USA, Canada / The best POLISH FESTIVAL ever!! - San Diego Oct. 13-14 [36]

Arrgghhh...
I just moved across the country from there 2 months ago!
Never saw any international type stuff while I was there unless it was for Mexico. That'd been nice. Looks like fun.

USA, Canada / Polish Restaurants in Los Angeles/Riverside/Santa Barbara/Palm Spring [10]

Hmm. Seems I missed out on the stuff in San Diego while I was living there, never knew it existed. To expand the thread to include the other end of the USA...anyone know any places near Norfolk, Virginia?

salt. wound. ouch.
Might as well be on the moon from here. Lived there about 6 years, never knew about any of this stuff happening.

USA, Canada / I want to ship Vodka back to the USA...What are the laws? [23]

Zubrowka can be purchased in the USA. I think there are hazmat permits (flammable liquids) that need to be arranged, but it can be done. Beverages & More in Southern California(also known as BevMo) has Zubrowka usually, but I never managed to try it while I lived there. I'm still trying to find it here in Virginia.

Still, it's definitely not illegal here.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

Seems everyone who's never been to Iraq thinks they know what is happening there or why.
I will only say that the particular Polish troops that my outfit worked with over there were some of the most professional, crack troops I've seen, and I've had the opportunity to go on ops with several countries' best. They got LOADS of respect from all of us. I heard recently that Poland pulled these troops back, and it is a shame. It is nice to work with PROFESSIONALS. Furthermore, I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone is over there for the money. It's a job, and to be honest, it pays badly compared to the same skill levels demanded on the outside. There are those who do, and then those who do not, and wait for a chance to judge the failings and belittle the successes of the former. As for deserters, good riddance. In a force made up of millions, 3,000 some odd is not a large number. Likely the majority of those are very new, and thought they would be able to reap the benefits (like help towards higher education) without ever having to actually serve. These selfish people join, go for the benefits, but reneg when their country calls. Deserters, who betray their country before even serving a day at what supposedly they were trained for. All countries have these people, and to be honest, they have no place amongst those on the business end of that countries policies.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

I'm not a General, so anything I say doesn't mean a hill of beans in the scheme of things anyway, but if you want my opinion, here goes.

The reasons for staying there have little to do with the reasons for going. They are unrelated IMHO in the same way one can be arrested for drinking in a motor vehicle after being originally stopped for a missing tail light. Never mind the lack of a bottle in the vehicle will seldom be a good defense in court. Troops aren't weapons inspectors, or at least most of them aren't. The small teams originally in Iraq if you recall, were being forbidden from searching certain areas, and others they could only search if they gave considerable advance notice. Of COURSE they hadn't found anything prior to the war beginning.

Whether you believe Saddam had WMDs and you believe them to have been hidden or transferred to entities unknown, or perhaps believe them to have been a complete bluff on Saddam's part and never to have existed....that is only a fraction of the matter now. Honestly, I've seen things that make me believe Saddam had them, but I think the reasons for still being there have more to do with not leaving until the new government is on its feet enough that when everyone leaves,and trying to ensure Iraq will not become a "theocratic" vassal of the Ayatollah and Mullahs in Iran.

Such a mistep would give Tehran control of enough of the world's fuel to become its most powerful since the days of the Persian Empire. Consider Iran's recent alliances with Moscow. With a controlling share in the world's fuel supply, (I read somewhere that Iran/Iraq combined would be the world's 2nd largest producer of oil, and that's WITHOUT the alliance with Russia) they could have a strangle hold on all of Europe, and indirectly, the World. Such an alliance could control Europe or bring it to its economic knees (theoretically anyway) without rolling a single tank The U.S. would also suffer, although not as soon as Europe(Iraq provides no oil to the U.S.) . The Soviet Union, with a Persian twist....is hiding behind the next curtain to the left....

Next,
I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe for one minute that, even were every WMD Iraq ever had discovered, you or anyone else would ever hear about it in the media. The losses from giving away methods and locations, etc. inevitably derivable by anyone with previous knowledge of the WMD's location far outweigh the gains from announcing success to the world, even if it would save a little of our embattled President's popularity.

Think of this. Saddam's own scientists told him he had a program, but I am skeptical that even if they were still in the country (of Iraq), we would find them all. Nuclear weapons are small. Even in the 60's the actual warheads were not particularly large, and the Soviets even fielded "suitcase" nukes for a time. Chem and Bio weapons are even smaller. A liter of either is bad news for quite a few people. In the meantime, if we are so good at finding such weapons after they've been deliberately hidden or passed off to entities unknown, why can't we even protect ourselves from IED's, which are sometimes much larger physically than many WMD's?

The reality of things, I think, would frighten most people, people who vote...so most government officials prefer to distract the public by mocking the current administrations inability to find WMD's, while quietly offering no plan of their own to find them, either...

I feel that somewhere along the line, a decision was made, to accept ridicule rather than admit if any of these things are found (also the only explanation I can think of that cameras weren't in some of the places I've seen). Much better admitting political defeat and accepting global mockery than to proclaim "We found it!" and have the weapon(s) we didn't discover used, to horrible effect (and not necessarily within Iraq) or at the very least, lose the intelligence to be gained by not admitting we already have them.

