like to be prepared and find to have a larder well stocked with stuff that doesn't 'go off' is always a good thing.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Not so much. In the U.S., homes are taxed at the local level rather than at the Federal level. The tax bill is initially paid to the county, who takes their cut, then distributes the rest to the cities and school districts. In fact, taxes are HIGHER on rental homes because the landlord can't claim what's knows in Texas as the "homestead exemption" whereby a lower rate is paid on your place of actual primary residence.

The reason for the lending policies is social engineering. The government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that they would strongarm banks into making loans in poor neighborhoods to help minorities with getting into a house. It worked for a while, but, like most things the government does, it failed in the long run.

So, what's the government's answer now??? You guessed it......put the costs of the losses on my childrens' and grandchildrens' credit cards. Most politicians are old people that are only interested in their own power. They figure "what the hell......I'll be dead before the bill comes due." My opinion is that even when their intentions are noble, the government screws up almost anything at touches. THAT'S why I don't like the government to get its hands on anything. Once the government's got it, consider it gone never to return.

I hear you; our government is exactly the same. We have TRILLIONS of pounds worth of personal debt in this country now and yet they're ENCOURAGING the public to spend more!! Our unemployment is rocketing so how on earth are people expected to pay these debts back?

Its all very well our leaders saying "spend to save the economy"; but if you haven't got the cash to spend in the first place, how can you? The ferryman has to be paid in the end, and then what?

We have subsidised (as you have in the US) our banks to the tune of BILLIONS of pounds; they say we'll get it back in the future - personally, I'm writing it off and bracing myself and my family for heavier taxes, etc in the future when this government (God forbid they get back in again) or any subsequent one admits they haven't a hope of recouping the cash.

About our leaders; I watched a programme about American politics just before Obama won the US elections. A black guy from a very poor part of a city (I can't remember which one) said (very well I think), when asked about who he hoped would win, "it makes no never mind to us - this country is like a company; we're just in the middle of changing CEO. But it won't make any difference to us at the bottom, everything else will stay the same."

I think he was right - for those of us at the bottom, changing leaders at the top won't make a scrap of difference. As you say, they're out for themselves and the rest of us can go to hell. Or perhaps I'm just too cynical?

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Okay, you're going to think I'm crazy, but I've not done this on purpose. But my larder is well stocked with canned and dried stuff like you suggest. I honestly didn't do it on purpose, but I always like to be prepared and find to have a larder well stocked with stuff that doesn't 'go off' is always a good thing.

Now, if only you had a nice Kalashnikov, or even a Glock, to defend it from looters.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Now, if only you had a nice Kalashnikov, or even a Glock, to defend it from looters.

If I did I'd be arrested, as I'd be better armed than the police here in the UK!

Originally Posted by Trouble43

If I did I'd be arrested, as I'd be better armed than the police here in the UK!

That's something I've never understood about British police....their utter lack of proper armament. I'm currently a detective so I generally only carry a pistol (with a rifle in the toolbox of my work vehicle), but when working the streets I carry:

1. Primary sidearm (Sig Sauer P220 in .45 ACP)
2. Backup handgun (Glock 27 in .40 S&W) strapped to body armor
3. Bushmaster AR-15 carbine (in car)
4. Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun (in car)
5. Vexxor V7 Oleoresin Capsicum gas (liquified hell)
6. Taser X26 (50,000 volts to the Central Nervous System)
7. ASP expandable steel baton
8. Kershaw assisted-opening knife
9. Very long and heavy Streamlight flashlight (weapon of opportunity)

As you can see, we always go prepared. Officers of my department are rarely injured by suspects.

