E
Eeyore
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
Graham
Accidentally ? I think the Mexicans know which way is North.
Graham
J
John Larkin
Guest
On 15 Oct 2006 20:37:59 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:
while maybe.
Zuni Cafe is just two blocks away, and it's lunch time...
John
wrote:
See? Cowboy Culture in action. I'd lay off the Terminator movies for a
while maybe.
A really good burger with fries doesn't need a fork and knife. Hmmm,But everywhere where you defend something, some goods wander with you.
How wonderousyippie, we have Uran, Oil and other Things, emptied
in our own country.
You have the, 'just living' culture. Some of you cannot even use Fork
and Knife, indeed.
Zuni Cafe is just two blocks away, and it's lunch time...
John
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:24 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Jon
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
This much I decidedly knew.
Jon
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:56:48 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
Jon
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
Interesting comments. Thanks.
Jon
E
Eeyore
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
island of course.
Graham
I doubt it's so true with younger ppl here but we are still a largeOn Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:24 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing.
Oddly from an outsiders perspective, lots of British people think of
Europeans and Europe as an external entity.
This much I decidedly knew.
island of course.
Graham
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
in this context. It is as good a description as any.
Pres. John Kennedy, June 10th, 1963, American University Commencement:
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on
which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived.
And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of
peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax
Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the
peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about
genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to
hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace
for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our
time but peace in all time."
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think Kennedy had a finger on it. Reposting this again won't hurt
in this context. It is as good a description as any.
Pres. John Kennedy, June 10th, 1963, American University Commencement:
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on
which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived.
And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of
peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax
Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the
peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about
genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to
hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace
for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our
time but peace in all time."
Jon
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pot's mind, to end the killing fields?
But you addressed what you don't want the world to look like, or
rather what you're not willing to do to change the world. But what do
you want the world to be like? I mean aside from silly stuff, like "a
world without arrogant Americans"?
John
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not to change Saddam's mind, when he wanted Kuwait? Not to change Pol
Pot's mind, to end the killing fields?
But you addressed what you don't want the world to look like, or
rather what you're not willing to do to change the world. But what do
you want the world to be like? I mean aside from silly stuff, like "a
world without arrogant Americans"?
John
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9pr7j2pq1hoonvptdpvpimvaaa7v057ib8@4ax.com...
news:9pr7j2pq1hoonvptdpvpimvaaa7v057ib8@4ax.com...
Does it only count if other countries don't behave to your liking?
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:07:46 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
one person to save a million.
and can kill all he wants, and it doesn't matter to you as long as
it's not you he's after. And you don't matter to us at all.
that there is no accepted definition of human rights, and no concensus
on enforcing them even if there were a definition.
damned well please.
John
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Thet's the Joan Baez argument: killing is immoral, so you can't kill
one person to save a million.
OK, then anything goes. Whoever had the most guns and bombs prevails,
and can kill all he wants, and it doesn't matter to you as long as
it's not you he's after. And you don't matter to us at all.
So why not profiteer, if power is all the matters?
VietNam did that; good move.
The fault of the "international community", whatever that may be, is
that there is no accepted definition of human rights, and no concensus
on enforcing them even if there were a definition.
If there are no standards, and there can't be standards, anything we
damned well please.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:01:35 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, in a 2-party race, it's sort of fundamental that at
least 30% of the people will vote en-bloc.
John
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
New-York-Times-reading limousine liberals? Yeah, they are scairy.
But seriously, in a 2-party race, it's sort of fundamental that at
least 30% of the people will vote en-bloc.
John
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:65s7j2l1evion61o96itfes4sjgabjh499@4ax.com...
scientific theory survives for ever. Darwin's theories were in place long
before modern advances so not changing them would be strange.
Not having heard the programme I can not comment on the specifics. I suspect
they were not voicing the mainstream opinion which means they are just as
likely to be wildly wrong as they are to be accurate.
String theory itself is on the "edge" of science (and I don't mean that as
in the complimentary cutting edge) as it has made no testable predictions.
It is, in effect, as good "science" as intelligent design. String theory is
popular with scientists who want to break away from the mould which is
potentially good, but as I said it is just as likely to mean they are full
of crap. String theory does make good books though.