Not having "WMD's FOUND!" proclaimed all over the news might be an embarassment to the administration, but that pales in comparison to having the headlines read "Hundreds of Thousands Dead, U.S. proclaims Success Too Early"

I'm rambling a bit but I think you see where I'm going with this.
Anyway I'm just a rescue swimmer and sometime gunner, not a general, so what do I know.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]


Honestly this makes me nervous, as an American, also. Our media, of course, is oblivious. They vary between being the propaganda arm of a few hollywood elites (IMHO) who at the moment favor the Democratic party at all costs, to barely above the local gossip, prattling on and on about who is supposedly sleeping with who or wore what dress at a party in Hollywood... honestly to get the real news one has to see what they AREN'T saying, these days...


This is unfortunately the case with all wars, I think. War seldom happens until the diplomats have failed to do their job. Personally, I think Saddam was unprepared for this administration in the U.S. since the one previous to it seldom did anything more than a token air strike here or there unless there was a scandal involved or a media victory to be won. As for getting out of there, I'm all for it. I just feel there needs to be stability before we leave. I think things could be even more successful however there are agents provacateurs and rabble rousers trying to keep the instability-saying things as outrageous even as "Americans will eat your children and ban Islam" to get people to fight us. Even when I was there in 2003 (at the beginning) Iranian infiltrators were stirring things up in Fallujah, etc. (I have some cool "Islamic bank of Iran" souvenir money now, with Ayatollah Khomeini's picture on it) now, that the fighting has died down long enough for people there to see what Americans are REALLY about, Fallujah is one of the better places in Iraq. Go figure. War is only partly about violence, I think. Break the enemy down, then, if you plan to have him as a friend later, build him back up. It took 10 years of fighting and hunting people down, and many more died than in this war, but Germany has turned out for the most part OK (although, personally I don't think we should have agreed to let the Russians have any of it...that's just me though.)


I don't know. Pay was not discussed, the guys we were working with were from something called GROM. Even our SEALs gave them their just respects, which, at least up until that point, I'd not seen happen so much for some other more well known SpecOp outfits we'd worked with. And no, I am not a member of any of these units. Now that GROM isn't working with us, there are various Iraqi outfits we work with, which is heartening. We don't want to be Iraq's de facto army. She needs her own.


That is ultimately Warsaw's decision to make. As an American (albeit of Polish heritage) I will say it earned some respect for Poland. Poland was who stood up. Wars are remembered differently after the fact than when they are happening, and this is not something forgotten.

I am rambling yet again, but neither Russia nor Germany has stood by Poland in recent history other than to use her as a doormat while marching back and forth. America lately has suffered due to some weak minded politicians who did not care who our friends are, but in the larger scheme of things, Warsaw is hopefully looking out for Poland's best interests. Ideally I would like that to be a U.S. friendly position, but ultimately, I think it does come down to the behind the scenes oil/power grab between the Iranians and Russia. If Russia can no longer militarily control Europe (although there's new movement that she's trying-Bears are back on patrol) then she will put a snare around Europe's neck, by controlling the fuel supply.

A question: if you knew that if a certain candidate you like in the next elections is not favored by Russia, would you care? Now, that same question, but you know if your candidate wins, the heating oil will be stopped, and your grandmother will freeze to death in her home this winter...would you still vote the same?

That is exactly the kind of power Russia is trying for if Iran can keep Iraq unstable long enough for it to become Iran's puppet (after all, isn't the Ayatollah somewhere up there, like perhaps the Pope in Catholicism?) It isn't that far of a stretch. So it is IMHO in Poland (and everyone besides Russia Iran and maybe China)'s best interest to see the U.S. and ultimately, Iraq, succeed. Regardless of if you ever see a single announcement about found WMD's, or a single Al Qaeda attack on Polish soil, whether you agree with the alleged reasons for the war or not-it HAS to succeed. It isn't so much about Iraq IMHO now as it is about Iran and Russia. A loss in Iraq means Russia and Iran control Europe's fuel supply. I would say that DEFINITELY affects Warsaw. And Krakow. And Plock. And Wroclaw...

Just my opinion, anyway.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

It's a shame you would say that about anyone's son, whether it's Americans with Polish names (like myself) or people actually from Poland.

You also have no idea, apparently, what is happening in Iraq. I routinely went outside base when I was in Baghdad, and truth be told, it is not the majority of people who rush up to you ready to put bags over your head. Most seemed happy to sell me things, but that's about it. Treat people with respect, and even in war, they will often treat you the same.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

a1makji please check your sources...
the microwave gun you refer to is actually an effort at avoiding unnecessary casualties. It is not lethal, nor does it permanently injure. It causes its targets to sense pain and leave the area, whereas often in the past the same person might have to be shot dead, much more permanent...

Also you are mistaken about no one noticing the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia. That happened in a pre ious administration for us Americans, and Americans(and others) are still there...