Originally Posted by Tantal

That's something I've never understood about British police....their utter lack of proper armament. I'm currently a detective so I generally only carry a pistol (with a rifle in the toolbox of my work vehicle), but when working the streets I carry:

1. Primary sidearm (Sig Sauer P220 in .45 ACP)
2. Backup handgun (Glock 27 in .40 S&W) strapped to body armor
3. Bushmaster AR-15 carbine (in car)
4. Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun (in car)
5. Vexxor V7 Oleoresin Capsicum gas (liquified hell)
6. Taser X26 (50,000 volts to the Central Nervous System)
7. ASP expandable steel baton
8. Kershaw assisted-opening knife
9. Very long and heavy Streamlight flashlight (weapon of opportunity)

As you can see, we always go prepared. Officers of my department are rarely injured by suspects.

WOW! That is some firepower! If our officers carried that kind of weaponry then the 'liberty' style groups would be up in arms and rioting on the streets.

The problem is that my government still argues that permanently arming all our police force (rather than only the specially trained group) would only add to the criminals need to carry weapons as well.

Not sure I agree anymore - nearly all the street gangs now are armed with knives and guns and there seems little to be done to stop it. I think arming our general police force is now only a matter of time away - the only thing that worries me about that is the fact that our current government is turning into 'Big Brother'.

To give a police force loyal to a (reasonably) dictatorial government permanent arms and the means to use them to me is quite scary.

However I'm glad that you and your colleagues are safer than we are at least; no one deserves to be under threat of death or wounding just for doing their job of defending the rest of us.

Id say yes, our Police officers should carry firearms. Plenty of officers have dies in the line of duty, a firearm im sure would have changed the outcome. Firearms would also deter criminals from running or trying to attack officers.

As stated all the gangs and school kids are carrying knives, the police need protection of thier own, So they can Bust A Cap In Thier Ass.

Problem is this is sympathetic Britian, in this Country if you defend yourself or your property from criminals you will also be arrested and charged. Were ment to let Robbers enter our house and take what they want, if we fight back the robbers can press charges.

Another stupid example of Soppy Britian, true story... A guy is breaking into a wharehouse storing electrical equipment. The roof isnt strong and has a sign saying "Fragile Roof". The thief gets onto the roof and falls through it, he got a huge compensation payout.

Originally Posted by bnpneedsyou

Problem is this is sympathetic Britian, in this Country if you defend yourself or your property from criminals you will also be arrested and charged. Were ment to let Robbers enter our house and take what they want, if we fight back the robbers can press charges.

I understand your plight. In the U.S., Tony Martin is held up as a prime example of what happens when you let criminal-coddling leftists have their way on issues of gun ownership and self-defense. In Texas, the authorities would have taken a written statement from Martin, then told him to have a nice day. Why you Brits insist upon treating your thugs like some prized natural resource is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Tantal

I understand your plight. In the U.S., Tony Martin is held up as a prime example of what happens when you let criminal-coddling leftists have their way on issues of gun ownership and self-defense. In Texas, the authorities would have taken a written statement from Martin, then told to have a nice day. Why you Brits insist upon treating your thugs like some prized natural resource is beyond me.

This is the problem with still being a democracy (even if it is just in name only), we have this silly old notion that you are innocent until proven guilty crazy, I know.

But this is changing we are abolishing trail by jury and in many cases have new laws that skip out courts all together and go straight to punishment - It's great now the government can lock up anybody they want without any evidence - we got the idea from G'tmo bay!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

This is the problem with still being a democracy (even if it is just in name only), we have this silly old notion that you are innocent until proven guilty crazy, I know.

But this is changing we are abolishing trail by jury and in many cases have new laws that skip out courts all together and go straight to punishment - It's great now the government can lock up anybody they want without any evidence - we got the idea from G'tmo bay!

I'm talking about those that HAVE been found guilty after having due process of law. Even those you find guilty get a slap on the wrist. Let some nefarious thug shoot someone during a robbery and there'll be pleas for leniency, which will probably be granted, but you let an innocent homeowner defend himself from a vicious attack, and he gets the book thrown at him. One would think that such nonsense would only occur in some ass-backwards parallel universe, unfortunately, it's only a short plane ride away.

