US Navy: There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box

[kach22i]

CENTCOM Commander’s Veto Sank Bush’s Threatening Gulf Buildup
by Gareth Porter
http://carnuts.us/viewtopic.php?p=10075#10075
WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.

The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.

Admiral Fallon’s resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and last January, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the U.S. conflict with Iran.

Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, “As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job.”

Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January six weeks earlier than originally planned in order to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to “send a message to Tehran”.

But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously.

Two well-informed sources say they heard about such a plan being pushed at high levels of the administration, and Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari reported Feb. 19 that the deployment of a third carrier group to the Gulf was “likely”.

That would have brought the U.S. naval presence up to the same level as during the U.S. air campaign against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, when the Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk carrier groups were all present. Two other carrier groups helped coordinate bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.

The deployment of three carrier groups simultaneously was not part of a plan for an actual attack on Iran, but was meant to convince Iran that the Bush administration was preparing for possible war if Tehran continued its uranium enrichment programme.

At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran’s leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

“He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it,” says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon’s message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”

Fallon’s opposition to adding a third carrier strike group to the two already in the Gulf represented a major obstacle to the plan. The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon’s predecessor at CENTCOM, Gen. John Abizaid, according to a Dec. 20 report by the Washington Post’s Peter Baker. But as Baker reported, the circumstances left little doubt that Abizaid was doing so because the White House wanted it as part of a strategy of sending “pointed messages” to Iran.

CENTCOM commander Fallon’s refusal to request the deployment of a third carrier strike group meant that proceeding with that option would carry political risks. The administration chose not to go ahead with the plan. Two days before the Nimitz sailed out of San Diego for the Gulf on Apr. 1, a Navy spokesman confirmed that it would replace the Eisenhower, adding, “There is no plan to overlap them at all.”

The defeat of the plan for a third carrier task group in the Gulf appears to have weakened the position of Cheney and other hawks in the administration who had succeeded in selling Bush on the idea of a strategy of coercive threat against Iran.

Within two weeks, the administration’s stance had already begun to shift dramatically. On Jan. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dismissed direct talks with Iran in the absence of Tehran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as “extortion”. But by the end of February, Rice had gotten authorisation for high level diplomatic contacts with Iran in the context of a regional meeting on Iraq in Baghdad.

The explanation for the shift offered by administration officials to the New York Times was that the administration now felt that it “had leverage” on Iran. But that now appears to have been a cover for a retreat from the more aggressive strategy previously planned.

Throughout March and April, the Bush administration avoided aggressive language and the State Department openly sought diplomatic engagement with Iran, culminating in the agreement confirmed by U.S. officials last weekend that bilateral talks will begin with Iran on Iraq.

Despite Vice President Dick Cheney’s invocation of the military option from the deck of the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf last week, the strategy of escalating a threat of war to influence Iran has been put on the shelf, at least for now.

[timgoz]

Its a wonder he just did not fire him. Saw today he appointed a "War Czar", who is a high ranking general, to oversee the "wars" in Iraq & Afghanistan.

1. Thought we were trying to establish peace, wheres the "Peace Czar"?

2. Is not our Sec. of Defence suppossed to do the exact thing this new appointee is to do?

Whens it going to end?

TGoz

[timgoz]

Oh I'm sorry. Forgot we started in order to get Saddam & the WMD.

Got Saddam, no weapons existed, change strategy to democracy.

Wow, bet we can find 50+ countries that need that!

[lazeyjack]

no comment:))

[SamSam]

Falwell dies one day (that's one crazie put in a box) and then the next I hear there are still sane people with courage in the services. Things are looking better! Sam

[kach22i]

I think there will always be cases/situations where someone (in the military for this example) will say they can do something when they can't, and say they can't do something when they can.

The stuff coming out of Tommy Franks mouth just to comply with Bush's agenda is one extreem. Admiral William Fallon has shown us it works both ways, with a little help from your friends that is.

Admiral William Fallon's sworn duty is to uphold the US Constitution and the protect the American People , let's not lose sight of that.

It's not just about following orders, that what the Nazi's did.


United States Military Oath of Allegiance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegiance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The United States Military Oath of Allegiance is a solemn oath taken by members of the United States Armed Services on commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service.

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[longliner45]

longliner no comment:)

[safewalrus]

You'll say anything when pressed!

[longliner45]

walrus old buddy ,,,,,,,which one are you talking about ,,,,me or jack?

[Frosty]

[QUOTE=kach22i;140443]
Admiral William Fallon's sworn duty is to uphold the US Constitution and the protect the American People

Uphold the constitution? thats a good idea, How old is that by the way?

Would it not be beyond the realms of imagination to just bring it up to date a bit?--

Just a thought!!!!

[lazeyjack]

[QUOTE=kach22i;140443]
Admiral William Fallon's sworn duty is to uphold the US Constitution and the protect the American People

Uphold the constitution? thats a good idea, How old is that by the way?

Would it not be beyond the realms of imagination to just bring it up to date a bit?--

Just a thought!!!!\
although I swore not to comment on P.s, the constitution CAN NOT be altered, jacko, so there it is

[Frosty]

CAN NOT be altered? really?

Well thats a bit of a bummer right there then.

If I remember corectly it was written 300 years ago by people like Buffalo Bill and Anni oakley.

Its just that 300 years ago a man needed the right to bear arms. You probably needed a shot gun just to go out to the outside toilet, what with wolfs n bears about.

