There should be a war...

[tenderlynew]

Hey wow, there’s a war.

No I was not mentally ill, physically.

And yes I have done everything within my power for 'bout 13 years, letters to the editor, making a spectacle of myself by blogging despite my Project Rachel counselor’s warning;
arguing with everybody I know who’s not pro-life, which includes even my son, bumper sticker on the car, the red circle with a slash through the word “Abortion” (just about got side-swiped and my husband ripped the sticker off.)

So I did * pray the other night, from my soul, as I said, wanting to scream as I thought for the first time about all those babies, it’s all been about me, you see, my pain, my *suffering, my lost children…and I sensed the Lord was receiving me.

So now, anyway, there’s a government shutdown over refusing to pass Obamacare with all its abortion issue errors.

So PRAY, PRAY HARD

war is considerable pain; everybody complains; nobody wants to make a start; I am waiting on a social security check…

 

[Contarini]

While we are talking about abortion here, I HIGHLY doubt todays church would be willing to fight like they once did for something they believe in, even if it was something much worse than abortion.For example, in the future, I believe there will be time when all christians and catholics are persecuted for their beliefs, and churchs will likely be forced to close down, even in this scenario, I dont see the church as a whole, fighting back, or doing anything more than fighting in a courtroom LOL. This is sad, especially when you look at the history of the church, at one time, they would fight to the death for what they believed in, and even had their version of ‘special forces troops’!!! (certain parts of the crusaders and knights).

Yes. The fact that after 2000 years Catholics have finally decided to start following Jesus is terribly sad, isn’t it?

Edwin

 

[St_Francis]

Well, I see your point, but if something like this was attempted, the first ‘wave’ would be the local police, most of which carry M16s, if people were able to get past this, then I imagine the city/state would send in national guard troops, and then regular military, so unless our side had some serious backing (financial, strategic, defense, weapons, etc), which the church could more than likely provide all of this, but I doubt we would have the numbers needed to actually defeat military troops, and win.

IMO, our side probably have what it takes to get past and defeat local police and maybe national guard, but nothing more unless the church has some allies.

Plus this sort of thing would not really be a war, more like a coup imo, where if the church won, they would tell the state, federal govt we are not going to allow this to go on and will fight back if it is tried, so we really wouldnt be trying to topple the govt, just fighting to stop one particular thing from taking place.

While we are talking about abortion here, I HIGHLY doubt todays church would be willing to fight like they once did for something they believe in, even if it was something much worse than abortion.For example, in the future, I believe there will be time when all christians and catholics are persecuted for their beliefs, and churchs will likely be forced to close down, even in this scenario, I dont see the church as a whole, fighting back, or doing anything more than fighting in a courtroom LOL. This is sad, especially when you look at the history of the church, at one time, they would fight to the death for what they believed in, and even had their version of ‘special forces troops’!!! (certain parts of the crusaders and knights).

You’re 15 and you are not Catholic; how do you know so much about war?

As Catholics, we believe in the Just War Theory, which has criteria for starting violent action. You can read a good explanation here.

 

[Skadi]

There should be a war over abortion. 6 million Jews were killed in the 1900’s, and there was a World War over it. How many millions of babies have been killed through easily available abortion? How many mothers have lived to suffer? There was a war in this country over slavery. There should be a war. I am not advocating violence, I am advocating a just war.

From a historical standpoint, the war was over whether Germany could return to its pre-WW1 borders and unite German speaking Europe, culminating in the invasion of Poland. But i get what your saying.

Edit: and it was a war over States Rights, not slavery, but again i get you.

 

[Skadi]

Well, I see your point, but if something like this was attempted, the first ‘wave’ would be the local police, most of which carry M16s, if people were able to get past this, then I imagine the city/state would send in national guard troops, and then regular military, so unless our side had some serious backing (financial, strategic, defense, weapons, etc), which the church could more than likely provide all of this, but I doubt we would have the numbers needed to actually defeat military troops, and win.

IMO, our side probably have what it takes to get past and defeat local police and maybe national guard, but nothing more unless the church has some allies.

Plus this sort of thing would not really be a war, more like a coup imo, where if the church won, they would tell the state, federal govt we are not going to allow this to go on and will fight back if it is tried, so we really wouldnt be trying to topple the govt, just fighting to stop one particular thing from taking place.

