Jump to content
The part about Kuwait was during the Gulf War (Desert Storm) not Iraqi Freedom. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein wasn't removed then, as should have happened.
Thanks, Cowboy01. Yes ... I've always thought it meant "legally" under the influence (as .08). On the rest I fully agree also .... (if only there had been an armed, trained "good guy" (or good female) to stop the perpetrators at each of the school shootings. Many precious lives would likely have been saved.
You are absolutely correct, of course.
While assuring that Saddam's Iraq didn't disturb the oil markets may have been one of many reasons for the invasion, just about every Intelligence agency thought he had stockpiles ... but even if not, he was actively engaged in the attempt to develop nuclear weapons -- and in fact had weaponized chemicals ... and had used them. When I flew into Kuwait from Riyadh during the ongoing ground war, I was issued a full set of MOPP-4 (chemical suit, boots, etc.) because it was believed that Iraq very well may use them (fortunately the SCUD that landed near me apparently didn't. You know, over 500 tons of yellowcake was removed from Iraq in 2008. I still believe that a considerable amount of WMD materials may have been taken from Iraq to Syria in those large convoys just prior to the Iraq War invasion. But be that as it may, the world is a better place now that Saddam Hussein and his regime were removed in 2003.
Offended? I for one found your "rant" to be right into the x-ring, Igor. A belated Memorial Day salute to you (and all veterans here) for your service. Especially combat service. I'd volunteered and gone to Danang from Okinawa to be NCIOC of a small 4-man detachment early in the war (1963) before it turned into a meat grinder ... turned out I was shelled, rocketed and bombed more as a civilian later on (Beirut to Desert Storm). Anyway, you are so correct -- our military did NOT repeat NOT lose the Vietnam War. I have a book recommendation for anyone who thinks otherwise: "Unheralded Victory" The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973, by Mark Woodruff, a Marine who served in Vietnam December 1967-December 1968, became a psychologist at Pepperdine and then a psychologist with the Royal Australian Navy. Worth a read. Anyway, like you I get very irritated by anyone who claims to "support the troops" yet insults them at the same time by claiming (falsely) that the war they were/are fighting is wrong or unjust. The Vietnam War -- as tragic as were the losses -- was a necessary war .... despite the outcome after 1975.
Good post, Cowboy01, and I agree however, not so sure about the part about it being illegal to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm in this state. Yes, illegal to be drunk ... but to have one glass of wine in a restaurant or a beer at a Pizza Hut? I don't think that's true but I could be wrong. Can you cite a RCW on this? Would be interesting to have that confirmed. Incidentally, last I checked ... if you have a carry permit for Oregon you can pack into a bar (unlike in WA). By the way, I haven't noticed any shoot-outs in Oregon bars lately, has anyone here? I didn't think so.
Full disclosure: My late father (who passed away in 2011) was a life-long NRA member and I have been a life (Endowment) member for many years. The point I wish to make is that the NRA knows full well what the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) says and means. The Founding Fathers didn't write, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" ... they wrote the "right of the people". They feared a future government's "standing army" (including any government-controlled militia like today's National Guard) and therefore demanded that "We the People" will always have the means by which to assure no future government will be able to oppress the population or seriously disregard the Constitution. The SCOTUS knows this is true but if anyone has any doubts I may (time permitting) supply specific exact wording by Founders like Jefferson, Madison and Noah Webster. Or better, read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers or better yet, the 838-page "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights (1787-1792) edited by David E. Young.
Make that "truther" .... darn Kindle spell-correcter.
While I usually/always agree with everything you post, Nam Vet, the reason I won't read those two links is because Alex Jones (and his Infowars.com) is the biggest blowhard and liar on the extreme right I've ever seen. There's never been a conspiracy theory this jackass doesn't believe and promulgate, whether "fema death camps", poisonous chem trails, 9-11 "further" nonsense or what. Sure, sometimes he uses valid information reported by others but only to make himself appear credible.
Those American hero's who died and were wounded in the Iraq War should never be insulted by telling them (falsely) that they died in vain. They knew full well why they were fighting Saddam Hussein and his regime -- which they were successful in removing. As for Benghazi, the utter failure of Hillary Clinton and Obama (and attempted cover-up) in Libya and especially Benghazi must be investigated and exposed. We will be hearing more about why. Stay tuned.
Last login: Thursday, August 14, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.