The normal ID-like version of the many worlds theory holds that the universe
_must_ be the way it is because we exist. If it was any different we
wouldn't exist and the question would be meaningless. As you can see, this
carries none of the normal scientific method with it so (IMHO obviously) it
is fundamentally flawed.
Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats
the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or ID
or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical
position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions on
exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) evolutionary
theory.
news:65s7j2l1evion61o96itfes4sjgabjh499@4ax.com...
They may well be, I am not a biologist. I know very little in the way of
scientific theory survives for ever. Darwin's theories were in place long
before modern advances so not changing them would be strange.
Not having heard the programme I can not comment on the specifics. I suspect
they were not voicing the mainstream opinion which means they are just as
likely to be wildly wrong as they are to be accurate.
Those either theorists are incorrect or the book has explained it badly.
String theory itself is on the "edge" of science (and I don't mean that as
in the complimentary cutting edge) as it has made no testable predictions.
It is, in effect, as good "science" as intelligent design. String theory is
popular with scientists who want to break away from the mould which is
potentially good, but as I said it is just as likely to mean they are full
of crap. String theory does make good books though.
The normal ID-like version of the many worlds theory holds that the universe
_must_ be the way it is because we exist. If it was any different we
wouldn't exist and the question would be meaningless. As you can see, this
carries none of the normal scientific method with it so (IMHO obviously) it
is fundamentally flawed.
Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats
the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or ID
or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical
position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions on
exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) evolutionary
theory.
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:48:06 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
judgment value, too. I mean this in this sense: "There has always
been a healthy share of alcoholism in the US." But this doesn't mean
that it isn't a problem to be confronted.
We shouldn't ignore the problem. Especially, as it has actually
become a more nagging problem.
imagine exactly makes your point.
people. You have obviously twisted this, not so skillfully, to look
otherwise.
In any case, the problem I describe is real and isn't to be ignored.
The issue boils down to this, which I recently wrote and will simply
repost in the interests of time:
differences exist to find sincerely negotiated compromises in order to
avoid what our founders considered the ultimate resort when all other
gov't mechanisms fail -- civil war. The purpose, ultimately, of
political discourse is to avoid the kinds of civil unrest and
ultimately murderous violence and war that occurs when people feel
that is the only way to secure some measure of control and justice in
their own lives.
To achieve that excellent purpose of politics, those from different
viewpoints must have enough respect for each other to engage in the
kinds of meaningful communications that allow them to secure real
compromise, if changing their minds from convincing evidence isn't to
be found. When that level of respect has left, or when the parties
have no intentions at all of negotiating in good faith, then the
system cannot secure its purpose and people are left to find other
means.
Religious belief, as a personal matter, is entirely fine. And
religious belief as a matter of it informing your understanding of
morality and ethics is also fine. And when you apply that to your
voting, that is also just fine. Each of us must find and use what we
value in our own lives to help inform us about our participation in a
larger community.
Organized religious belief is fine, as well, so long as it is not a
material part of governance. This is the separation of church and
state, much talked about in the US. The reason for this is as I
mentioned before, that religious beliefs are a matter of faith and
unshown belief, not a matter of evidence. One cannot _negotiate_ that
belief away nor will one accept evidence to dispel it and then shuck
it. When organized religion enters the political marketplace, it
enters just as a spilled box of wrenches enters an open and
functioning gear box. It brings it all to a halt.
The issue of abortion here in the US is manifest evidence of this
fact. Personal, individual religious views aren't going to change on
this subject. Nor should they. But when organized and brought into a
focus in the political process, there is also no room for compromise
with those who disagree -- which is exactly the good purpose of
politics. Instead, when compromise happens it happens insincerely and
with every intent to confront the entire thing on still another front.
It's both secret and open warfare the entire way. There never is any
real intent or purpose to accept anything at all except complete
victory.
That's because religious dogma is unaffected by objective evidence or
science fact. You either accept the assumptions, or you don't.
This is anathema to politics, which is all about finding ways we can
live together in peace, despite widely different personal views.