Incidentally, verses like those are easily found and pointed at as supporting a given group or course of action. Similar verses, whether Biblical or from the Koran, can be used the same by the opposing side.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

Wow, are you serious? what's next, Americans are forcing under privileged Polish children to work in secret salt mines?
No doubt Bush and Cheney fly in during the dark of night, and drink their blood, too!
Ridiculous the horrid things people will believe because they want to. Hate Americans? post a picture of some guards, who have since been tried and convicted, embarassing prisoners and call it torture (as opposed, I guess to sawing off someone's head, which, apparently is nowhere near as bad) then watch the supposed "victims" of "secret" camps come out of the woodwork. Then watch simple minded people believe every word. If Americans are really doing all these terrible things as a policy, I sure missed it in MY training. I also wonder why the networks parade these poeple around but nobody seems to have asked why, if such horrid and illegal things were being done to them, why did their captors not simply kill them? Just be glad no one is judging Poland based on some web photos of someone doing something stupid and illegal. Imagine some sickos video themselves raping someone, so then all the world screams Polish people are horrible! they are rapists and murderers! This is essentially what you are saying about Americans, and it is apparent you are either trolling or honestly are more like most Americans than you realize, in that about many topics, if the TV says it, it must be so...

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

Illegal why? you are not backing up your statement here, only repeating a slogan based on unsubstantiated accusations levelled by people you don't know, who either seek importance or are enemies of others, who you also don't know. I am only asking that you step back for a second, and think of the claims you are making, which while popular with some, paint with a very wide, one-sided brush.

As for my own reasons for joining (other than the opportunity to torture innocents and murder children, of course! not sure how I got tricked into all this search and rescue stuff... ) they are irrelevant, and happened a long time ago.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]

Hi again.


Kofi Anan is just like all the other politicians. He and his son were apparently making money from Saddam the whole time, which is why there was no motivation to act from him. Previous administrations were content to let Saddam and his implied WMD threat slide. Times change. There were 16 resolutions routinely broken, perhaps more. Not just two. There are multiple UN resolutions, each "reaffirming" that Iraq needs to offer unfettered access to their WMD and other facilities. Each of which Saddam or Uday or (fill in the Ba'ath party official of your choice) disregarded. Saddam had his neighbors convinced...as well as intelligence agencies all over the world. If anything, the war is one of the few things I do agree with Bush about.

As for the admission of "torture" the only credible articles I have seen were quoting vague unnamed officials supposedly at the U.N. ,admitting the incidents at Abu Ghraib, (embarrasing photos, bad music, etc) for which said people have been tried as the criminals they are. While hugely embarrasing to the U.S. this is not IMHO the same thing as admitting such is used as policy.

I've also heard accusations made by people who are making a lot of money and or fame for themselves, but again I have to wonder why if these things were being done by U.S. intelligence agencies, why weren't these people killed. Sounds far fetched to me, that we would genuinely torture someone picked up off the street somewhere, then set him free to go in front of every camera he can find. I guess anything's possible however.

PLK, if you hate Americans, you will find plenty of articles to support just about anything you want to say about us. Fact is we are just regular people too, not the bogey-men that you seem to see us all as. Your article however, was confusing. Rumsfeld's sticky notes as reported by a paper (coincidentally) slighted by him reads strangely as a smear...remember, in the U.S. news reporting is a for-profit arrangement, and whatever spectacular thing sells the most papers is what is reported, not necessarily the truth, the whole-truth, and nothing-but-the truth...supposedly that only happens in closed courtrooms, and I suspect, not always even then.

It is also, still irrelevant why I joined, as I said, that was a long time (almost 14 years) ago and had nothing to do with the present conflicts.

Afghanistan? it is for the most part I gather, a success. There is still massive military deployment there, and fighting is still happening, sporadically, but the media vultures are less interested and simply don't report on it, as there is simply more money to be made sensationalizing Iraq than reporting success . There is an old media saying here, "If it Bleeds, it LEADS"-there's simply far more money to be made elsewhere. Incidentally...6603 Americans alone were lost at D-Day-one DAY. Almost twice what has been lost by the entire coalition in this entire WAR. Yet somehow this one is being reported as if it were the most horrific war in history, or that it is somehow "unwinnable". What have people become, that nothing is worth fighting for anymore?

Just because someone dies in Iraq...doesn't mean he was killed by an American soldier. We are not setting the IEDs, we are not sawing off people's heads or shooting them execution style nor are we indiscriminately killing people.

We are: building schools, training police and firefighters, building hospitals...power and water facilities, rebuilding roads....some of these many times because certain groups seeking to keep Iraq destabilized keep blowing them up.

Seen any of THAT in your stories lately?

Anyway cheers folks, having stirred the pot I will return later to read your thoughts again.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]


A "mandate" from the UN has never to my knowledge been required to go to war. To have the UN's help or to declare a particular action a UN action, a UN mandate is required. The UN has never had sovereignty over any nation; it simply exists to make it easier to allow member nations to speak as one and enforce the will of the many if need be. So again, what exactly constitutes an "illegal" war? and further, you also said that any acts done by members of various countries military (perhaps you mean me) were therefore also "illegal". Guess we'll start tearing down those bridges and hospitals we built, then... Actually I feel there are wars, and then there are acts that take place during wars that are illegal esp. if done by nations who signed on to the Geneva conventions or the international laws of war-both of which are self-regulated. Neither of the above define what constitutes justification for GOING to war, only what constitutes legal methods of carrying one out.

