E
Elfan
Guest
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water
Damn Ruskie stop depleting my precious bodily fluids!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water
Originally posted by Kirk
When people use the first amendment to solely speak out
against everything the constitution represents, against the
government, any actions they do, and those executing the orders
given to them, it makes me, and apparently many others,
just plain disgusted.
Originally posted by arnisador
??? Why else would anyone need those freedoms? Is there concern that the government might prohibit agreeing with govt. policies and praising elected politicians?
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Good to know. I'd always suspected that there was something un-American about Charles Lindbergh....
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Good to know. I'd always suspected that there was something un-American about Charles Lindbergh....
Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Kirk,
Do you believe in or take benefit(s) from a Union?
As for 1941 and the Isolationism, it was much more than CL who wanted to stay out of the war. Just Like 1914, many did not want to enter into the Great War going on in Europe.
In 1941, it took Pearl Harbor to move this county to war. In the Great War it took the sinking of some of our ships that were amking supply runs to England. So, I think it was much more tha just CL and his Isolationism. There was/is a history of it prior and after the dates you reference.
Good research though.
Originally posted by Elfan
Kirk could you cite your sources please.
Originally posted by Kirk
Why? First off, many are making claims without backing them up
with sources. Secondly, those that are posting sources are
getting ridiculed for who thier sources are, so what's the point?
Originally posted by Elfan
So I can check them silly and see how reputable and/or biased they are and see what other useful information they have, just as I would hope people would do with anything I posted. If I posted some something like "american's are baby killers wraa!!!" and cited (www.AMERICASUX.COM) I hope people would jump all over me for it.
From http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/index.asp (which is rather pro-Lindbergh)
We see that he:
- made the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic Ocean
- visited the aircraft industries of France and German
- Lindbergh stopped his noninvolvement activity after Pearl Harbor
- flew 50 combat missions in WWII
Now having seen a very anti and pro view of Lindbergh we might check out something more even handed like http://www.acepilots.com/lindbergh.html and go from there.
From all this I might conclude something along the lines of "Charles Lindbergh was a war hero and amazing aviator but held strong negative opinions towards Jews and was vocal about them."
Anyway, this was your source, no?
Icharus Falls: Charles Lindbergh and the Rejection of Heroism by Ilana Nash, September 11, 1999
Originally posted by Kirk
There's more than isolationism and not wanting to go to war in
my post though.
Originally posted by Rich Parsons
True, your post does have much more, yet you and no one else picked up that the US policies in the past have mirrored those of many today in the current global situation. I was hoping others might comment on that. That is all.
Trying to add to the discussion, and maybe get some information, out of it.
Train Well Kirk :asian:
Originally posted by Kirk
Apologies brother, after so many heated discussions, I kind of
got on the defensive, and read your post with this harsh,
condesceding tone. That is where I got the info. Peace!
Additional tests Sunday night by an Army Fox mobile nuclear, biological and chemical detection laboratory confirmed the existence of sarin.
Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared.
A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP news agency that comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds.
Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin - a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system - after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres south of Baghdad, fell ill.
Captain Mastrianni said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of biologists and chemists had finally disproved the preliminary field tests results and established that pesticide was the substance involved.
He said that sick soldiers, who had become nauseous, dizzy and developed skin blotches, had all recovered.
The turnaround was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, which had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof they have been actively looking for that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
A spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, had told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking gun".
"We are talking about finding a site of possible weapons of mass destruction," he said.
The fact that the coalition forces have come up with no clear evidence of WMD after capturing much of Iraq in 19 days of fighting has raised questions over the war's justification.