So let me restart this, again. I agree with you when you say, "The
USA has always had a healthy share of loonies." In fact, it's quite
possible that fundamentalist Christians in the US were always in high
ratios within the population (although I've read some studies that
argue well that there has been a real increase in terms of
percentages.) However, it is the case that the organized expression
of fundamentalist views has changed in my lifetime. Starting more
significantly with several initiatives in the 1950's, as I recall. It
has taken a long time and the availability of cable and a variety of
political initiatives in Washington D.C. to impact the FCC rules (I've
already cited references here in this group to that effect) have
increased their political impact. This was the intent of these
organizations, too. So what has changed may not be so much that
loonies didn't exist before, so much as that they have organized with
the expressed intent of gaining political control.
We can already see the reverse effect, too. With the recent events
about gays in the Republican Party, which is poison to those
fundamentalists, there is a risk that some of these fundamentalists
may increasingly just "stay at home" and not vote this time.
Similarly, for those conservatives who feel that the Bush
administration has simply failed horribly on their principles, too.
The difference between, say, some authoritarian, top-down administered
Southern Baptist organization being involved in expressing political
control and, say, some grass-roots conservative organization doing the
same takes place when their opposition sits down to talk politics. In
the case of conservatives, you can negotiate with respect and
sincerity and discuss objective measures, means and methods, and
evidence as part of those negotiations. And you can expect that the
results of such negotiations will be given a sincere chance. With
fundamentalist religious views entering the discussion, there's
nothing to debate or discuss, except for how quickly you will allow
them to secure their faithful beliefs over everyone else.
The box of wrenches spills into the gear box and politics comes to a
halt.
That's why the separation. Religious government is a bad idea.
Period.
Jon
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Agreed. But in its generality, that statement loses any useful
judgment value, too. I mean this in this sense: "There has always
been a healthy share of alcoholism in the US." But this doesn't mean
that it isn't a problem to be confronted.
We shouldn't ignore the problem. Especially, as it has actually
become a more nagging problem.
Hehe. We'll have some differences of opinion here, which I'm sure you
imagine exactly makes your point.
Not at all. I was talking about the problem that results, not the
people. You have obviously twisted this, not so skillfully, to look
otherwise.
In any case, the problem I describe is real and isn't to be ignored.
The issue boils down to this, which I recently wrote and will simply
repost in the interests of time:
As I said, politics is about finding common values and where material
differences exist to find sincerely negotiated compromises in order to
avoid what our founders considered the ultimate resort when all other
gov't mechanisms fail -- civil war. The purpose, ultimately, of
political discourse is to avoid the kinds of civil unrest and
ultimately murderous violence and war that occurs when people feel
that is the only way to secure some measure of control and justice in
their own lives.
To achieve that excellent purpose of politics, those from different
viewpoints must have enough respect for each other to engage in the
kinds of meaningful communications that allow them to secure real
compromise, if changing their minds from convincing evidence isn't to
be found. When that level of respect has left, or when the parties
have no intentions at all of negotiating in good faith, then the
system cannot secure its purpose and people are left to find other
means.
Religious belief, as a personal matter, is entirely fine. And
religious belief as a matter of it informing your understanding of
morality and ethics is also fine. And when you apply that to your
voting, that is also just fine. Each of us must find and use what we
value in our own lives to help inform us about our participation in a
larger community.
Organized religious belief is fine, as well, so long as it is not a
material part of governance. This is the separation of church and
state, much talked about in the US. The reason for this is as I
mentioned before, that religious beliefs are a matter of faith and
unshown belief, not a matter of evidence. One cannot _negotiate_ that
belief away nor will one accept evidence to dispel it and then shuck
it. When organized religion enters the political marketplace, it
enters just as a spilled box of wrenches enters an open and
functioning gear box. It brings it all to a halt.
The issue of abortion here in the US is manifest evidence of this
fact. Personal, individual religious views aren't going to change on
this subject. Nor should they. But when organized and brought into a
focus in the political process, there is also no room for compromise
with those who disagree -- which is exactly the good purpose of
politics. Instead, when compromise happens it happens insincerely and
with every intent to confront the entire thing on still another front.
It's both secret and open warfare the entire way. There never is any
real intent or purpose to accept anything at all except complete
victory.