As for your assumptions about what is obviously happening at Gitmo, I think you will be sadly disappointed. Even the news cameras don't go there anymore, as the only people being abused are the guards as everyone is so afraid of offending any of the inmates that they are actually getting fat, due to being fed and pampered heavily. You misread my previous post. I find it hard to believe that people would be put through such obviously illegal things as they are claiming, and live to tell about it. It is much easier to kill than to torture. Unless, you redefine the word torture, to include playing bad music, or keeping the lights on all night...(believe it or not those are some of the things currently being called torture-I don't know. I personally am used to the medieval definition of torture, not the modern one where even playing music a prisoner does not like is called torture). Think about it. These people are claiming they were tortured, in prisons that "don't exist" taken there on secret flights, which only THEY know the purpose for, by people who "don't exist" but are readily identifiable somehow to the supposed victims as "U.S. CIA"...so if they were REALLY in these places unbeknownsts to anyone, I think the BS is getting deep when they claim they simply got out to freely tell their tale. If such secret places really exist and unsavory people in the employ of the U.S. government (or ANY government for that matter) are doing horrible things to people...well, one does not do horrible things to people in hidden locations that "nobody knows about" then let them go, to say what they wish in front of television cameras. It simply slips beyond the realm of believability.

Interesting that you say all these things about Kofi Anan are "neocon smears" yet readily believe Americans you have never met are readily doing the most awful things imaginable (then concede that, well just the ONE thing was true...). They are reported on the same television set. You readily believe something about some unsubstantiatable story about a bridge in Baghdad you've never seen, but then disbelieve things supporting the opposing side? Why believe one if you do not believe the other? The oil for food scandal is not enough? How many women does one need to rape to be called a rapist, how many illegal deals behind the back of an organization one supposedly chairs, before one is considered crooked? How many times does one have to steal, before he is considered a thief? At least America's dirty laundry gets aired, and people imprisoned when they err.

By the by, ALL of the resolutions were supposedly backed by a promise of force. A UN "mandate" is IMHO a fictitious item that does not exist in the real sense of the word. If a member wants a resolution saying "go to war" that is all a mandate is, however such a thing assumes any of the given members of the UN consider themselves and their sovereignty subject to it.

None do.

More, it is like a club, in the old sense of the word. People discuss, and sometimes they let in new members, sometimes not. If something seems advantageous to all, all work as one. Ideally. It is not some sort of global super-government, at least, not yet. It was created to keep an open channel between governments on the verge of annihilating each other some decades ago.

Do I have any delusions about Iraq always being a wonderful place? no, I do not. I would, however, like to have at least ONE friendly nation in the area, considering the economy of the entire planet revolves around oil, and while the U.S. doesn't use Iraqi oil, I sure don't want Putin and Ahmadinejad controlling it.

I also have not heard the above allegations of Iraqi oil being sold or given to Exxon and Mobil etc. from any reputable sources. I could just pass it off as another "smear" but mostly, I know it isn't coming HERE. So who is getting it?Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Poland's participation in the war. I can't comment on regular Polish army as I've not seen them, but the troops we worked with were absolute professionals, if a bit more ruthless than some of our own. Our troops are greatly restricted in how we can carry out fighting, something other countries including Poland, apparently realize is silly. Our troops are not allowed, for instance, to fire on someone, unless we think we see a weapon, we think the person with the weapon is a direct threat to us (e.g. preparing to FIRE the weapon at us) then whoever is in charge of us AGREES that the person is a threat and then authorizes us to open fire... Unless of course the individual(s) are actually firing at us, which is different entirely.

So...I KNOW all the stories about genocides and massacres etc etc being the rule...are a load of CR@P.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]


Hello, to be honest I was not arguing about the Iranian nuclear program, but since you mention it, my biggest concern about their program, is unlike the US or Russia or various other countries that have the bomb, Iran has publicly made statements that they intend to use them when they have achieved that goal in what amounts to a religiously ordained strike against Israel first then the rest of the Infidels within reach (including, now, Poland). America can't do much about it these days, as we are politically hogtied by people who believe everything we do is for some nefarious and evil purpose. Iran will get them if they don't already have them, and I don't think we can count on Israel to do the world's dirty work this time as they did against Iraq's original bomb program. Hopefully Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs are bluffing but I doubt it.

No doubt when the first ones fall on Jerusalem, people who hate all things American (and by association all of our friends) will cheer. Then when the targets shift to other "Infidel" nations such as Poland, they will blame Americans for it, either for not doing enough, or will say we caused it somehow. So while it's another thread in its entirety, all we can do is offer missile defense. I would say, take it...

More importantly my comments were about the oil monopoly being sought by Russia and Iran. Oil, like it or not, is the life blood of the world's modern economy, just as wars 200 years ago were fought over sugarcane plantations or spices. If allowed this controlling interest, Moscow and Tehran (wonder who would be pulling whose strings) would easily for all intents, enslave the European continent. Sure, your life might not change much, but guaranteed not much would happen in Europe that Russia disagreed with....