While we are talking about abortion here, I HIGHLY doubt todays church would be willing to fight like they once did for something they believe in, even if it was something much worse than abortion.For example, in the future, I believe there will be time when all christians and catholics are persecuted for their beliefs, and churchs will likely be forced to close down, even in this scenario, I dont see the church as a whole, fighting back, or doing anything more than fighting in a courtroom LOL. This is sad, especially when you look at the history of the church, at one time, they would fight to the death for what they believed in, and even had their version of ‘special forces troops’!!! (certain parts of the crusaders and knights).

Im sorry, but you sir have almost no grasp of military tactics or reality whatsoever. Asymetric warfare would be the only conceivable way. Standing openly, forming large troop concentrations, trying to capture major citys, great way for a bunch of small town militiamen to get wasted by their own country arsenal of cutting edge weaponry.

And you obviously know little to nothing about the Knightly orders of the Crusades.

Not trying to be a jerk, its just so painful to read that stuff as a military history major

 

[mikekle]

Im sorry, but you sir have almost no grasp of military tactics or reality whatsoever. Asymetric warfare would be the only conceivable way. Standing openly, forming large troop concentrations, trying to capture major citys, great way for a bunch of small town militiamen to get wasted by their own country arsenal of cutting edge weaponry.

And you obviously know little to nothing about the Knightly orders of the Crusades.

Not trying to be a jerk, its just so painful to read that stuff as a military history major

I never claimed to know anything about warfare, all I am stating is the fact that SOMETHING needs to be done, similar to a ‘battle’ or ‘war’ but this would be fought by the church and federal govt, I need to go and study the last time the church was in a similar battle or situation and see how it was done, and how it went. This would be the best way should the church decide to take action.

But IMO, it will NEVER reach this point, as the church and Id say 99.9 of its parishes around the nation, are simply not willing to fight in that way, for their beliefs,(in todays world), however I do know for a fact this was different in the churches past.

Id even go as far as saying I do not believe the church/ Vatican, would EVER decide to do something like this, NO MATTER what laws were being talked about and/or passed, even if it suddenly became illegal to be a christian/catholic in the US, I still cannot see the church telling its members to take up ams and fight, the most they would do is picket, possibly protest, write letters, etc

Look at whats being done to christians/catholics right now in Egypt!!! Yet I have heard the Vatican and church in general saying NOTHING about this, I havent even heard it on the national news…??? If this is happening in Egypt, then it most certainly can happen in the US.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

You’re 15 and you are not Catholic; how do you know so much about war?

As Catholics, we believe in the Just War Theory, which has criteria for starting violent action. You can read a good explanation here.

• Being catholic has nothing to do with how much I know about war.
• Age is almost equally irrelevant. Do you think I’ll know more about it in five years than I do now?
• There are several ways I know a lot about war. They include:
• High exposiure to war-related literature.
• Having played the first two Call of Duty games (significantly more realistic than stuff like Halo and Mass Effect).
• Lots of relevant googling and such.
• I read the link, but I think all four requirements are easily fulfilled. Consider:
• The first one is: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” None of us dispute the severity of the situation.
• The second reads: “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;” We’ve been trying “all other means” for over forty years, and the situation is only getting worse.
• The third: “there must be serious prospects of success;” While this one certainly isn’t fulfilled, neither was it during the revolutionary war, and you would not dispute the morality of that, would you?
• The fourth: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” Given I am not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill, but rather a more subversive strategy where the only enemies killed would be abortion providers and government officials that were proponents of abortion, the number of deaths would, by comparison to the american revolution, be slight.

Skadi:

Asymetric warfare would be the only conceivable way.

Why would this be the only way?

 

[triumphguy]

• Being catholic has nothing to do with how much I know about war.
• Age is almost equally irrelevant. Do you think I’ll know more about it in five years than I do now?

Yes. Because you’ll know far more about your self and life in general. And you’ll be older, more mature, and have less of the arrogance of youth. Also your frontal lobes will have grown and developed, making you more able to comment on social situations and emotions in an adult fashion.

