Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean, I'm not exactly for a lot of our current foreign policies, but I'm not gonna go and start a violent protest over it, and then try to come off as being all for peace and love. A bit contradictory if you ask me! My personal feeling is that we need to bring our troops home and start focusing on our own damn country and quit trying to be the world's policeman! I have no issue with defending ourselves, and having a strong military, but having Libertarian leanings I feel our military should be used for defending our country ONLY (OK maybe Canada and Great Britain too), and not trying to "spread our democracy" especially to those that don't want it! With the uprisings in the Middle East, such as Libya, while Ghadafi is a complete psycho, it is between him and his people! Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
The sixties was a decade about nothing.
It was a decade of decadence and an excuse to not work, get stoned, duck responsibility, and throw temper tantrums. For all the pie-in-the-sky dreams of a future of peace and love, when Nixon got the voting age lowered to eighteen what did the peace and love generation do?
Right: Jack Squat. It was all talk.
I'm for keeping out of other peoples' business but ours in an ever smaller and more interdependent world. Sometimes we have to assert ourselves on other shores for our own ends. Looking out for number one may be an agressive thing at times, but harldy a nation on Earth hasn't done it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
The shootings were "unwarranted" only in your eyes. I tire of explaining the FACT that there were mistakes made on both sides of the situation,....a FACT you dismiss, but cannot defend.
BULL! I've never said there weren't mistakes on both sides. What I've said, and will continue to say is if someone's commiting arson then you arrest them and try them for arson, firing indiscriminately into a crowd is not an acceptable response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
And,...I've had the loss of a loved one killed for no good reason. I've gotten passed it after thirty-odd years. Why can't you after 40?
Maybe because it's all part of the entire Vietnam era, which, whether you're willing to admit or not created, problems that thousands continue to live with every day. So no, it HAS NOT passed.
After 13 pages those who justify the killing at Kent State attempt to run off on tangents. It was not a bank robbery, nor hostage situation.
It was National Guard troops firing 67 rounds randomly into a unarmed
crowd. Who gave the order to shoot? "Probably" a young lieutenant. Probably!
I spent 3 years in the US Army (1965-68). I grew up in Chicago and returned home to Chicago after the army. My first civilian job was driving a bus that serviced downtown hotels to O'Hare Airport. One of the hotels was the Conrad Hilton on Michigan Avenue where most to the delegates stayed. I was on the job during the Democratic Convention. Some days Michigan Avenue was blocked by troops and police, so we couldn't stop at the Hilton. From behind the windshield I saw much of the action, plus local TV coverage, as well as national TV coverage.
Most of the protestors were ordinary people wanting to influence the party selection for presidential candidate. Hizooner Mayor Daley set his cops loose on TV camera crews. The NBC crew got the worst of the beatings, including their equipment.
One of the mayor's stupid remarks was "Shoot first, ask questions later".
I know many in my generation that spent combat time in Viet Nam. Some were killed. Most eventually turned against the war.
By calling them cowards is vicious slander and against the troops.
I, for one, do not think the shootings at Kent State were justified. I do think they were explainable in the context of the times. Those four poor kids were the victims of a so-called 'Peace Movement' that was anything but peaceful.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
The sixties was a decade about nothing.
It was a decade of decadence and an excuse to not work, get stoned, duck responsibility, and throw temper tantrums. For all the pie-in-the-sky dreams of a future of peace and love, when Nixon got the voting age lowered to eighteen what did the peace and love generation do?
Right: Jack Squat. It was all talk.
Funny you talk about ducking responsibility and then mention Nixon in a positive way when HE was the biggest ducker of responsibility of the era!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
I'm for keeping out of other peoples' business but ours in an ever smaller and more interdependent world. Sometimes we have to assert ourselves on other shores for our own ends. Looking out for number one may be an agressive thing at times, but harldy a nation on Earth hasn't done it.
And Vietnam was most certainly NOT one of those times.
BULL! I've never said there weren't mistakes on both sides. What I've said, and will continue to say is if someone's commiting arson then you arrest them and try them for arson, firing indiscriminately into a crowd is not an acceptable response.
Maybe because it's all part of the entire Vietnam era, which, whether you're willing to admit or not created, problems that thousands continue to live with every day. So no, it HAS NOT passed.
The problem with not shooting an arsonist is that it gives him a chance to start a deadly fire. An arsonist, caught in the act, refusing to surrender, is as mortal a threat as a man with a gun pointing it at an innocent person.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
Betcha he has a tie-dyed leisure suit.
Nah, it was the tight-assed supporters of shooting college students and going to war for no reason that wore their cheesey little polyester leisure suits. I bet there's more than a few hanging in the closets of some of this group
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
The problem with not shooting an arsonist is that it gives him a chance to start a deadly fire. An arsonist, caught in the act, refusing to surrender, is as mortal a threat as a man with a gun pointing it at an innocent person.
Well good, when you have something factual saying one of those killed at Kent State was shot during the commission of a crime and could not be arrested at the time you might have a point. Until then you don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
