What's new

I believe in Liberty

this may be a change of pace, but does it bother anyone else when people say our military is out defending our freedoms? When is the last 150 years have our freedoms been threatened by anyone but ourselves? Has our military protected our freedoms anytime since the civil war?

ww2
 
I think WWII was a situation where we could easily have been threatened had we allowed Europe to fall to Nazis and Asia to fall to the Japanese (I guess with Italy taking the ME and N. Africa, I don't really know what kind of position Italy was really in). We sort of did get attacked first but it was directly related to our involvement and picking of sides in favor of the Brits.

Not to mention, some situations are so bad that we do have an obligation to stand against it.

It was happening. Germany was talking to Mexico to enter the war on their side and tie up US forces. It was only a mater of time. Also Pearl harbor.

WW1 comes to mind.
 
I see your points, not sure how big the threats to mainland America were, but nevertheless, I find that defending our freedoms schtick bothersome at times simply because people here in the homeland haven't had their freedoms threatened in an extremely long time.
 
I see your points, not sure how big the threats to mainland America were, but nevertheless, I find that defending our freedoms schtick bothersome at times simply because people here in the homeland haven't had their freedoms threatened in an extremely long time.

9/11 threatend the right to life. I can see that arguement being made.

As for WW2. Hawaii was attacked and Germany was in negotiations with Mexico to start a war along our southern borders. So California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas were threatened. As for home land. I count Hawaii and Alaska as part of our homeland. Hell even Puerto Rico. They are us and we are them, period.
 
I would be interested in seeing a study showing the numbers of casual drinkers v. casual hard drug users. And % of addicted drinkers and % of addcited hard drug users.

In my personal opinion hard drugs are already as damaging as alcohol. I would not expect a huge spike in hard drug use by making it legal but there an increase.

I recently watched the PBS series "Prohibition." I already had strong feelings on the drug war, but watching that documentary made them that much stronger. Alcohol was a big issue, always has been. Banning it caused so many more issues. So many more. The cure was certainly worse than the disease and prohibition never had a chance at eradicating the disease. It was like taking chemo without having cancer. Made no damn sense.

Anyway, where wine and beer had been the most popular drinks, after prohibition hard liquor became the drink of choice. That trend lasted into the 60s, I believe. Slightly fewer people drank during prohibition than before, but those who did drink were drinking more.

There were some interesting (possibly positive) effects. The pre-prohibition saloons were pretty much men only. Speakeasies included plenty of women. The women became empowered in a world they had been excluded from.

But the worst effects of prohibition were two-fold, in my opinion. First, it created profitable opportunity for low-life losers who were willing to live outside the law. Not just decent money, but these petty criminals became rich and powerful. Prohibition opened that door for them. That also opened the door to corruption. Police were being bought, judges, DAs, all sorts of folks who before prohibition wouldn't have had either the opportunity nor motivation to take bribes and become corrupt. That leads to the second, which I think is underestimated. The creation of scoff laws. A general lack of respect for the law. A lack of respect for law enforcement. An entire society that looked the other way. A society in which the law is just part of a game we play.

Pretty much all of that can be said for drug prohibition now. The prohibition pushes people toward harder drugs, not the other way around. If you're going to be a law breaker and live in that world why go half-way? The penalties for marijuana are pretty severe if you actually get arrested and charged. The high is a little underwhelming for some.

Disputes in the drug world cannot be resolved in the courts, the criminals have to enforce their own justice.

In order to be a simple user you have to interact with dealers. Legalize it and you don't have to mess around with criminals to get your fix.

I don't know, the list goes on and on. haven't even re-mentioned the disproportionate way these laws are enforced.
 
314cck2.jpg
 
I recently watched the PBS series "Prohibition." I already had strong feelings on the drug war, but watching that documentary made them that much stronger. Alcohol was a big issue, always has been. Banning it caused so many more issues. So many more. The cure was certainly worse than the disease and prohibition never had a chance at eradicating the disease. It was like taking chemo without having cancer. Made no damn sense.

Anyway, where wine and beer had been the most popular drinks, after prohibition hard liquor became the drink of choice. That trend lasted into the 60s, I believe. Slightly fewer people drank during prohibition than before, but those who did drink were drinking more.

There were some interesting (possibly positive) effects. The pre-prohibition saloons were pretty much men only. Speakeasies included plenty of women. The women became empowered in a world they had been excluded from.

But the worst effects of prohibition were two-fold, in my opinion. First, it created profitable opportunity for low-life losers who were willing to live outside the law. Not just decent money, but these petty criminals became rich and powerful. Prohibition opened that door for them. That also opened the door to corruption. Police were being bought, judges, DAs, all sorts of folks who before prohibition wouldn't have had either the opportunity nor motivation to take bribes and become corrupt. That leads to the second, which I think is underestimated. The creation of scoff laws. A general lack of respect for the law. A lack of respect for law enforcement. An entire society that looked the other way. A society in which the law is just part of a game we play.

Pretty much all of that can be said for drug prohibition now. The prohibition pushes people toward harder drugs, not the other way around. If you're going to be a law breaker and live in that world why go half-way? The penalties for marijuana are pretty severe if you actually get arrested and charged. The high is a little underwhelming for some.

Disputes in the drug world cannot be resolved in the courts, the criminals have to enforce their own justice.

In order to be a simple user you have to interact with dealers. Legalize it and you don't have to mess around with criminals to get your fix.

I don't know, the list goes on and on. haven't even re-mentioned the disproportionate way these laws are enforced.

I was not attempting to defend the war on drugs. I just think that hard drugs should remain illegal. However I do not think they need all this time and money wasted on them. Prosecute them where you find them but don't make them a primary target.

Marijuana should be legal and completely removed from that whole scenario.
 
I find it surprising that you guys don't know that much about WW2 considering the role of the USA. In Germany basically more than 2 years of history lessons are all about 1908 till 1945. But I don't want a history debate right now.
I think overall think the main reason the USA participated with troops is because the Germans attacked the supply ships for the Allies combined with the fear that the remaining scientists could indeed develop atomic bombs...
 
I find it surprising that you guys don't know that much about WW2 considering the role of the USA. In Germany basically more than 2 years of history lessons are all about 1908 till 1945. But I don't want a history debate right now.
I think overall think the main reason the USA participated with troops is because the Germans attacked the supply ships for the Allies combined with the fear that the remaining scientists could indeed develop atomic bombs...

Take your pick as to why:

Pearl harbor
Germany/Mexico Discussions
Sinking of allied, including American, supply ships
Germany, Italy and Japan basically attacking all our friends in the world
Atomic weapon research
 
I find it surprising that you guys don't know that much about WW2 considering the role of the USA. In Germany basically more than 2 years of history lessons are all about 1908 till 1945. But I don't want a history debate right now.
I think overall think the main reason the USA participated with troops is because the Germans attacked the supply ships for the Allies combined with the fear that the remaining scientists could indeed develop atomic bombs...


ooh my bad i thought it was because of pearl harbor.
then again dont know much american histroy(other than civil war and stuff surounding that)
 
Back
Top