Not really the same today is it?

[lazeyjack]

CAN NOT be altered? really?

Well thats a bit of a bummer right there then.

If I remember corectly it was written 300 years ago by people like Buffalo Bill and Anni oakley.

Its just that 300 years ago a man needed the right to bear arms. You probably needed a shot gun just to go out to the outside toilet, what with wolfs n bears about.

Not really the same today is it?

yes it is, they tried to give woman equal rights, but they can not, the constitution can NOT be changed

[SamSam]

[quote=lazeyjack;140899]\
although I swore not to comment on P.s, the constitution CAN NOT be altered, jacko, so there it is

Sure it can. They're called ''amendments''. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[safewalrus]

Longliner - maybe I worded that wrong - what I meant was anybody will say anything when pressed/have to! You know like when somebody is shoving a loaded shotgun up your nose!

Oh and Jack you still need a gun to go to the outside toilet! Not so much the bears and things more the pirates and terrorists!

[longliner45]

walrus .I was refering to me and lazy ,,,trying to be good

[safewalrus]

I know you were mate, as I said I worded it wrong! No offence meant to either of you, it was kinda general!!

[longliner45]

none taken friend.....:)

[charmc]

yes it is, they tried to give woman equal rights, but they can not, the constitution can NOT be changed

Lazey, Sam's right. There is a procedure to amend the constitution. It's difficult, and meant to be. That being said, it's been "changed" 27 times in the 220 (not 300, jack frost :)) years since it was written.

The amendment to "create" equal rights for women ultimately failed, IMHO, because even most women saw it as condescending and unnecessary.

Gloria Steinem, then president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, responding to a reporter's questioning why she did not support the amendment for equal rights for women, said, "It's not needed. And besides, why would we want to lower ourselves to being merely equal to men?" :)

[Frosty]

Thailand is compiling a new costitution as I write. It is supposed to be completed in August or Sept.

We foriegners are hoping we may be allowed to buy our own homes freehold.

That would be nice, but I wont hold my breath.

[longliner45]

just stating the facts ,,,,not being political ,,the deal with the guns was to insure the people had the same firepower as the govt, musket to musket ,,, to insure the govt , would never overtake the people,,today we need more than guns,,,,,,longliner

[timgoz]

You got the true meening my friend. Aint for killing rabbits, its a trust "non-trust issue".

Take care buddy.

Tim

[lazeyjack]

no no Long, the reason fer the guns was fer protection against the French
and with that I will close, promise!!

[TerryKing]

I'm always suspicious of countries and lawmakers who don't trust the common people to have guns.

A gun is a distance weapon, and basically makes anyone with a finger invincible. Look at the University killings in the US recently. 100 strong college guys and girls couldn't touch a deranged person, because he had a distance weapon. The uniqueness of that situation is why guns are such a big deal.

Cultures are wildly different in the way guns are controlled by the government (or not). Take, for example, two cultures where almost everyone has a gun:

- Iraq: Everyone distrusts everyone, most people hate and fear some other religious or cultural minority. There is no serious rule of law. You fear going shopping.

- Vermont, USA (where I live): I can carry any gun anywhere (except a schoolyard where Federal Law pre-empts). I can walk into the Bank with my Ruger handgun. No Permits needed, no record, no problem. We trust our neighbors to where we rarely lock the house, toss the car keys under the seat, wave to everyone on the road, and wave merging drivers in ahead of us. We have less gun crime than most States of the US, and the lowest rate of "Burglary In The Nighttime" of any State. (No one wants to put his head in somebody's window at night, knowing they probably have a gun at hand...)
We are hard-ass on anyone who uses a gun or other weapon against another person, except in self-defense (The Vermont Constitution says Citizens may keep and carry guns "for their own defense", not just as a Militia).

The difference is not gun control by Government. The difference is not how many people have guns. The difference is culture and community.

The hard thing to figure out is how humans can move their Communities and their Culture towards the positive, trusting direction.

[Frosty]

We trust our neighbors to where we rarely lock the house,

(No one wants to put his head in somebody's window at night, knowing they probably have a gun at hand...)

Thats not trust,-- thats fear.

Or do you mean that you trust them to understand that you will shoot them .

What a lovelly place--smiling and waving when you really mean keep away from me or I will kill you.

America has very high gun deaths, drive by's, school massacares and other incredible gun abuse casualties.

Why is it so difficult to work out?

[hansp77]

Thats not trust,-- thats fear.

Or do you mean that you trust them to understand that you will shoot them .

What a lovelly place--smiling and waving when you really mean keep away from me or I will kill you.


Jack your a cracker:D
but I pretty much agree.

If safety means living in a society armed to the teeth, every grandma packing heat...
well frankly, I would rather be unsafe.
But that is just my opinion.
Far be it from me to try to tell an American what they should do about gun control. Frankly I find the whole issue stickier than a vinyl car seat on a hot summer day, and just as unpleasant on exposed sensitivities.:p
I try not to go there.

The one thing I have and would take issue with (not here) is when anti-gun control Americans start telling me that our country is a bunch of looser-wussies bending over for criminals because we 'let our government take away our guns'...

hang on, I am felling myself starting to stick... and burn...

I'm outa here;)

[timgoz]

Not so quick Hans :)

Presently I have one 22 cal. rifle in the house. Problem is I removed the bolt because my teenage nephews were coming to visit and I was not going to be here. Now 5-6 years later I still cannot find the bolt.

