Battlezone Forums

"No federal official will be allowed to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights - in particular Ammendment II - has given them. We, like you, swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for its traditional interpretation."

Its a question of interpretation, I guess. Time and weapon technology moves on. I assume the right to bear arms does not include items such as flamethrowers, RPG's, tanks, chemical or biological weapons, tactical nuclear devices, or any of the more inventive weapons that will created in the future. It must be the duty of the government to decide on what definition of "arms" that people may bear, because as far as I know Ammendment II does not do this. "Traditional interpretation" is a meaningless statement and I would think that everyone would be much happier if policemen stuck to enforcing the law and kept their faces out of the effluent stream of politics. It tends to stick.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the ... Commentary

Is it any suprise?

But it's a brotherhood! It's all friendly and stuff, and no icky girls are allowed. What's not to like?

Talk about pinching pennies:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2 ... 217/61562/

Interesting article, but oh look! The comments turned straight to US politics. Or possibly religion, I'm not quite sure what they're trying to be about.

For the love of god.

If we do anything, ANYTHING, in Zimbabwe..

We better not pussy out and not take any rare minerals or gems because of people bitching like how we didn't take a drop of oil from our eastern wars. (I know its not a war, I'm not advocating a war, but just watch, somehow, America will be demonized if they step in in any way and will pussy out and not take the resources.)

I suspect the author was thinking more about the sort of "stepping in" that involves quietly giving Mr Mugabe some cash in a form that people actually believe in, in exchange for his lovely minerals. probably have to carefully avoid any publicity as its not good to be seen to be propping up failed authoritarian states. Still bargains to be had, so much easier when nations destroy their own value, saves people the trouble of doing it to them anyway from the outside. They might even have some nice cheap forests up for grabs too.

I think the sort of "stepping in" that is needed probably involves removing Mugabe more than anything else.

...and replacing him with what? We're really good at removing governments. Our record at replacing them is dismal.

Roscoe wrote:...and replacing him with what? We're really good at removing governments. Our record at replacing them is dismal.

Zimbabwe has an opposition party known as the MDCZ, who had the majority at the last election before withdrawing. The flaw with Zimbabwe's democracy is that the ZANU-PF uses violence and the threat of violence to keep itself in power.

Zenophas wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/negotiations-d ... d=18365069

in b4 news hostage taker is a conservative

I think the sort of "stepping in" that is needed probably involves removing Mugabe more than anything else.

Forget about having a "white" army intervention, it won't go down at all well, with anyone. Zimbabwe's problems are theirs to solve, maybe with some assistance from other African nations, but one look at them just shows you that Zimbabwe is not 1st on the list of those who might benefit from some "assistance" In the end it is a cultural problem that only the people of that nation can fix for themselves.

in b4 news hostage taker is a conservative

Whatever he thinks he is, he is wrong, what he is is an &$$h0(£. I just hope your fine police force rescue the kid and accidentally ensure that the kidnapper dies slowly and painfully live on TV. People need to see real justice every now and then, if they are to believe in it.

MrTwosheds wrote:Forget about having a "white" army intervention, it won't go down at all well, with anyone. Zimbabwe's problems are theirs to solve, maybe with some assistance from other African nations, but one look at them just shows you that Zimbabwe is not 1st on the list of those who might benefit from some "assistance" In the end it is a cultural problem that only the people of that nation can fix for themselves.

I said neither whom nor how

AHadley wrote:

Roscoe wrote:...and replacing him with what? We're really good at removing governments. Our record at replacing them is dismal.

Zimbabwe has an opposition party known as the MDCZ, who had the majority at the last election before withdrawing. The flaw with Zimbabwe's democracy is that the ZANU-PF uses violence and the threat of violence to keep itself in power.

Nothing a little violence won't fix. Call in team America!