My only comment with regard to the Balkans, is I and many others in the US armed forces at the time, mostly agree with you. Many felt the whole idea was wrong, so Pres. Clinton ordered US troops under UN control, otherwise he would have had to answer to congress, which he knew he would not win. Then the UN carried out its wishes, using American troops. It's been years and I still have a bad taste from it all. I know the entire planet supposedly loved Pres. Clinton, but truth be told he was as bad or worse than who we have now, but he had the media on his side.

Skotja, you are obviously trolling at this point for a response from me. You claim to have a level mind about things, then completely drink ALL the coolaid when something negative is said about Americans, whether proven or not, but then dismiss out of hand anything positive. Did an American steal your girlfriend or something? Wow. I cannot make you stop hating Americans, and I will not try to. I can only point out the one-sidedness of your posts, which make drastic assumptions.

The UN does not have sovereignty over any nation-not even the U.S.-but can facilitate multiple nations operating together towards a common goal. The hospitals and schools are NEW, not replacements for bombed ones-even Americans, evil as we are, aren't in the business of wasting ammunition on buildings that aren't shooting at us-if you TRULY have friends in the armed services you would know this.

You also pretend you KNOW that all secret flights from the US are no doubt for the purpose of torture (and no doubt taking Polish children to the salt mines)-but truth is you have no idea. I do not know what they are for, neither do you. They could be smuggling Dick Cheney his favorite vodka for all we know. All countries have secret flights. Not all of them are for torture, hate to disappoint. Everyone loves a juicy scandal that can't be disproved without admitting to some other secret, however.

Yes of course, in America, the worst things and the biggest failings people striving for great things make-are what is plastered all over the news, regardless of facts, evidence or anything. Haditha? So...you are going to take an incident involving perhaps 6 people (how many are there again, 250,000?) who are being tried for war crimes (not even all CONVICTED yet) and pretend that is how America routinely operates? get a life. If we routinely operated that way those Marines would be given medals and the village "sanitized".

Regardless, I feel that because of my position as a member of the US armed forces you are using this thread as a "slam America" forum. I merely posted to praise the professionalism of the POLISH troops I had been on operations with. Do I feel we are doing the right thing over there? yes. Do I think the world knows the truth? no, and probably won't for a few years. Do I agree with our president on everything? Not even close.

That about covers my bases, and I've made most of my points. If you choose to only believe negative things, there is no amount of positive I can show you to change your opinion. Some people need to wallow in their own hatred for awhile before they cool off.

Cheers.

News / Poles in Iraq. What's the point? [160]


Fair enough, there are plenty of AMERICANS who disagree on Iraq, although there is a caveat that MOST of them have no idea what is actually happening there, and assume the worst, as the media here will not report anything good, headlines have to be written in scandal and blood. However, someone who readily believes unsubstantiated accusations made by people who just HAPPEN to be the enemies of our current administration, about torture, murder, rape-as if it is simple matter-of-fact, yet has a hard time believing that Americans would build schools, hospitals or power plants, without having somehow destroyed some pre-existing ones? You have said nothing nice about the US, only made horrid accusation after horrid accusation, dismissed positive things, or perhaps negatives about our enemies as if they were made up by a group of 3 or 4 people in the white house basement. Yet you claim not to hate Americans? This is difficult for me to believe based on your statements but I can give you the benefit of a doubt. IT is possible I guess, to accuse a people of being bent on murder, rape, torture and (apparently) incapable of human good, (you went far beyond simple disagreement on the war) and still not hate them, but it doesn't seem likely.

There are plenty of things to be upset about America for without going for the things that are not substantiated and have questionable credibility. That is what bothers me most, I guess, not that people disagree with American policies, but their readiness, almost eagerness, to believe only the negative accusations, without even verifying the facts. Sometimes negative things happen and are true, but it is hard for me to stand by when some of these statements being made have no possible way of being substantiated, but are produced as if they are absolute fact.

For instance, the fact that the Iraqi people were prepared to revolt against Saddam at the end of the first war-and our officials told them America would back them up. The very day they revolted, our politicians pulled the plug, and Saddam's helicopters gunned them down like cattle. Now we are fighting along side Iraqis, and you can imagine how hard it is to earn trust of some of the people who remember what happened in 1991, who often fear we will leave them(again) before they are prepared on their own. This REALLY happened and has been acknowledged by people on all sides of the issue; I do not see the same credibility however, in someone who claims they were captured, and tortured, but conveniently managed somehow to escape and tell this horrid tale to the cameras and throngs of reporters...perhaps it's true, but sounds off to me, especially without (so far) any real proof.

BW, I have no problems when we are slammed for things we actually have DONE. That can be embarrassing for us but truth is truth. Abu Ghraib happened. The perpetrators who did it were arrested, tried, convicted, and in some cases imprisoned. It does not take away the embarrassment to their country these people created with their stupid antics. However I take issue with the wild eyed accusations being made with little or no basis in fact, by people who believe anything negative claimed about the U.S. but nothing positive, regardless of whether it was proclaimed by 12 cardinals, the Pope, and written in the clouds. I've painted over bloodstains left presumably by Saddam or Uday's torturers (who did not "torture" people with loud music-or stress positions or humiliation, such as some Americans have been accused of. They went straight for the big stuff) just so people could work in the same building without the constant grim reminder. I've also seen stockpiles of Chem-Bio protective equipment stored next to short and medium range weapons, which were fueled, ready to launch, and may or may not have had any warheads in them. I know that proves nothing in the scheme of things, and while I feel one does not don a condom unless he plans to use it, you don't hear me proclaiming I have PROOF that Saddam had anything, only that I believe he did. There is a difference.