• There are several ways I know a lot about war. They include:
• High exposiure to war-related literature.
• Having played the first two Call of Duty games (significantly more realistic than stuff like Halo and Mass Effect).
• Lots of relevant googling and such.

I’m sorry but you have just showed that you know nothing about war or even life.

• I read the link, but I think all four requirements are easily fulfilled. Consider:
• The first one is: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” None of us dispute the severity of the situation.
• The second reads: “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;” We’ve been trying “all other means” for over forty years, and the situation is only getting worse.
• The third: “there must be serious prospects of success;” While this one certainly isn’t fulfilled, neither was it during the revolutionary war, and you would not dispute the morality of that, would you?
• The fourth: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” Given I am not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill, but rather a more subversive strategy where the only enemies killed would be abortion providers and government officials that were proponents of abortion, the number of deaths would, by comparison to the american revolution, be slight.

We live in a democracy. The best way to win in a democracy is by wining over hearts and minds. Not by taking up arms. Read about the SAS and their hearts and minds campaigns.

Why would this be the only way?

Only the young and foolish, and the old and foolish want wars. The one’s who have to fight them usually try to avoid them.

 

[xNoOnex]

• Age is almost equally irrelevant. Do you think I’ll know more about it in five years than I do now?

You will. When I was fifteen, I thought I knew everything and understood how the world worked. Fifteen years later, I was an ignorant kid and even with the wisdom that naturally comes with age I still don’t really understand nearly as much about this world as I would like to.

You’re still a kid. Your body and mind is changing and right now, you’re a mess. You might not think you aren’t - but believe me you are - and you’ll look back on the things you thought now and realize how silly it is.

Even more importantly, you come off angry - while most of it is teenage hormones anger and bitterness is nothing you want to bring into adulthood. I’ve sen enough people carry the baggage of their youth into their adult life and it’s destroyed them; they turn to drugs, alcohol, or just live a life of hopelessness. Believe me when I say this; live.

 

[Skadi]

Why would this be the only way?

The US military is the most powerful force on the planet, with technology most of us probably dont even know about. If the US population was to rise in rebellion ans seize a whole area, say the Midwest, It would be militias with shotguns and captured rifles against Tanks, Aircraft, Artillery, Drones, whole divisions of fully trained and equipped modern infantry. In a stand up fight, with large amounts of troops spread across a front that may compose of hundreds of miles do you think a bunch of parishioners and their 12 gauges would stand a chance? The tanks alone would shred the rebel lines.

Fight using Guerrilla tactics, rather than out in the open. you would be fighting in your own town, and slowly wearing down and breaking the enemy’s morale. History is full of examples of successful insurgency. The Vietcong, The Mujahedin, The American Revolutionary’s, all managed to defeat much larger, more technologically advanced enemies by fighting guerrilla campaigns.

 

[St_Francis]

• Being catholic has nothing to do with how much I know about war.
• Age is almost equally irrelevant. Do you think I’ll know more about it in five years than I do now?
• There are several ways I know a lot about war. They include:
• High exposiure to war-related literature.
• Having played the first two Call of Duty games (significantly more realistic than stuff like Halo and Mass Effect).
• Lots of relevant googling and such.

This is the thing: I was once 15, you have not yet been my age. Do you remember how you felt when you were 10? Haha! I remember when I was 8 and felt like I could do pretty much anything!

When I was 15, I had read a lot about the French Resistance, and the thought of all those adventures of derring-do definitely appealed to me. But that is because I didn’t know the reality of war: I didn’t know about those who died, not quickly but in agony; I didn’t know about those who didn’t die but came home blind, crippled, paralyzed from guilt from having shot a child…

Reading war stories in which there is a lot of heroism is good, but must be tempered by war stories in which there is a lot of realism. The trouble with a lot of what is marketed to teens is there is such an appeal to pride… it is easy to be a hero on a computer game *knowing *that you’ll be able to get off your chair to play again another day.

• I read the link, but I think all four requirements are easily fulfilled. Consider:
• The first one is: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” None of us dispute the severity of the situation.

Agreed.

• The second reads: “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;” We’ve been trying “all other means” for over forty years, and the situation is only getting worse.

Actually, it has begun to turn around–in your lifetime. We have been able to pass and keep laws relating to parental notification, sanitation and cleanliness, waiting periods. For decades, those were continually tossed out by the Supreme Court.