Had alot of guns in the past & most likely will have more in the future. People will always find a way to kill. People. I'm only 43 and we used to sell & buy guns from teachers (long arms), work on our guns in metal shop, carry through town, ect... And yet there was nothing going on like there is today concerning gun violence. Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.

When that "armed" robber confronts you in your home he may just take your life. I'd rather keep the other option on the table. Would you sail to Antarctica with one anchor?

Take care Hans. Just giving my two cents. :)

Tim

[charmc]

I may regret this, but I'm weighing in on this subject.

The overwhelming majority of Americans who own guns are law abiding citizens who practice shooting at targets on a range. A much smaller number of these hunt certain animals. They talk about being willing to shoot anyone who threatens them or their loved ones with bodily harm, and I believe they are serious, but the truth is that very, very, very few will ever fire a shot in anger. They are not a problem to anyone.

Criminals are the problem. Gangs, drug dealers, and many other types use guns. We have laws with very strict penalties for those people. The problem is that laws are not enforced, deals are made to plea to lesser offenses, enabling criminals to stay out of jail or get out sooner, and too many elements of American society and government are unwilling to face up to crime and fight against criminals seriously. Defense lawyers play addle-brained judges, procedural errors by police result in evidence being thrown out, allowing guilty ones to go free, and society says, "Oh, he had a rough life, no father, mother on drugs, it's not his fault he commits crimes", etc, etc, etc.

Government welfare policies encourage having children outside a stable two-parent family, and widespread drug abuse is tolerated. The worst problem of all is that too many people feel that those conditions are not problems.

Pheeeew. OK, rant is over.

[hansp77]

Not so quick Hans :)
When that "armed" robber confronts you in your home he may just take your life. I'd rather keep the other option on the table. Would you sail to Antarctica with one anchor?

For the record, living in innner city Melbourne throughout various different high crime areas armed robbers have broken into (and robbed) my and my partners homes- many times actually. More rarely though have I had to confront them. Thing is they were mostly armed with things like iron bars and pieces of wood studded with nails, or nothing at all (except fists feet and rabid teeth;) ).
Unless your in the upper crust (with a substantial personal safe and the like) or on the other hand in the under-crust (with a sizable stash of illicite's) a gun-armed robber is quite unlikely to enter your home here. What we would be more likely to get is a opportunistic junky trying to jimmy your windows and steal anything they can hock at the pawn shop. When you confront them, you try to have something big, hard and/or sharp in your hand, step heavily, growl deeply, show em the fire in your eyes, and leave them enough room to run out the door. Run out the door they usually will.
There are of course gun toting crims around, drug bosses and their hit-men and the like, but more often than not they are going to be using such on each other, not the lay public.
Even our city gangs aren't really that into guns. The sizable Vietnamese gangs are quite adept at slicing eachother up with swords, and some of the other ethnic-group gangs commonly do stabbings and such. Occassionaly there might be activity with guns (the gangs do have in limited numbers), but really its just not our way.
I might put it this way...
here, it is not that you don't bring a knife to a gun-fight,
but rather that you don't bring a gun to a knife fight, nor a knife to a fistfight.
Sure this is a broad generalisation and stuff happens that falls out of this.
However...

If I could look back into the various situations I have been through of robberies and the like, and change the situation to that of a gun armed society- me and them- then things very likely in some situations would have turned out differently. With me dying, or the robber dying, rather than neither.
Now I don't want either situation. If someone was breaking into my house for the purpose of doing me or my loved ones harm, then I would happily kill the POS. But someone who is simply breaking in to steal a dvd player, or a computer, to feed some sad drug habbit, as much as i hate the scumbag, I would actually not want to kill them. I would gladly give them a sound beating with my wooden club (kept beside my bed) and tie them up untill the cops arived, or even cut them up and scare them a little with a machette (that has also resided in that position at times) but kill them... no thank you.
Personally I just don't believe it right to kill over physical property, and if killing can be avoided, then it should.

You see if the robber had a pretty good idea that I was armed, then he would probably look after himself and bring a gun. Now when I interupt a robber in my kitchen, as has happened, and he panics, if he had a gun he would be likely to draw it on me, and if I had a gun nearby I would be likely to draw it on him... and what do we get? now and again someone dies.
In the cases of interruption I have experienced, unarmed, I interupt the robber in the kitchen, he realizes that the game is up and at least some physical pain or difficulty is in the offering, and he makes for the door to live and rob another day:rolleyes: and I chase him down the driveway yelling and screaming.:D

anyway...
see what I mean by sticky?

I think the old pirate conversations here have a lot of parrellels with this argument. The problem of arms races (and the likelihood of the crim/pirate being able to win said race) and the way that this changes the crim/pirates strategies to the more pre-emptive self-preserving type.

However...

If I lived in America, in a dodgey area, I don't know what I would do. I might very well be a gun owner. (this is why I don't try to tell Americans that they should not own guns... it is your situation, which you know best, and your choice... and also why I don't like being told by Americans that I should own a gun and fight for my rights to do such un-restrained)
Also, if I was sailing through known pirate areas, I would prefer to go armed also.

Nonetheless here, in this country, living in a inner city life, I will take the risks of forcibly going (gun-wise) unarmed in a largely unarmed society any day over the alternative.

and now I am out of here.

Best to you Tim too.