I also am somewhat alarmed that while the world is wasting their time babbling about President Bush and the bogey-man and whoever else, who cannot be re-elected, Putin is quietly positioning himself to control the fuel alotment to the entire European continent, and befriending himself to a nation that wishes the annihilation of several others even going so far as threatening Poland and others with nuclear weapons for wanting to PROTECT themselves with a missile defense shield....times are bad, I fear. It isn't as if he has offered to protect Poland or any other European country with RUSSIAN anti-missile technology, after all...no, he wants Iran to feel like they have a clear shot at any of the Infidel countries they want. But that is a different thread.

Does Poland have an interest in Iraq? I think so; no it isn't necessarily to befriend or make buddy-buddy with Americans, although I would be glad to serve alongside Polish troops any day-no, I think if anything, it is to help ensure Iraq gets on her feet as Iraq, not a puppet of Iran and Putin, nor the U.S. for that matter, and to prevent any one alliance to control the lion share of the economy of the planet.

Language / How do people mispronounce your Polish names? [60]

Same here...last name has been murdered since I was young, and in boot I was one of the first guys to get "assigned" a nick-name.

My last name is Pokrzywa- however I've heard people add "r" in the middle, and a whole lot of other things not even remotely there. Even had one instructor just call me "Smitty".

I don't even blink anymore when someone murders it...my last outfit had a guy of Indian descent with maybe 8 syllables in his name. Yes, as you may have already guessed...he had a nickname too, or people just shortened his name to "Karim".

Work / "Ethnicity" form - Polish Europeans? [77]

I've often wondered about these...for instance, would a white man who immigrates from Kenya-be able to fill out the form "African-American" and reap the attached affirmative action benefits?

You're not European...you an "Atlantic Islander"....
and if the scientists are right and we are all descended from Africa a few million years back..are we all of "African Descent"?

hmm.
John P.

News / Poland to Change the National Anthem? [22]

Good luck with that one....
I think MOST countries' anthems are out of date...ours is about fighting the British 200+ years ago. Last I checked, we're basically on the same side these days, with perhaps a little ribbing going back and forth.

"If it ain't broke...don't fix it"...
John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

Personally I feel it is a right. I also do not believe the U.S. second amendment has anything at all to do with "hunting" or "sporting use" although I do support those things. Rather I believe it is about empowering the citizens, especially compared to those of contemporary nations, or for that matter, today as well. Interestingly enough people were originally permitted to own firearms during colonial British rule; while there was rioting and general uproar over unfair tax policies etc. the first shots fired in anger were when rather than address the issues, the then government sent troops to disarm the populace and things did not go as planned.

Personally I feel it is an individual right, as "militias" of the time were no more than organized groups of local citizens in homemade uniforms, not government organized armies such as the modern day national guard.

As such I also believe that if a soldier is allowed to carry a certain weapon then with training (just like driving a car, power comes with responsibility), so should a citizen. Even AKs or M16s.

Murder has been illegal for millenia in scores of governments. The methodology or tools used are IMHO irrelevant after that fact.
incidentally...AFAIK in most cases in U.S. where a firearm is used in self defense, it is not actually fired but merely alluded to or brandished in some fashion causing would be attackers to reconsider...

btw holding an innocent person at gunpoint is assault w/a deadly weapon not to mention a few other things. Sorry that happened to you, hope he didn't get away with it...

John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

Thanks Karl for the kind words! and about that other part-no, we don't get to keep them but I can wish...
Others I wouldn't want as I doubt I could afford to maintain it let alone buy bullets for practice or fun at the rate it uses them...(minigun, M240, etc) still lots of fun during training, not so much when things are for real.

Still I think if we are going to trust a citizen to vote then why not trust them with more? Swiss citizens have automatic weapons in their homes...and a low crime rate. Its all a riddle I guess...

John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

BW...saying Switzerland has a high rate of gun-suicide is irrelevant to the topic. The problem in those cases isn't the method used but why someone would want to commit suicide in the first place...

Percentage of suicides using guns has nothing to do with the overall Swiss crime rate, which is low.
Interestingly, the areas of U S with highest crime rate are also the ones with the most restrictions on gun ownership...(LA, NYC, DC etc)...

John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

Interesting articles. While we Americans are generally allowed to own firearms it is interesting to me that the areas with the highest murder rates, gun violence rates and for that matter, crime rates in general, are the ones in which guns are banned or extremely restricted. (NY, LA, DC etc come to mind) Areas with widespread legal firearms ownership also tend to have lower violent crime rate.

Is there a connection? I think so.
John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]


I think so, because IMHO private firearm owners are more of a preventative measure, preventing the crime in the first place generally through deterrence, etc. whereas police typically are a reactive force, other than traffic enforcement, etc... as it is impossible to have police presence at everyone's house, all the time.

