Unregistered said:
SteelCore, I don't mean to offend you, but I don't think you have a very good understanding of the Cold War and what we were trying to do with Viet Nam. Perhaps, as we look back at history retrospectively, the Viet Nam War seems unnecessary, but at the time, countries were falling left and right to communism. We were trying to stop that spread before the world was consumed entirely.
No one was concerned about the NVA occupying the US. But we were concerned about the USSR occupying and/or nuking us.
The Viet Nam war was just one battle in the Cold War. And the USSR was pretty serious about it.
No offense taken, but I did understand that Vietnam was about preventing the spread of communism. But whether Vietnam or other nations on the other side of the world fell to communism could not possibly have an effect on the ability of the USSR to occupy us or nuke us. We had a nuclear deterrent of our own, and a foreign occupation of the US would have been impossible. The USSR couldn't even occupy Afghanistan indefinitely, let alone the US.
Tuttle8 said:
Steelcore, I don't find your statement offensive. A few years ago, I would have been quite angry and resentful. Now, when I see people having a viewpoint similar to yours, I can only feel deeply sad.
My father served in Vietnam. He and what was left of his friends that actually made it back have told me the real reason why they were there. I'm sure others that went have a different point of view, but after hearing their stories, I must say that you have absolutely NO clue.
So, are you saying the "tool" of the govt. is your enemy since you think they have and possibly will use it against us? How do you discern the difference between that and people willing to join the military? Whether you like it or not, IF something drastic would happen to America the military will be called to protect us first, not you, not me, not granny and her revolver.
Well, it sounds like I
have offended you, and I'm sorry about that. It wasn't my intention.
Nevertheless, I cannot think of a single unconstitutional law that the military has had overturned in this country. What if the "drastic thing to happen to America" is a gun confiscation, like the one the National Guard participated in after Katrina? Will the military be called to protect us from that?
Freedom is the absence of government coercion. The military does not fight for any such thing, since no foreign nation can realistically occupy the US. They are there to protect our
safety -- and there's no question that's a worthy endeavor -- but they do NOT protect our freedom. Again: If they do, then why is everyone so worried about another Assault Weapons Ban? Won't the military fight to save our gun freedoms?
The simple fact is our country doesn't have to be invaded physically to be threatened by other countries. This is one of the most overlooked thoughts. Nay, this is something that some people refuse to acknowledge...
It has to be physically invaded for there to be a threat to our
freedom. Remember, only laws limit freedom. Even if Russia nuked us tomorrow, that would have no effect on our freedom unless OUR government passed new laws as a result.
So, I stand by my statement that John McCain suffered greatly to preserve this great nation and OUR freedom. I have weighed peoples' opinions on both sides over the years and my formed opinion will not waver.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but we'll have to agree to disagree. I see the US government as the only credible threat to our freedom in this country and cannot imagine any foreign nation passing laws that we have to follow.
And, let me interject one more item:
If you know you are voting for Paul, please don't participate, as I am trying to figure out who non-Paul gun owners will support for President.
Have you changed your mind, SteelCore?
No, so this will be my last post on this thread. I didn't mean to threadjack.