[timgoz]

Thanks for the enlightening information Hans. With a population of 300 million we do have some bad stuff take place. On a daily, rural life, basis though, it is usually far removed from our lives. I'm not saying you, but many feel we're a bunch of heavily armed, lightly brained cowboys ready to kill for the slightest offence. Leaders??? :) But not the common man.

Take care Hans.

TGoz

[Frosty]

These gun laws are so open to manipulation --for instance.

You hate your nieghbours guts since he mows the lawn un Sunday mornings before you get up.

You go round there and say "hey buddy come round for supper this evening---ohh say after dark soemtime".

You leave the door open and turn off the lights--he comes in --hello---hello bang you shoot the bastard.

You put a gun in his hand and its self defence-- he was robbing me you say.
AND --heres the best part "ask him" Errm-- hes dead.

Just attacking someone in your own home is ellegall in UK. having an unsafe roof in an attempt to deter burglers is an offence.

Leaving loose drain pipes for the same reason is an offence.

Glass set in cement on top of walls is an offence, ( the burglar could hurt himself)

I think we have gone too much the other way.

Hansp made a very good point about the similarities to the pirate theme.

I think I would rather confront an armed man unarmed,--not because I am Rambo but because psycologicaly I am in a better situation to survive.

You see on Tv when the negotiator goes in to see the hijacker--he is unarmed --if he wasnt it would be a shoot out and it all turns belly up.

a/ I am no reall threat he has the gun.

b/ shooting me will not make anything better just millions worse.

c/ If I had a gun then all hell lets loose and we all die. maybe even your family who comes down to investigate. He would assume they are armed too.

Oh I could go on for hours--- I really dont know.

I have a gun license !!!!!! well its expired now.

But I dont have a license to kill.

[charmc]

What we would be more likely to get is a opportunistic junky trying to jimmy your windows and steal anything they can hock at the pawn shop. When you confront them, you try to have something big, hard and/or sharp in your hand, step heavily, growl deeply, show em the fire in your eyes, and leave them enough room to run out the door. Run out the door they usually will.
I might put it this way...
here, it is not that you don't bring a knife to a gun-fight,
but rather that you don't bring a gun to a knife fight, nor a knife to a fistfight.
Sure this is a broad generalisation and stuff happens that falls out of this.
However...

If someone was breaking into my house for the purpose of doing me or my loved ones harm, then I would happily kill the POS. But someone who is simply breaking in to steal a dvd player, or a computer, to feed some sad drug habbit, as much as i hate the scumbag, I would actually not want to kill them. I would gladly give them a sound beating with my wooden club (kept beside my bed) and tie them up untill the cops arived, or even cut them up and scare them a little with a machette (that has also resided in that position at times) but kill them... no thank you.
Personally I just don't believe it right to kill over physical property, and if killing can be avoided, then it should.


If I lived in America, in a dodgey area, I don't know what I would do. I might very well be a gun owner. (this is why I don't try to tell Americans that they should not own guns... it is your situation, which you know best, and your choice... and also why I don't like being told by Americans that I should own a gun and fight for my rights to do such un-restrained)
Also, if I was sailing through known pirate areas, I would prefer to go armed also.

Very well said, Hans!

[Mychael]

I think all the arguements for not having a gun for defence are valid.
However, I started recreational shooting when I was 14yrs old. I had owned several guns over there years.
It was not right that I and thousands of other responsible sensible shooters were forced without appeal to hand in our guns by our government.

Mychael

[Frosty]

Thats life, I and millions of others who are capable of having a drink and yet STILL drive better than most cant any more.

The laws of the world are set up for the lowest dumbest person on the planet. It will get worse>

[TerryKing]

It was not right that I and thousands of other responsible sensible shooters were forced without appeal to hand in our guns by our government.

I've been ignorant of what happened in Australia. I feel really nervous about ANY 'Government' that does not trust it's citizens to have guns. I'm all for not allowing criminals, or disturbed people to have guns, and having background checks. And crimes involving guns should be very harshly treated.

But when law-abiding people can't have guns, they are as helpless as the students at V. Tech were against one little person with a gun.

And when/if the political situation gets stupid enough, then those who ignore the law are in control. Like numerous African and Middle Eastern countries.

I have many friends who were forced to evacuate from their home and country in the middle of the night with armed bands shooting in the street. One student at my wife's school spent the last 15 minutes in his childhood home pulling the hard drive out of his computer and putting it in his jacket, and running out the door. Ivory Coast. And that's just one story...

We need to appreciate and guard the luxury of a responsible democracy.

[Frosty]

Terry ,--I see your a violin player --thats good you should do more, it will relax you.

As far as your opinion of arming every one (kids too I presume?)

Fortunately not everyone agrees with you, and fortunately for the rest of us thats a good thing, because if they did then this is as good as it gets, or do i mean it will get worse.

Well it aint gonna get better if we all go out and get guns is it?

[timgoz]

Well said Terry.

You in the Green Mountains, on the Lake..?