When police respond to a violent crime it has already been committed. An armed private citizen, on the other hand, could possibly prevent the crime in the first place.

I'm rambling a bit but I think you know what I mean.
John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

Personally,
I think it's a right. If someone is mentally capable enough to (gasp!) vote... then that person should have the right to keep (and bear...) arms. In other words, they also should be allowed to carry and use them.

Just as people do not receive drivers licenses either, until being shown how to drive responsibly and made aware of the laws...the same with firearms.

Incidentally, Seanus, while I've heard your implication before ("...Europeans think about self protection too? We don't use guns to do it") it really is off the mark. Even in areas where people mostly own firearms, a fight is a fight. People who grew up around firearms know the difference. Getting into a fight is not the same as defending one's own life or that of a loved one.

Incidentally, while America had very low restrictions on firearms ownership, and a low crime rate- European countries with more restrictive firearms laws were suffering secret police, Stasi, Gestapo, the Nazis (the first big firearm registration move in the 20th century was by Adolf Hitler...which of course went badly) KGB, GRU, and a whole bunch of other acronyms which went around and killed their own citizens, Russians were killing or sending each other to Siberia or other fun places...now that the firearms laws are getting more restrictive in the U.S. it seems as if our crime rate has gone UP, not down...and there are more complaints about loss of personal freedoms.

You cannot sacrifice the one freedom you disagree with and hope to keep the one you like....

Wow. I'm really rambling.
John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]


As I understand, slightly retarded people sometimes need protection also? Retardation does not equal hostility, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know one's life is in danger. That said, I'm not positive that people who are undergoing mental / psychiatric treatment are allowed to carry arms, but it is not the federal government controlling this but a rule of treatment. This is how guns were illegal in Washington D.C.-local authority vice national authority. Didn't stop them from becoming the murder capitol of the nation...


First off, I'm jealous. In-N-Out burger is one of the few redeeming qualities I liked about the state of California while I lived there (amazingly hot women helps too...) it is ONLY in California, not the rest of the U.S.

Secondly, Remember you only saw what you were "supposed" to see from Waco. They may have been a little wacky but that was government mismanagement at its best, and personally, I lay all those deaths at the feet of Janet Reno, who turned that into a shooting war, and according to some accounts, her actions also directly resulted in the inferno. Lots of people, including within the Law Enforcement community, were unhappy and wanted her head on a platter, but at the time Pres. Clinton and anyone he appointed were untouchable in the media...


Can't speak for others here, but if I am going to vote for a black president (or a white one, or any other race) I want to know what the candidate's plan is. All I know about Mr. Obama is that he is like a rock star. He is a good speaker, energetic, and the media loves him. Unfortunately, he has also written books in which he claims open hatred of white people (perhaps because his mother is white?) the supposed innocent attendance at a Madrassa (you don't go to Catholic school without being Catholic-although he has tried distancing himself from the radical Islam tag that typically goes along with Madrassa educated people) and, well to be honest, he makes plenty of promises and hasn't once outlined his plan or where he will get the money for it when he does. Colin Powell? I would vote for; Perhaps, if she showed an opinion of her own, even Condoleeza Rice-she's probably smarter than all the leading candidates combined....but not Barack Obama. Not now. Someday, perhaps, if he shows a true plan-but I'm long since over voting for the candidate who looks the best on television.


I'll bet you don't know how strict they already are. The problem is, someone who intends to do great physical harm to another person, or kill them, isn't going to stop at a silly law about what sort of armament he is allowed to use to do so. Witness recent genocide in certain parts of the world against Christians-using Machetes....


I disagree. Guns are an inanimate object. Put a bullet next to a gun, lay it on the table and do not touch it. Wait 1,000 years. The gun will have killed not a soul. The issue isn't whether someone can kill given the tools (such as a gun...) they can...but rather, do you really think the only people one can trust with this power is the government. Do you also believe that if the government held this power exclusively it would not somehow become more corrupt? Stasi? GRU? KGB? Gestapo? all AFTER governments were trusted with the primary ownership of weapons, and all set up as national "police" or some such to "protect the people".

I'll protect myself, thanks. If I lose, then the police are welcome to search through my entrails and find out who did it and give that person a fair trial.

John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]


Yes, actually, there is. The case listed above of children running around and "finding" the gun is one bandied about by many who blindly support gun control without knowing such things are already illegal in the U.S. as with everything else, with power comes responsibility. There are reams upon reams of laws controlling everything from where one is allowed to fire his or her firearm to how it is stored, etc. etc.

In the case of the child for instance, 1. the parents are stupid for having such a tool and not teaching respect of it to the children. I was taught this at the tender age of 3-uncles took me "hunting" let me fire a 30-'06 hunting rifle. It scared the !@# out of me...and it was made clear to me to NEVER EVER touch the guns or let anyone else touch them without adults with me. It worked... 2. The parents in such cases in the U.S. are responsible for the actions of their minor children and will likely be imprisoned for negligent homicide and 3. What the heck are they thinking these days, leaving unlocked guns around unsupervised children who (obviously) they have not bothered to TEACH...?