My personal opinion is that Tony Martin should have been given a medal. Having been burglarized and severely beaten on numerous occasions, what other choice did he have? Was he supposed to stand there and take another beating so as not to offend the sensibilities of these misunderstood, slightly anti-social youths. No! These pukes knew that the law was on THEIR side, so they could victimize Mr. Martin with relative impunity. I'd be more than happy to have Mr. Martin as my neighbor.

Originally Posted by Tantal

I'm talking about those that HAVE been found guilty after having due process of law..

Ok so you gotta wait for the courts to allow you to b4 you shoot someone??

Originally Posted by Tantal

Why you Brits insist upon treating your thugs like some prized natural resource is beyond me.

We don't; it's the powers that be and our judicial system that do that. Much like the judge who recently said a rape victim had been 'provocative' in her dress, and so had all but brought it on herself. He gave the rapist, who was found guilty, the minimum sentence he could. disgusting.

There was uproar in the press about it; but no one listens.

Originally Posted by Tantal

My personal opinion is that Tony Martin should have been given a medal. Having been burglarized and severely beaten on numerous occasions, what other choice did he have? Was he supposed to stand there and take another beating so as not to offend the sensibilities of these misunderstood, slightly anti-social youths. No! These pukes knew that the law was on THEIR side, so they could victimize Mr. Martin with relative impunity. I'd be more than happy to have Mr. Martin as my neighbor.

I agree with you Tantal; sadly the opinion of MN is the way of those in power as well these days. It seems if you defend yourself then you're the criminal; very sad, and extremely scary.

Yes I know we all loved the Dark Knight and Batman is great; but when it comes down to the real world vigilantes ARE criminals!!

I mean I guess if we got rid of the police and the courts then i may agree; but there's no point having them if people are going to take matters into their own hands.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Ok so you gotta wait for the courts to allow you to b4 you shoot someone??

If he were innocent, he wouldn't be standing in my living room in order for me to take a shot at him now would he?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Yes I know we all loved the Dark Knight and Batman is great; but when it comes down to the real world vigilantes ARE criminals!!

I mean I guess if we got rid of the police and the courts then i may agree; but there's no point having them if people are going to take matters into their own hands.

I guess you keep a policeman, judge, and jury at your house at all times? What would you have done in Mr. Martin's position? Beg for your life? Show them where the valuables were hidden in the hope that maybe they'd let you off easy with only a minor pummeling.......in your own home no less? Just stand there and take your beating like a proper victim should?

Are you absolutely certain you're not French?

If he were innocent, he wouldn't be standing in my living room in order for me to take a shot at him now would he?

You act within the law and use reasonable force to defend yourself, you can always do more but if you do you do so knowing you risk breaking the law. If people were allowed to use unreasonable force then we'd all be given the go-ahead essentially to kick the crap out of whoever we want; this is obviously the society you guys want??

Originally Posted by Tantal

Are you absolutely certain you're not French?

If I were French I'd be really proud of my country's intellectual tradition, however not a lot else !!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

You act within the law and use reasonable force to defend yourself, you can always do more but if you do you do so knowing you risk breaking the law. If people were allowed to use unreasonable force then we'd all be given the go-ahead essentially to kick the crap out of whoever we want; this is obviously the society you guys want??

That's almost verbatim what the statute says in Texas. Fortunately, in my state, a pair of 230-grain hollowpoints to the chest is considered "reasonable".

I sleep well in my own home knowing that if I have to use deadly force against an intruder, that the law is on my side. Murderous thugs avoid my house (and most other dwellings known to be occupied) because they realise that they intrude at their own peril. Case in point......Kennesaw, Georgia. The City Council passed and ordinance REQUIRING every residence to have at least 1 functioning firearm and ammunition for it. Of course the ordinance is unenforcible (the authorities haven't even tried), but that's not the point. The point is that the local miscreants know that residential burglary is a dangerous line of work.