Tim

[longliner45]

Im going to talk about guns and gun ownership,,so the squimish should avoid .,,the police are overwelmed ,,it takes a few minutes ,,if not longer for them to arrive . if I have weapons in my house ,my family is safe ,,right now ,,not ten minutes later,,if you own guns (weapons) you should know how and when to use them ,,so should your spouse ,,and your children I dont want to hurt nobody ,,but there are people who have no dirsgaurd for others ,,they only care about what they want and thier needs,,,so they have no problem taking from us ,,I risk my life daily to put bread on the table. I have a brother ,,eddie ,,one day I was moving,,,,Eddie was helping me move ,, he had a classic 1967 chevy pick up truck ,,one of the niegbours accidently backed into Eddies truck and put a dent in it ,,Eddie said ..no problem,,I can fix that ,,the man was on drugs ,,as Eddie was walking away ,the man pulled out a tire iron and was going to hit Eddie in the head ,,I had my shotgun and racked one into the chamber and told him to drop the tire iron ,,,he did ,I called police,,they came ,,they took my shotgun ,,and took me to jail ,,the man said I pulled the shotgun out ,,so he grabed a tire iron,, and the police belived him ,,also his car was full of beer cans ,,,,,,,Eddie is 100% deaf,,,I saved his life ,,the world is unfair ,,each man must be a worrier to protect his own,,this is only one instance ,,,,longliner

[lazeyjack]

Im going to talk about guns and gun ownership,,so the squimish should avoid .,,the police are overwelmed ,,it takes a few minutes ,,if not longer for them to arrive . if I have weapons in my house ,my family is safe ,,right now ,,not ten minutes later,,if you own guns (weapons) you should know how and when to use them ,,so should your spouse ,,and your children I dont want to hurt nobody ,,but there are people who have no dirsgaurd for others ,,they only care about what they want and thier needs,,,so they have no problem taking from us ,,I risk my life daily to put bread on the table. I have a brother ,,eddie ,,one day I was moving,,,,Eddie was helping me move ,, he had a classic 1967 chevy pick up truck ,,one of the niegbours accidently backed into Eddies truck and put a dent in it ,,Eddie said ..no problem,,I can fix that ,,the man was on drugs ,,as Eddie was walking away ,the man pulled out a tire iron and was going to hit Eddie in the head ,,I had my shotgun and racked one into the chamber and told him to drop the tire iron ,,,he did ,I called police,,they came ,,they took my shotgun ,,and took me to jail ,,the man said I pulled the shotgun out ,,so he grabed a tire iron,, and the police belived him ,,also his car was full of beer cans ,,,,,,,Eddie is 100% deaf,,,I saved his life ,,the world is unfair ,,each man must be a worrier to protect his own,,this is only one instance ,,,,longliner

i,m not going to be in this debate, but I would have done the same, bravo

[Frosty]

I have a strong feeling this post will not be popular. I will post it any way as i think it needs to have a different veiw of longliners post.

I would have ran out with out the shotgun --probably got there quicker as I didnt need the time to get the gun or load it first.

I dont need a gun against a drunken drug user.


This story is a shame and one thats happened to most of us --a misunderstanding and one word against another.

If the gun had not been involved it would have been a story with a far better ending.

As long as I could have got to the tyre iron before it hit Eddy.

And that is the point,-- you say "I had my shotgun and racked one into the chamber and told him to drop the tyre iron" Were you standing in the street with the gun? had you come out to investigate the accident with the gun?

Im sorry but your words sound like you had the gun at hand.

Im glad eddy was OK.

[longliner45]

I did have a gun at hand ,,since we were moving ,I didnt want to scratch the gun ,,it was one of the last items to go ,,it was leaning against my doorway,to be hand carried last ,,,,by the way ,I do hold grudes,,since then the perpatrator and his sister have died of drug overdose ,,for me ,,good riddence

[safewalrus]

Ok the Walrus's bit, and you know he just has to have a say on this don't you!

Guns can kill, right? Automobiles can kill, right? No problem owning an automobile is there? anywhere? Yet in the hands of the wrong person.......see above (me? I'm safer with a gun than an automobile - less pollution for a start!!)

The British had their rights to bear arms removed because of the Irish Crisis in the early part of the 20th Century (the goverment was scared they may be unseated [there was more of us than the Irish but it was a good excuse] - sensible people these yanks in some things eh!)

Consider this after reading the above! "The country were only the Police (and the criminals, illegally) have guns is a police state!"

Too damn true it is, how do you defend you nd yours from the drug crazed nutter - no Jack sweet words don't work if you use sweet words he knows he's got a namby pamby do gooder and he's on a winner! You got to hit him hard and keep hitting until totally immobilised - cos hes on drugs he don't feel no pain!!

Gun control - it should be down to the individual how he exercises gun control - for his defence! This does not mean he should own a blldy big artillary piece (but a 105mm Pak how. would be nice - looks good on the drive!)

[Frosty]

[QUOTE=safewalrus;142075]

Guns can kill, right? Automobiles can kill, right? No problem owning an automobile is there?

This post is just about the----Dum-- Oh I cant be bothered I know hes just winding us up.

[lazeyjack]

[QUOTE=safewalrus;142075]

Guns can kill, right? Automobiles can kill, right? No problem owning an automobile is there?

This post is just about the----Dum-- Oh I cant be bothered I know hes just winding us up.

Frosty, at least you say what you think, good man

[Mychael]

Hmm, Have to agree with the Walrus on that one.. Only people are dangerous. "Things" (even guns) are not on their own inherently dangerous.
However,,, with the way road rage etc is going these days I am glad not every tom. dick and harry can have a gun in his glovebox.

One for the yanks. I think I have the quote correct. "God made every person different, but only Samual Colt made every man equal".

Mychael

[PI Design]

My turn...