Doesn't matter, it's a canned story and is one of those what if stories used to scare people. While it has and does happen, it's the exception not the norm. People also back over their children quite often with cars in their own driveways. But that doesn't get attention apparently.

Many people who are in favor of stronger laws in the U.S. have never seen a gun, still fewer have ever touched one, and still fewer have any CLUE what the existing laws are.

It is a capital crime in some cases to commit murder in the U.S. but somehow, there are groups who would have you believe that a misdemeanor or even felony law banning this or that arm will provide more pause to a criminal meaning harm than possible trial and execution.

I say not so.
Regardless, every new law is seldom a freedom gained, but typically is one lost. Gun Control laws are believe it or not what actually started the SHOOTING part of the U.S. revolution from colonial British rule....it would be a shame, if in our infinite wisdom, we let our own government do the same thing, for ostensibly the same reasons. Governments disarming the people is not a new thing. Medieval England banned possession of the original "cop-killer" bullet, the bodkin tipped arrow, except by government forces...other nations have done similar things.

but I'm rambling.
John P.

News / So how do poles feel about the illegal immigration from mexico? [25]

Incidentally, California voted to become part of the U.S. Prior to that, while discovered by Spain hundreds of years ago, well...lot has happened before then. California was not "stolen from Mexico" but was it's own small country. To this day the state flag of California has a picture of a bear and the words "California Republic"

If Spain loses something by selling it to the French, the British,or in battle with another nation-it no longer belongs to Spain. Sorry.
The people whose families were in California when it was part of Mexico, or when it was a republic-are not the ones streaming in from south. Families there 150 years ago are the same families there now. Only now instead of just being Californians, they are U.S. Citizens.

The argument that Americans or Californians or whoever are the "real illegals" simply doesn't hold. It would be like a German pointing to a map in which Poland used to be part of Germany, and telling the Polish to leave the land of his fathers....

Nonsense.
John P.

USA, Canada / Several shot at Northern Illinois University, USA [38]

While it doesn't sound like he gave much time for reaction, even had the other students had time to return fire. Still, in pre-antigun days, one wonders would such a person 1. still even attempt this and 2. would he have shot SO many people before someone simply shot him, instead? Like the old anecdote from Paul Harvey's radio segment years ago, where the armed robber pulls his firearm at the bank expecting everyone to drop-only to hear "click, click, click..." and had the misfortune of robbing the bank on FBI payday....

John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

A few good points, and I agree with most.
FWIW its not Britain wanting it's colony back (Or Russia wanting Alaska back) that bothers me, but I do think it pays to keep a keen eye on our own government. After all, this whole revolution thing happened and Britain was OUR government. It wasn't like Portugal attacked after all.

A lot I think is just different culture. If I went to a house and someone had an M16-well good for him. They are very common but not nearly so lethal as many seem to think. 99.99% of the time his rifle is probably not even a real M16 but a civilian legal semi-auto only version, such as an AR-15. There are a few states in which a citizen can with the proper paperwork, taxes, background checks etc etc own a fully automatic weapon, but to date (the law started in 1932 wrt automatic weapons) not ONE legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime. In fact, FWIW lots of people have AR15s or some variant of them, some no doubt picture themselves ready for some apocalyptic vision, but most think it is simply a fun rifle to shoot. Some use them for varmints. The lethality of the 5.56mm NATO round (.223 Remington) fired by the M16 is highly overstated in the media-who only know that well, it has a big magazine and it's black-so it must be deadly.

Most states, in fact, won't even let you hunt with one, because the weapon is considered underpowered for killing DEER....
I ramble. I believe the solution is combining freedom with responsibility. Own a gun? could you pass a test with questions about when you can and cannot fire it, or its safe operation? could you pass a basic firearms safety test with a score of 100%? I think you should be able to.

Playstation 3 should NOT be the only "exposure" to firearms that one has when making a purchase, IMHO.
John P.

USA, Canada / The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns [261]

Your post made me think of something else.
I agree with you, and I've had people come into my home at night while I was asleep, and it is not a good feeling. When this happened the only firearm in the house was a surplus (=cheap) SKS. NOT the weapon I want to defend my home with. Most rifles are not, for that matter, as I live in a populated area-there are concerns about over penetration and possibly hitting someone else outside or something. I don't have one yet, but a sidearm with frangibles or other expanding round, or perhaps a shotgun would be better, because if one actually had to FIRE it, there is less risk of the round penetrating a wall and hurting someone I do not intend hurting...

John P.

News / So how do poles feel about the illegal immigration from mexico? [25]

Well, some of my ancestors are Crow, Blackfoot, and Catawba, apparently, so perhaps we could meet somewhere in the middle on that one? After all I still haven't learned Polish yet...

As to a flood of Muslims-they're way sneakier than just a frontal attack. That would be obvious. No, they immigrate, then expand into communities, then before you know it, they want to be "allowed to practice their traditions" and lawsuits will fly claiming they are being "oppressed", then they slowly begin to outnumber the previous residents...50 years ago a radical islamic rally calling for death to the U.S. president and the British prime mnister-IN LONDON-would have been unheard of. Now there are suicide bombers in the tubes, and muslim riots (last year anyway) in Paris. Times they are a changin'....

John P.