• The third: “there must be serious prospects of success;” While this one certainly isn’t fulfilled, neither was it during the revolutionary war, and you would not dispute the morality of that, would you?

I personally do not know the arguments, but, yes, there are plenty of people who argue against the morality of the American Revolution, and the use of nuclear bombs in WWII.

• The fourth: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”

Given I am not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill, but rather a more subversive strategy where the only enemies killed would be abortion providers and government officials that were proponents of abortion, the number of deaths would, by comparison to the american revolution, be slight.

So what do you think, the advocates of death would just sit back and take this? No! They would fight back, and we’d have a mess.

Why would this be the only way?

You suggested that way, why are you asking?

 

[Mulligan2]

There should be a war over abortion. 6 million Jews were killed in the 1900’s, and there was a World War over it. How many millions of babies have been killed through easily available abortion? How many mothers have lived to suffer? There was a war in this country over slavery. There should be a war. I am not advocating violence, I am advocating a just war.

A classic “distinction without a difference.”

 

[WildCatholic]

To the op,

I understand you are mad, and sometimes it looks like prayer doesn’t work. But someday it will. Don’t stoop to violence. All that will do is make the opposition firmer.

 

[sent_by_God]

triumphguy:

Yes. Because you’ll know far more about your self and life in general. And you’ll be older, more mature, and have less of the arrogance of youth. Also your frontal lobes will have grown and developed, making you more able to comment on social situations and emotions in an adult fashion.

• This isn’t arrogance.
• My frontal lobes have nothing to do with my capacity for reason.

triumphguy:

We live in a democracy. The best way to win in a democracy is by wining over hearts and minds. Not by taking up arms. Read about the SAS and their hearts and minds campaigns.

This is not only begging the question but completely ignores what I said above it.

triumphguy:

Only the young and foolish, and the old and foolish want wars. The one’s who have to fight them usually try to avoid them.

First, I don’t want war. There is a war. On the unborn! I want to at least try to stop it myself, so that my efforts will be worthy of the Creator’s aid, you want to cower from the danger and get your creator to do all the work for you. Second, I would be one of the ones fighting it.

xNoOnex:

Even more importantly, you come off angry - while most of it is teenage hormones anger and bitterness is nothing you want to bring into adulthood. I’ve sen enough people carry the baggage of their youth into their adult life and it’s destroyed them; they turn to drugs, alcohol, or just live a life of hopelessness. Believe me when I say this; live.

First, my (completely just) anger has nothing to do with my teenage hormones. Second, anger doesn’t lead to hopelessness, it leads to courage. Third, I am living.

Skadi:

The US military is the most powerful force on the planet…

I know. I said in an earlier post that I wasn’t suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.
St Francis:

Actually, it has begun to turn around–in your lifetime. We have been able to pass and keep laws relating to parental notification, sanitation and cleanliness, waiting periods. For decades, those were continually tossed out by the Supreme Court.

The HHS mandate laughs in your face.
St Francis:

I personally do not know the arguments, but, yes, there are plenty of people who argue against the morality of the American Revolution, and the use of nuclear bombs in WWII.

1. But you aren’t one of them, are you?
2. The use of nuclear bombs in WW2 took place after Japan was defeated and pushed back onto their own island and their fleets and planes destroyed. It was completely uncalled for; we americans just cared more about having a formal surrender than about the millions of innocents we killed doing that.

St Francis:

So what do you think, the advocates of death would just sit back and take this? No! They would fight back, and we’d have a mess.

Who would they fight? Certainly they wouldn’t just go shooting random pro-lifers. They wouldn’t know who their enemy was.
St Francis:

You suggested that way, why are you asking?

No, I didn’t. I explicitly said I was not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

 

[GKC]

• This isn’t arrogance.
• My frontal lobes have nothing to do with my capacity for reason.

This is not only begging the question but completely ignores what I said above it.

First, I don’t want war. There is a war. On the unborn! I want to at least try to stop it myself, so that my efforts will be worthy of the Creator’s aid, you want to cower from the danger and get your creator to do all the work for you. Second, I would be one of the ones fighting it.