I agree with Jack Frost (and not a lot of people say that!). The main reason put forward for allowing guns is 'cos you're too scared not too have 'em. That's hardly the sign of a civilised society. Without wishing to tempt fate, I live in absolutely no fear of getting shot, because 99.9% of the UK don't own a gun to shoot me with and the other 0.1% concentrate mainly on themselves (not literally themsleves, but their druggie rivals).
There has been an increase recently in stabbings in England, mainly amongst teenagers. Rather than allowing us all to carry knives (or guns) to defend ourselves with, the govt is trying to crack down on knife ownership, holding amnesties, random searches, education etc. That seems to me a much more sensible solution.
It always amazes me how blasse Americans are about guns, and yet how critical they are of drinking beer. I know which I'd rather see in a blokes hand as he walks down the street. :rolleyes:

[lazeyjack]

My turn...

I agree with Jack Frost (and not a lot of people say that!). The main reason put forward for allowing guns is 'cos you're too scared not too have 'em. That's hardly the sign of a civilised society. Without wishing to tempt fate, I live in absolutely no fear of getting shot, because 99.9% of the UK don't own a gun to shoot me with and the other 0.1% concentrate mainly on themselves (not literally themsleves, but their druggie rivals).
There has been an increase recently in stabbings in England, mainly amongst teenagers. Rather than allowing us all to carry knives (or guns) to defend ourselves with, the govt is trying to crack down on knife ownership, holding amnesties, random searches, education etc. That seems to me a much more sensible solution.
It always amazes me how blasse Americans are about guns, and yet how critical they are of drinking beer. I know which I'd rather see in a blokes hand as he walks down the street. :rolleyes:
there were only 44 murders uk last year pop 70 mill, there were 11000 gun murders alone in USA, of coarse we cant blame the guns or the people!! get real!!

[lazeyjack]

PI I Did not mean you I agree with you

[safewalrus]

Yeah lets ban knifes! hang on how do I cut my steak up? I'll become veggie, how do I cut my potatoe up? So maybe banning knifes is not a good idea (or we could blast em apart with guns! or get jack to bore the backside off the thing and it will all turn to mush so all we need is a spoon - not a bad idea save a fortune in dentists bills! But they use knifes and drills and they cut - ban 'em!!

[safewalrus]

cheers Tim, nice to see an honest man amongst us!

[Frosty]

A sad tale.

A man recently bought a boat here in the marina. He went back to America for a break with out taking it out . I heard today he has been shot dead in the street in the USA.

[longliner45]

there is always 2 sides to every story,why was he shot dead? was he someware or doing something he shouldent have?very ,,very rarly,someone is killed from random. perhaps his wife found out about the boat ,longliner

[Frosty]

Ha ha maybe,, I dont know what happened, I just heard today.

[longliner45]

still sorry about your new friend,.........it the world we have now.longliner

[Frosty]

I didnt know him.

But isnt it unlucky to get shot on Fridays?

[safewalrus]

Extremely so - you have the whole weekend ahead! No better to get shot on the Monday when you have a hangover! Better still shoot the other guy first, when he has a hangover!

[Frosty]

I beieve being shot hurts when its cold out.

[timgoz]

Where is this one going?

So was I wrong tonight???

A truck is following me through many intersections, down to a remote deadend at a fishing spot on a lake. I'm talking like 5 miles and 7 turns!

At each turn I can hear him revving up his Dodge Ram pickup.

So as I get toward where I'm going, being a little concerned, I put a tactical folding knife into my pocket,. Had it in my center console.

He turned off a 1/5mile from where I was going. I felt perfectly justified in putting that knife in my pocket though. Just hoped he was not packing a piece. :)

Take care guys.

Tim

[Frosty]

I would not have continued driving along untill I reached the dead end. I would definately have pulled over or looked to be,-- to see if he will pass. If he didnt and it was obvious he was a nutter I would have spun it round and headed off back to civilisation and the police station.

If he had have got out of the car I would have ran over him.

It would then be a mere car accident instead of premeditated muder.

[timgoz]

Jack,

He was never close enouph, or aggressive enough to really "raise my hackles".
He was long & complrx enough behind me to take notice. Thats why I made the knife handy.

I can't hang with running to the cop station at that first sign of threat. I know. "macho american", maybe so. Cops are not everywhere I am, "I Am".
Nobody gonna keep me alive but me, no excuses, no apologies.

Do appreciate your thoughts though, as they always cause you to examine your own more closely. Thanks.

Tim

[lazeyjack]

I would not have continued driving along untill I reached the dead end. I would definately have pulled over or looked to be,-- to see if he will pass. If he didnt and it was obvious he was a nutter I would have spun it round and headed off back to civilisation and the police station.

If he had have got out of the car I would have ran over him.

It would then be a mere car accident instead of premeditated muder.

Frosty methinks you more than Somewhat naive, you are on a lonely road, this guy has a Ram with a 300bhp Cummins, with enuff torque to fry you without tryin and you are going to run him off the road, um ?, when i travel I take a big stick and a long carving knife, 3 times I used both to chase off thieves in Italy, UK and Romania, I,m not a weakling, and I get very um angry!! But I have no answers for a Dodge RAM AND A 30.06, YA see this is what we mean by gunlaws, like here and italy and uk I know I can fight back, if I have to, cos they do not have guns One cant run away from a gun. And if I had been Timbo, I would have been bloody scared. So this kinda settles to any sane mind, IF there are no guns we dont have a prob,?
Hey Max, I have only got as far as wrapping your book,

[Frosty]

Jack,

I can't hang with running to the cop station at that first sign of threat.