Originally Posted by Tantal

That's almost verbatim what the statute says in Texas. Fortunately, in my state, a pair of 230-grain hollowpoints to the chest is considered "reasonable".

I sleep well in my own home knowing that if I have to use deadly force against an intruder, that the law is on my side. Murderous thugs avoid my house (and most other dwellings known to be occupied) because they realise that they intrude at their own peril. Case in point......Kennesaw, Georgia. The City Council passed and ordinance REQUIRING every residence to have at least 1 functioning firearm and ammunition for it. Of course the ordinance is unenforcible (the authorities haven't even tried), but that's not the point. The point is that the local miscreants know that residential burglary is a dangerous line of work.

We'd never be allowed to do that in this country Tantal. Tony Martin is a classic case in point; not only was he jailed for shooting those that broke into his home, but he was sued by one of the scum. How insane is that?

These two career criminals broke into his home, tried to rob him and, because he shot one of them, HE was jailed for it and sued by the one he shot! The irony was the other criminal then went on to burgle someone else after the Martin case had been settled.

But apparently we must worry about the criminals more than their victims. Then we wonder why our country is becoming so lawless.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

No one wants war

Im quite certain these guys would disagree:

Defense News

You could argue that WW3 has already started, Iraq and Afghanistan to me are the beginning of a series of conflicts which wont reach a conclusion any time soon.

Originally Posted by Bumbadum

Im quite certain these guys would disagree:

Defense News

You could argue that WW3 has already started, Iraq and Afghanistan to me are the beginning of a series of conflicts which wont reach a conclusion any time soon.

Not sure, as the threat of war is often enough to keep countries buying weapons.

But you're right about Iraq and Afghanistan; I think as soon as the allied forces leave those countries they will completely meltdown into civil war. What happens after that would be anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I think as soon as the allied forces leave those countries they will completely meltdown into civil war. What happens after that would be anyone's guess.

Entirely agree and it begs a question, will there ever be a time when armed conflict will not be the defining characteristic of an era? I guess the answer is obvious, so then it seems we can argue that WW3 started immediately after WW2 ended?

Originally Posted by Bumbadum

Entirely agree and it begs a question, will there ever be a time when armed conflict will not be the defining characteristic of an era? I guess the answer is obvious, so then it seems we can argue that WW3 started immediately after WW2 ended?

I think the answer to your question is no. As I have said repeatedly on here there will ALWAYS be a battlefield and always those who are forced to fight upon it.

We are too hostile and easy to fight to ever find a way to get along. Even if one leader was peaceful and his country not in conflict, you can bet there would be another leader who would see the peaceful one as weak and his country as an easy target.

Then you have religious wars; alright I'm a Christian, but I do accept Tete's point (and others) that religion does cause a lot of wars.

It's just the way we are - all we can hope is that no war or conflict would end up wiping us, as a species, out.

This article, 'War Is a Racket', an excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC. (General Butler was the recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor - one of only two US Marines so honoured) - http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html - might be of interest to those involved in this thread.

Thanks for the link Midas. Will have a look later.

Originally Posted by Bumbadum

Im quite certain these guys would disagree:

Defense News

You could argue that WW3 has already started, Iraq and Afghanistan to me are the beginning of a series of conflicts which wont reach a conclusion any time soon.

I agree with the above

The Third World war was declared by the US administration post September eleventh.

" You are with us or against us " doesn't leave anyone with much of a choice now does it ?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

The Third World war was declared by the US administration post September eleventh.

" You are with us or against us " doesn't leave anyone with much of a choice now does it ?

No, it doesn't. That's the point. Nobody is allowed to sit on the sidelines, then align themselves with the apparent winner at the end of the game.

Originally Posted by Tantal

No, it doesn't. That's the point. Nobody is allowed to sit on the sidelines, then align themselves with the apparent winner at the end of the game.

Yeah they do - our Liberal Democrat party does it all the time over here; (and so have the Ulster Unionists)