First, my (completely just) anger has nothing to do with my teenage hormones. Second, anger doesn’t lead to hopelessness, it leads to courage. Third, I am living.

I know. I said in an earlier post that I wasn’t suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

The HHS mandate laughs in your face.

1. But you aren’t one of them, are you?
2. The use of nuclear bombs in WW2 took place after Japan was defeated and pushed back onto their own island and their fleets and planes destroyed. It was completely uncalled for; we americans just cared more about having a formal surrender than about the millions of innocents we killed doing that.

Who would they fight? Certainly they wouldn’t just go shooting random pro-lifers. They wouldn’t know who their enemy was.

No, I didn’t. I explicitly said I was not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

The use of the two bombs ended the Pacific War with fewer casualties( and not millions) than any other method, saving only if we had surrendered to the Japanese. This is a topic I’ve been studying for over 18 years, and posting on here for around 8-9 years. The subject is a complicated one, and I do hope I won’t be doing any more history lessons on it.

Franks/DOWNFALL: THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE is the best single book on the subject, though I can supply a lengthy reading list.

GKC

 

[sent_by_God]

GKC:

The use of the two bombs ended the Pacific War with fewer casualties( and not millions) than any other method, saving only if we had surrendered to the Japanese. This is a topic I’ve been studying for over 18 years, and posting on here for around 8-9 years. The subject is a complicated one, and I do hope I won’t be doing any more history lessons on it.

Yeah, pretty sure it was millions. But even if it wasn’t, most of the people we killed doing that were innocent. Killing one innocent person is better than killing a thousand murderers. Also, Japan was defeated. Their army was really obliterated. They weren’t a thread anymore. But us overzealous immature american vice prodigies just had to have an admission of defeat, so we murdered millions of innocents to get one.
St Francis:

Reading war stories in which there is a lot of heroism is good, but must be tempered by war stories in which there is a lot of realism. The trouble with a lot of what is marketed to teens is there is such an appeal to pride… it is easy to be a hero on a computer game knowing that you’ll be able to get off your chair to play again another day.

I know I made myself look like an idiot saying that, but seriously. I have read multiple books on the topic, one of them even the writings of a soldier, and neither lacked realism. Also, with the video game thing I did not mean to imply that I am brave enough to “be a hero”, but I have learned from it at least that a soldier’s skill has little to do with his odds of survival. Also, if I may ask, how do you know so much about war? Do you have multiple uncles in the army, one of whom even died in it? I do.

 

[triumphguy]

• This isn’t arrogance.
• My frontal lobes have nothing to do with my capacity for reason.

This is not only begging the question but completely ignores what I said above it.

First, I don’t want war. There is a war. On the unborn! I want to at least try to stop it myself, so that my efforts will be worthy of the Creator’s aid, you want to cower from the danger and get your creator to do all the work for you. Second, I would be one of the ones fighting it.

First, my (completely just) anger has nothing to do with my teenage hormones. Second, anger doesn’t lead to hopelessness, it leads to courage. Third, I am living.

I know. I said in an earlier post that I wasn’t suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

The HHS mandate laughs in your face.

1. But you aren’t one of them, are you?
2. The use of nuclear bombs in WW2 took place after Japan was defeated and pushed back onto their own island and their fleets and planes destroyed. It was completely uncalled for; we americans just cared more about having a formal surrender than about the millions of innocents we killed doing that.

Who would they fight? Certainly they wouldn’t just go shooting random pro-lifers. They wouldn’t know who their enemy was.

No, I didn’t. I explicitly said I was not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

On the adolescent brain:

americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam.pdf

“The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable….”

Ruben Gur, MD, PhD
Director, University of
Pennsylvania Medical Center

I’m not putting you down. It is what it is. My adult brain has been losing grey cells for years

To protect the unborn you have to protect the mothers and change the hearts of those that want the abortions. You can’t change someone’s heart by killing them.

Have you googled the SAS and “hearts and minds”?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

No, I didn’t. I explicitly said I was not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

So what is it exactly that you’re suggesting be done, and be specific, because as I’ve read it these last four pages you’re suggesting a war, and most people understand war to involve at least one of the belligerents being a state of some sort. If you are not suggesting we form militias and overthrow the US government, then who exactly are we supposed to wage war against?