No I wasnt suggesting you do but if this guy is just hanging in there behind you,-- pulling into the cop station or gas station, would definately get him to make a desicion.

I have been followed like this myself. Twice actually . On both occasions it was plane clothes police.

I went absalutely nuts , I called them all the names I could think of , I challenged them to arrest me.

What a stupid thing to do. We dont have guns In Uk you see. All you get is shouting and abuse.


Even the police dont have guns, unless its changed.

[Frosty]

Frosty methinks you more than Somewhat naive, you are on a lonely road, this guy has a Ram with a 300bhp Cummins, with enuff torque to fry you without tryin and you are going to run him off the road, um ?, when i travel I take a big stick and a long carving knife, 3 times I used both to chase off thieves in Italy, UK and Romania, I,m not a weakling, and I get very um angry!! But I have no answers for a Dodge RAM AND A 30.06, YA see this is what we mean by gunlaws, like here and italy and uk I know I can fight back, if I have to, cos they do not have guns One cant run away from a gun. And if I had been Timbo, I would have been bloody scared. So this kinda settles to any sane mind, IF there are no guns we dont have a prob,?
Hey Max, I have only got as far as wrapping your book,

I think you need to calm down lazy --youle have a stroke.

Where did you get the bit about 300Hp cummins. No one mentioned that.

Niether did Tim say he was out powered.

Calm collected behaviour came through at the end of the day, Infact there was'nt an issue here at all.


Getting out of you car after a 4 wheel slide standing in the middle of the road roaring like King kong with a big stick in your hand at a lttle ole lady that couldnt change gear very well and was lost.

Cant tell me im wrong --now one knows who was in that truck.

[timgoz]

Nearest police station was 5 miles from where I came from & gas is getting outragious $$$ here. Just a precaution.

Tim

[lazeyjack]

I think you need to calm down lazy --youle have a stroke.

Where did you get the bit about 300Hp cummins. No one mentioned that.

Niether did Tim say he was out powered.

Calm collected behaviour came through at the end of the day, Infact there was'nt an issue here at all.


Getting out of you car after a 4 wheel slide standing in the middle of the road roaring like King kong with a big stick in your hand at a lttle ole lady that couldnt change gear very well and was lost.

Cant tell me im wrong --now one knows who was in that truck.

Frosty NOONE is as calm as moi!! Timbo(who said he was going to bed) said the guy was revving his Ram, well lotsa Rams have the Cummins option, do you see now?

[timgoz]

Sounded like he may have had a V-10. Whatever it was it had more gusto than my "94" Cougar with its 3.8L V-6.

Tim

[charmc]

Some random thoughts:

While serving in the Army, I discovered that I was an expert marksman with many diffferent weapons. I was assigned to form and train a shooting team on short notice, and we placed 5th in an All-European competition. After I left the service I decided, for personal reasons, not to own a gun. Part of that decision was a product of violence I had seen. I have been in several situations since in which I and loved ones were threatened with violence by jackasses with weapons. I succeeded in stopping the attackers each time by convincing them that their lives would be better if they left. I would not hesitate to use a weapon if it came to that. My decision not to own a gun is personal to me, and I have no problem with those who do own guns, so long as they are good citizens and properly trained. What longliner did to help his friend was the right thing, in my opinion, as was Tim's decision to have a weapon ready when there began to be some possibility of a threat. I understand those who are opposed to guns. They have their right to their opinion, although I don't agree that all gun ownership should be banned.

The US Constitution mentioned the raising of militias, but recognized the right of citizens to bear arms as a separate element. The US Consitution established a structure of government in part designed to prevent abuses that were rampant in Europe in the years preceding American independence. Among those were the prohibition of owning arms by "subject peoples", such as Scots, Irish, and Basques, who were then subject to wholesale abuse by the dominant government; and the establishment of state religions, which almost always led to government sanctioned persecution of every poor sod who went to a different church. True, most of our Founding Fathers were Christians and believed that moral principles were ordained by God ... but they had the good sense to declare that there would be no official state religion, Christian or otherwise. I believe in registration, background checks and mandatory training, but I believe in the fundamental right of a citizen to own a gun.

It may be a cliche, but it is also a fact: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, the US has a gun homicide rate 7 times higher than the next highest of the "civilized" nations. But equating that to legal gun ownership is simplistic ... and wrong. Switzerland, Israel, and Finland, for example, have a much higher percentage of gun ownership than the US, with automatic weapons legal in at least Switzerland and Israel, yet the gun homicide rates are much lower. A thoroughly documented and peer-reviewed study of murder rates and gun ownership in the US over a recent 20 year period revealed that during a time that firearms ownership increased by 73% and handgun ownership increased by 111%, gun related homicides actually declined by 9%. Chicago enacted one of the strictest gun laws ever in 1982, requiring wholesale turn ins of guns and severe limitations on gun permits. Oddly, murder rates had declined in the 3 years prior to 1982, and by 1987 they began to increase again. Areas of the US with the highest rates of legal gun ownership have lower gun homicide rates, while Washington DC, which has the lowest rate of legal gun ownership of any US city, has one of the highest gun homicide rates.