That's because religious dogma is unaffected by objective evidence or
science fact. You either accept the assumptions, or you don't.
This is anathema to politics, which is all about finding ways we can
live together in peace, despite widely different personal views.
So let me restart this, again. I agree with you when you say, "The
USA has always had a healthy share of loonies." In fact, it's quite
possible that fundamentalist Christians in the US were always in high
ratios within the population (although I've read some studies that
argue well that there has been a real increase in terms of
percentages.) However, it is the case that the organized expression
of fundamentalist views has changed in my lifetime. Starting more
significantly with several initiatives in the 1950's, as I recall. It
has taken a long time and the availability of cable and a variety of
political initiatives in Washington D.C. to impact the FCC rules (I've
already cited references here in this group to that effect) have
increased their political impact. This was the intent of these
organizations, too. So what has changed may not be so much that
loonies didn't exist before, so much as that they have organized with
the expressed intent of gaining political control.
We can already see the reverse effect, too. With the recent events
about gays in the Republican Party, which is poison to those
fundamentalists, there is a risk that some of these fundamentalists
may increasingly just "stay at home" and not vote this time.
Similarly, for those conservatives who feel that the Bush
administration has simply failed horribly on their principles, too.
The difference between, say, some authoritarian, top-down administered
Southern Baptist organization being involved in expressing political
control and, say, some grass-roots conservative organization doing the
same takes place when their opposition sits down to talk politics. In
the case of conservatives, you can negotiate with respect and
sincerity and discuss objective measures, means and methods, and
evidence as part of those negotiations. And you can expect that the
results of such negotiations will be given a sincere chance. With
fundamentalist religious views entering the discussion, there's
nothing to debate or discuss, except for how quickly you will allow
them to secure their faithful beliefs over everyone else.
The box of wrenches spills into the gear box and politics comes to a
halt.
That's why the separation. Religious government is a bad idea.
Period.
Jon
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:ris7j254s9vskcfaag555hditinlcjnl60@4ax.com...
You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern times
at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country.
Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative
population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim
because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike
the US and feed of each other even more.
As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion of
the America an entity.
news:ris7j254s9vskcfaag555hditinlcjnl60@4ax.com...
Sorry, I didn't realise any countries had upped and moved to the US lately.
You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern times
at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country.
Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative
population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim
because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike
the US and feed of each other even more.
As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion of
the America an entity.
T
T Wake
Guest
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:mrt7j2p1peqedn2mj7del4pqcmg0987q7m@4ax.com...
news:mrt7j2p1peqedn2mj7del4pqcmg0987q7m@4ax.com...
As it should be. There are some advantages to being an island nation.On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:24 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
snip
So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing.
Oddly from an outsiders perspective, lots of British people think of
Europeans and Europe as an external entity.
This much I decidedly knew.
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newsv08j299338u1a8v6bvp4t4djj4u40csbs@4ax.com...
different. Very little, historically, has been solved through war. Normally
it is just pushed on to a later generation to deal with.
I never realised it was armed US intervention which put paid to Pol Pot's
regime. Sorry. I always thought it was the Vietnamese, who were then opposed
by the Americans.
When did the US invade and arrest Pol Pot?
news
v08j299338u1a8v6bvp4t4djj4u40csbs@4ax.com...No, the war doesn't change minds. It may alter immediate actions but that is
different. Very little, historically, has been solved through war. Normally
it is just pushed on to a later generation to deal with.
I never realised it was armed US intervention which put paid to Pol Pot's
regime. Sorry. I always thought it was the Vietnamese, who were then opposed
by the Americans.
When did the US invade and arrest Pol Pot?
E
Eeyore
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
Graham
What *was* Darwin's description ?
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fb18j2pef82gj5f9lucleh02kuss3f8d1e@4ax.com...
the initial point. You asked about a "Universal Human Right." For something
to be a Universal Human Right, it must be a right for everyone (the
Universal Human bit). This is the logical fallacy people make when they use
"rights" too much, it becomes a watered down phrase.
If you are asking about Universal Human Morals it is an entirely different
question. Rights do not have a moral value.