 

[GKC]

Yeah, pretty sure it was millions. But even if it wasn’t, most of the people we killed doing that were innocent. Killing one innocent person is better than killing a thousand murderers. Also, Japan was defeated. Their army was really obliterated. They weren’t a thread anymore. But us overzealous immature american vice prodigies just had to have an admission of defeat, so we murdered millions of innocents to get one.

I know I made myself look like an idiot saying that, but seriously. I have read multiple books on the topic, one of them even the writings of a soldier, and neither lacked realism. Also, with the video game thing I did not mean to imply that I am brave enough to “be a hero”, but I have learned from it at least that a soldier’s skill has little to do with his odds of survival. Also, if I may ask, how do you know so much about war? Do you have multiple uncles in the army, one of whom even died in it? I do.

No, it wasn’t millions. In the dropping of Little Boy on Hiroshima, hypocenter about 800 feet from the Aioi Bridge, at the confluence of the Ota and the Hon/Motoyasu Rivers, estimates of the immediate fatalities were from 65,000 to 85,000, with some estimates slightly higher. In Nagasaki, the Fat Man bomb was dropped through a cloud cover, roughly 1 1/2 miles from the planned hypocenter, and the fatalities were in the 45,000 - 65,000 range. Again, estimates vary. But the fatalities from the March firebombings of Tokyo were greater than either of the atomic bombs. And all 3 didn’t equal millions. Indeed, the entire strategic bombing campaign carried out by 20th and 21st Bomber Commands, on the Home Islands, from late 1944 through the final missions on 14-15 August 1945, didn’t equal millions.

The Japanese navy was certainly obliterated. The Army was not. And I find most folks who are of your opinion, re: the bombs, to be rather limited in their understanding of the nature of the conflict in the Pacific Theater, in the last year of the war. I will not (now) go into details; I’ve done it too often. But one point to remember (or learn) is that the casualty rate across the theater was averaging 200,000/ 300,000 a month - Allies/Japanese/others, military/civilian, men/women, young/old. That would continue as long as the war continued. Which, absent the use of the bombs, was going to be quite a while indeed. What do you know of the Saiko Senso Shido Kosein Kaigi or the Ketsu-go plan?

Your understanding of the requirement for a Japanese surrender, is, like your other assertions, uninformed.The issue was not whether Japan was defeated; she certainly was. The issue was what was to be done with her. The answer was to restructure the society, for reasons which date back to 1918. Which required occupation, which required formal surrender, not a negotiated peace.

I started collecting books on WWII when I was 4 years younger than you are now. Been doing it for 57 years. It gives me an advantage in discussions such as this. I could cite my 20 years in the Air Force, in addition, but I think, overall, it’s the books.

As I said, the subject is complicated. I can supply a lengthy reading list for you, including a wide range of opinions on the matter. But I doubt that is going to appeal to you. But since your lack of knowledge on the subject is not really germane to your primary discussion here, no need for it to. And I hate correcting folk on the topic. And I still do it.

GKC

 

[St_Francis]

…I know. I said in an earlier post that I wasn’t suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

I think the confusion about this point may be caused by your not knowing what asymetric warfare is.

The HHS mandate laughs in your face.

Forced 'em to change tactics, didn’t we?

1. But you aren’t one of them, are you?

I have only so much time in my life to read and study. I have chosen to spend my time reading and studying about other subjects; however, I have suspected for a long time those who think the Am Rev was an unjust war may be right.

1. The use of nuclear bombs in WW2 took place after Japan was defeated and pushed back onto their own island and their fleets and planes destroyed. It was completely uncalled for; we americans just cared more about having a formal surrender than about the millions of innocents we killed doing that.

I am more ambivalent about the use of the A-bomb on Japan and have deduced from my limited reading on the matter that it is more complicated than you make it out to be here.

Who would they fight? Certainly they wouldn’t just go shooting random pro-lifers. They wouldn’t know who their enemy was.

They don’t care about killing babies; you think they’d cavil at shotting random pro-lifers if they felt pro-lifers were randomly attacking them?

No, I didn’t. I explicitly said I was not suggesting an infantry charge on capital hill.

See above referring to assymetrical attacks.