I stated in an earlier post that I believe firmly that the US has a unique problem with violence, caused by a number of factors, including widespread drug use and sales, gang cultures that glorify guns and murder, politicians and court officers who will not enforce the very strong laws our country has against illegal gun ownership and use of a gun as part of any other crime, and others. There is a spreading moral decay in my country that saddens and sickens me. Part of the reason we have poor leaders is that too many citizens are lazy and selfish. Anyone who can read has the ability to think about and research issues that are important to society, and to discuss them with others. That is what is required for citizens to move past stupid TV ads and evaluate political candidates based on how they might approach the serious issues facing us. That takes effort and work, however, and too many of us aren't willing to make the effort, so we get lousy "leaders". Lousy "leaders" who lack the guts to face up to the harsh social and economic realities and the measures needed to solve our problems are responsible for allowing criminals to exist with little fear of serious penalties. It hurts me to say that my wonderful country has serious problems and is being weakened from within. There are some real and obvious causes for this situation, but legal gun ownership is not one of them.

[longliner45]

well spoken charley..lets look at switzerland just for an example ..they have an economy based on thier own needs ,,they dont pay out zillions to the world ,,they take care of thier own workers,and have a medical system we can only dream about ,,thier television is not stuffed with crap glorifing gang violence and drug use ,,thier children are not looking up to role models like hilton and the rest of hollywoods drunks and drug users ,,,,not to mention rappers ,,they dont have corperate leaders stealing them blind and walking free,,,,they dont have nafta,,,with that said ,,if they had a beech ,I would be there,longliner

[Mychael]

Sort of on the subject. An "interesting" thing occured here in Australia just the other day in that a bloke was robbed and was disabled by the robbers who zapped him with a Tazar. Better then lethal force I agree but it just shows how crims will always be crims. Our legitimate gun owners were forced to hand in their licensed and registered firearms. To "reduce the guns in the population". Now crims have Tasers which the general population never had access to and even our own police are only just getting them now.
Punishing the law abiding gun owner achieves nothing.
However i still stand my my previous comment that with the aggression etc and road rage incidents becoming more frequent over here I am glad not everyone carries Glock in the glovebox.

Mychael

[lazeyjack]

well spoken charley..lets look at switzerland just for an example ..they have an economy based on thier own needs ,,they dont pay out zillions to the world ,,they take care of thier own workers,and have a medical system we can only dream about ,,thier television is not stuffed with crap glorifing gang violence and drug use ,,thier children are not looking up to role models like hilton and the rest of hollywoods drunks and drug users ,,,,not to mention rappers ,,they dont have corperate leaders stealing them blind and walking free,,,,they dont have nafta,,,with that said ,,if they had a beech ,I would be there,longliner
dunno John, bloody charged me 35 euros to use their mo ways for 1 hour, BUT you a re dead right, TV violence begats real life violence

[Frosty]

TV violence begats real life violence

Holy ****, I dont believe it. I was going to say that some time back but thought you gun guys would have laughed me off the forum.

I strongly beleve this violent crap coming out of USA is a big problem.

[charmc]

Holy ****, I dont believe it. I was going to say that some time back but thought you gun guys would have laughed me off the forum.

I strongly beleve this violent crap coming out of USA is a big problem.

90% of the movies and TV shows coming out of the US today are 100% crap. Worse, perpetual images of violence have been proven to desensitize people to violence ... kids and "adults" aren't bothered or offended by it. Add to that the images supporting violence to women .... disgusting. :mad:

[Frosty]

Everybody knows how toshoot someone through a pillow so as not to make a noise .

Everbody knows how to run a car over the cliff, by putting it in gear.

Everybody knows how to credit card a door lock, or wipe clean the scene of the crime.

Monkey see, monkey do.

[lazeyjack]

i see the people with little life have bin dokkin you pts ole son

[Frosty]

Just before the G8 summit the Rusians are not happy with USA --USA is not happy with Russia.

40 years of improvements and Bush just puts us back in the cold war.

Wouldnt it be true to say that the USA, if could be scraped off the planet like the burn off toast. The place would be better off.

There would be less polution , less wars, less violent TV. you name it.

I mean would you miss it -- would you?

Christ,-- has there ever been a country that just played war.

[timgoz]

As a citizen & one being scraped, if I maintained an awarness of some sort, I would sure as Hell miss it.

Not to mention our forum would be gone!

Tim

[charmc]

Just before the G8 summit the Rusians are not happy with USA --USA is not happy with Russia. 40 years of improvements and Bush just puts us back in the cold war.

Jack,

That one's a bit inaccurate, IMHO. It takes two to tango, and Mr Putin has demonstrated that he is no bumbling amateur in the aggression department. He is determined to restore Russia to superpower status, and doesn't mind stepping on any and all nearby toes in the process.

[charmc]

Wouldnt it be true to say that the USA, if could be scraped off the planet like the burn off toast. The place would be better off.

There would be less polution , less wars, less violent TV. you name it.

I mean would you miss it -- would you?

Christ,-- has there ever been a country that just played war.

Frosty/jack,

Dammit, I'm all set to lay into you on this one ... the majority of the countries of the world have been merrily killing off each other's and/or their own population without any help from the US. I'm all ready to give it to you ...

Then I reread the part about pollution and violent TV.

OK, that's a good point... Accurate, even... Not exaggerated....

Dammit, I can't argue against that.

But you'd miss us.

[charmc]

Frosty is dead he died 2 days ago. He had a heart attack whilst typing on the forum. The doctor said he died of a broken heart.

Dingbat,

You owe me money for ruined clothes and papers. I spilled my coffee, I was laughing so hard! :)