If you can kill one to save a million, can you kill a million to save one?
Can you kill ten Africans to save a South American? Can you kill a thousand
Americans to save a million Arabs?
Morals are based on our upbringing and background. What is considered
"moral" behaviour in a fundamental Christian society may well be very
different from mine. As a result morals can not be considered "rights" nor
universal.
A nice strawman. You said you were serious about this question but it
appears not. You ask about Universal Human Rights but it appears you want to
define a standard and code of behaviour based on moral judgement calls. This
will also never happen because _your_ moral values are based on being
brought up in a western democratic Christian nation and as such are
different to some one who was (for example) brought up a Buddhist in Nepal.
Your attempt at changing the direction of the question ("Whoever had the
most guns and bombs prevails" etc) has nothing to do with universal human
rights.
Do you want to discuss should there be a universal set of behavioural
standards towards others?
the one here.
If you think power is all that matters then yes, profiteer, but with that
behaviour America would no longer be able to use the "just cause" argument.
What was the US response? Did the US assist the Vietnamese? Still, there is
(IMHO of course) no point in second guessing actions which were taken by
governements a generation ago.
The only point I wanted to make out of this, and I am sorry I brought it up
if it heads even further away from the question, is the consistency issue.
The Killing Fields were pretty large scale slaughter but no Western
intervention took place. This is what weakens the "Just Cause" argument.
define what a "right" is, let alone what ones there are.
Enforcing rights is another tricky issue as it often involves taking away
peoples "rights" which create a vicious circle.
The strawman returns. It was an honest question, do you have an honest
answer? Was that your honest answer because the problem is the rest of the
world perceives it as "anything we please."
news:fb18j2pef82gj5f9lucleh02kuss3f8d1e@4ax.com...
Not at all. You are now making this a moral judgement call which was never
the initial point. You asked about a "Universal Human Right." For something
to be a Universal Human Right, it must be a right for everyone (the
Universal Human bit). This is the logical fallacy people make when they use
"rights" too much, it becomes a watered down phrase.
If you are asking about Universal Human Morals it is an entirely different
question. Rights do not have a moral value.
If you can kill one to save a million, can you kill a million to save one?
Can you kill ten Africans to save a South American? Can you kill a thousand
Americans to save a million Arabs?
Morals are based on our upbringing and background. What is considered
"moral" behaviour in a fundamental Christian society may well be very
different from mine. As a result morals can not be considered "rights" nor
universal.
A nice strawman. You said you were serious about this question but it
appears not. You ask about Universal Human Rights but it appears you want to
define a standard and code of behaviour based on moral judgement calls. This
will also never happen because _your_ moral values are based on being
brought up in a western democratic Christian nation and as such are
different to some one who was (for example) brought up a Buddhist in Nepal.
Your attempt at changing the direction of the question ("Whoever had the
most guns and bombs prevails" etc) has nothing to do with universal human
rights.
Do you want to discuss should there be a universal set of behavioural
standards towards others?
Who said power is all that matters? You are arguing a different topic than
the one here.
If you think power is all that matters then yes, profiteer, but with that
behaviour America would no longer be able to use the "just cause" argument.
What was the US response? Did the US assist the Vietnamese? Still, there is
(IMHO of course) no point in second guessing actions which were taken by
governements a generation ago.
The only point I wanted to make out of this, and I am sorry I brought it up
if it heads even further away from the question, is the consistency issue.
The Killing Fields were pretty large scale slaughter but no Western
intervention took place. This is what weakens the "Just Cause" argument.
How can there be an accepted definition of human rights? It is hard to
define what a "right" is, let alone what ones there are.
Enforcing rights is another tricky issue as it often involves taking away
peoples "rights" which create a vicious circle.
The strawman returns. It was an honest question, do you have an honest
answer? Was that your honest answer because the problem is the rest of the
world perceives it as "anything we please."
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:53:43 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
are coy and passive, the peacock model. He didn't study enough
species, I guess.
John
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Basicly that males are agressive and demonstrative and that females
are coy and passive, the peacock model. He didn't study enough
species, I guess.
John
E
Eeyore
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
Graham
LOL or humans it would seem.
Graham
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida