|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
 Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:59 am
|
 |
|
Mech your last post on the last page
says alot, to me it says that our boys
have been s!@# on by our own government.
I personally know this to be true at times
for my dad is on disability due to agent
orange and the stresses of war. Yes our
politicians didn't do jack about it. I can
relate to many of you people posting here
that think different than me, it's not
easy supporting your country when you
see whats going on! |
| |
|
|
Billy Joe McAllister
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 249
|
|
Fri Feb 21, 2003 4:23 am
|
|
|
quote:
"insure domestic Tranquility"
Refers to civil unrest within the Nation and the ratification of the Constitution.
It can also refer to maintaining a police force, and making sure that laws to protect the people are enforced.
quote:
"provide for the common defense"
Refers to the funding of the military by equal support from all states, not the application of the military in attacking foreign nations.
What do you think the military is for? To just fund and have it stand around and look well-dressed and pretty? It's for the APPLICATION of force...the APPLICATION of defensive power. The American military has attacked foreign nations in every war fought, except for the civil war, and that little separation from British rule dispute called the revolutionary war. We provide for the common defense precisely so that it can be used to defend the American people. Military action against Sadam, whether pre-emptive or not (and it's really just a continuation of Gulf War I because Sadam failed to abide by the cease fire agreements in the form of 17 UN resolutions) is in the common defense of the American people. This is what is provided for by the constitution on the United States...the common defense.
quote:
"promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
Refers to the conceptualization and writing of the Constitution to create a union of states.
Uh...no. Think this one through logically here. How does a nation secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity? Well one way is to inure that terrorism is not a threat to liberty. If you do not eliminate the threat, then liberty is destroyed, and the blessings of liberty and our posterity are not secured. Simple as that. |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:24 am
|
|
|
Correct spelling for Saddam. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:59 am
|
|
|
Billy has a right to his own, narrow, bogus interpretation of the Constitution.
It's a first Amendment right.
Too bad he supports a man who betrays his oath of office on a regulr basis. |
| |
|
|
Proud Veteran
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 212
Location: United States |
|
Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:37 pm
|
|
|
I stand corrected on the issue of DU ammunition.
The nuclear physicist that I talked to about DU weapons called me yesterday and asked if I could come down to his office. Seems my question bugged him more than I thought. He did a little research on his own and found out just what the military uses for DU where. After checking it out he said that inhalation of alpha radiation particles, the type relaeased when these shells explode could cause possible health risks although there is more of a health risk from tungstun and other metals present when they explode. He told me in lab studies that 1 particle of alpha radiation is enough to cause gene mutation. Du ammo has 40% less radiation than natural uranium which in itself is not considered a health hazard unless inhaled in dust form on a daily basis such as in mining operations. Doc also gave me a great site to check things out myself:
www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium
from here I found an excellent article at
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dgvd.html
So as stated before, I stand corrected on this issue. Seems that the military needs to provide a little more protection for our troops before deploying this type of weapon. We discused this for about a 1/2 hour and he said that there is no danger in handeling the weapons. The danger is in the aftermath of an explosion from these weapons with the dust still in the air. With proper protection it can safely be cleaned up and disposed of with no problem. |
| |
|
|
Raelven
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 123
Location: Númenor |
|
Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:07 am
|
|
|
Proud Vet I'm happy to hear that you checked this out for yourself.
DU weapons are a disgusting way to be rid of radioactive waste. Sending it out for deployment by our own military personnel without even telling them, and then claiming Gulf War Syndrom was "shell shock" while denying their medical claims was and is a government action which takes the word sleazy to a whole new level.
Maybe someday the people on the right will finally understand that the people on the left really are true patriots, after all.
Maybe they will understand that it's not that we don't care, it's that we care very deeply.
Maybe then the stupid division of right and left will stop, folks will realize it's actually one creature with two heads, and we can unite to work together to fight the real battle of exposing corruption within our government.
Anyway BZ for checking into the DU story.
Takes a strong person to say "I stand corrected". For that, you have my respect.
/salute
------------------
Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo! |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:13 am
|
|
|
Thats quite alright MR Veteran, we appreciate the honesty, for I think
the board is lacking in this as of
late. To my recollection the military
still uses them. You should see these
rounds peel through the enemy tanks
armor ( kinda brings a tear to my eye)
If I'm wrong and they are not using the
DUs inform me. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:56 pm
|
|
|
Nah...Our LOVING, CARING (sic) LEADERS WOULDN'T DO THAT TO OUR VETS WOULD THEY?
NO..ONLY A 'LIBERAL' LEADER WOULD. RIGHT?
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-03-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 6:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
