The new F-35 Stovl

I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch reported Elvis on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:27:14

-0700 in misc.survivalism:

It will be a "civil" war - a war to determine the civil government. The American "Civil" was really wasn't a "civil war". Bloody Kansas - that was a war to determine the future government of the territory of Kansas once it achieved statehood. The model is going to be more along the lines of the "dirty wars" of South America back in the 70's. The Irish Troubles. The partition of India. Other "times of trouble" where there were no massed armies meeting on the field at dawn, banner waving in the breeze. It will be ugly, personal, violent - and it will not be televised, streamed or available on podcast from iTunes. It may well be, but taking such a route is not wise, IMO.

Unfortunately, the effects ('collateral damage') will not be limited to the guilty.

"The [] ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives.

They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

I really doubt anything of the kind will happen.

Come November there will be an election and the balance of power will shift (once again).

In 2012 there will be another election and the balance of power will shift (once again),

I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that CaveLamb reported Elvis on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:38:47

-0500 >>

From your mouth, to God's ear.

Hold those thoughts. And prayer may be of some help as well.

But just in case..got ammo?

Gunner

I am the Sword of my Family and the Shield of my Nation. If sent, I will crush everything you have built, burn everything you love, and kill every one of you. (Hebrew quote)

It might be better if we spent the money on trivial things for them. Like, oh I don't know, maybe actually putting armor on their humvees and useless s*it like that to keep them alive.

One super duper techie toy would sure buy a lot of vehicle armoring and flack jackets and the like. Stuff Bush thought was a costly luxury because Rumsfeld wanted to do it "on the cheap". Just sayin' you know ....

ote:

We have. Next?

All I ever had was a steel pot and a dirty flak jacked that someone else sweatted up. I did have a new sweat band in my helmet, though. I had to wear that stuff mostly under Carter and Clinton. For some reason we seemed to be in the most hot water during those presidecies when I served.

Yep. It took a national guard unit to refuse lawful orders to get the publics attention.

And under Bush we started the retrofitting of existing vehicles and the design of replacement vehicles.

After enough troops died and they staged a ploy to get public attention. Put Bush's ass in the wringer and he sometimes, finally, does the right thing. Just like he thought of it himself.

I'm quite sure it grieved them but it's better than seeing buddies die so Rumsnamara can play smart and cheap. Think of it as the soldiers version of jury nullification.

Finally, see above. His first pass was to let the dumb stupid animals die so he could hold a budget and not have to let the cost of the war trickle down into the minds of the land of sheeples.

Clinton never gave us anything like that. Why not?

Are you still a Clinton apologist?

Not doubting your experiences but I get fairly good treatment at my VA. No complaints at all, in fact I'm rather impressed with the service. The only problem I've had is getting a new primary care doctor, mine is ok but I'm having a difficult time with his being Vietnamese...