....men grabbed their rifles...

[SSN Vet]

Interesting read by Michael Yon......

make sure you note that ....
1. men had rifles
2. men were ticked off enough to go get them and block access to their village
3. it wasn't one rambo...it was a group of like minded men who were willing to stand up together
4. they protected their loved ones
5. many of them died.

----------------------------

2008
Western Nineveh Province, Iraq

The sun was setting over Nineveh as four terrorists driving tons of explosives closed on their targets. On August 14, 2007, the Yezidi villages of Qahtaniya and Jazeera were under attack, but only the terrorists knew it as they drove their trucks straight into the hearts of the communities.

The shockwave from detonation far outpaced the speed of sound. Buildings and humans were ripped apart and hurled asunder. Superheated poisonous gases from the explosions gathered the smoke and dust and lofted heavenward, while the second detonation quickly followed. The terrorists had landed their first blows straight through the heart of the Yezidi community, turning a wedding party into hundreds of funerals.

But the attacks were not over. Yezidi men grabbed their rifles, and while two more truck bombs rumbled toward Qahtaniya and Jazeera, a hail of Yezidi bullets met them. The defenders who fired the bullets were killed with honor while standing between evil and their people. Two other truck bombs detonated on the outskirts of the villages.....................

Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.

The entire article is linked here (quite long)
http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=519%3Astake-through-their-hearts-killing-al-qaeda&Itemid=55

 

[ReadyontheRight]

It's just sad how GWB has been so criticized for a war where we do so much to help re-establish basic human rights.

Grow up and stop whining America!

 

[Mortech]

I know this isn't a really High Road sentiment , I am so thankful that the anti war nuts weren't so powerful during the Civil War other wise I might be somebody's property . They do not seem to realize that freedom isn't free but may require the ultimate sacrifice .

 

[ants]

Inspiring story

This wonderful thread is about grabbing rifles to defend our families. It's not about GWB.

Across America are 30 million to 60 million gun owners, depending upon the source of information. I would hope that stories like this one will inspire us to be prepared to protect our families and homes at the moment necessary, and risk our lives when necessary.

 

[anarchris]

in some ways, Iraqi's have more rights then us

each family can legally own a select fire AK!

 

[SSN Vet]

I know this isn't a really High Road sentiment , I am so thankful that the anti war nuts weren't so powerful during the Civil War other wise I might be somebody's property . They do not seem to realize that freedom isn't free but may require the ultimate sacrifice .

On the contrary....I think that is a VERY High Rode sentiment.....a powerful statement....spot on as far as I'm concerned....


The key ingredient I see is the sense of community.....knowing you neighbors and being committed to shared values. We've lost a lot of ground in this "it's all about me" culture stateside.

 

[Just Jim]

You can not get the people of another country to stand with you in dangerouse times when those people are unarmed. The Iraqis are doing much better now that they can defend their homes and families with a gun. Americans in all the states would do just as well if they too could own guns like the Iraqis do.

jj

 

[Zoogster]

I am so thankful that the anti war nuts weren't so powerful during the Civil War other wise I might be somebody's property .

The Civil War was not about slavery, that only became an issue to fill a need, and one that in the history books has now become the main one.

It had a lot more to do with economic issues.

Abraham lincoln for example made whatever speech and took whatever side on the issue was necessary at the exact moment to gain his objective, which had little to do with helping black people.

Lincoln qoutes include:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

As well as:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

The truth is there was many other political things on the table, and very different cultures at odds.
Slavery was a weak point in the south, by freeing the slaves they could cripple the economy. They could at the same time create chaos and turn slave against owners within the economy they were against, making it much weaker to attack. The North would then recruit them as they marched through, adding additional men to fight on thier side. So all around it was more of a winning strategy than to help black men.
It was more to enable the enemy of an enemy than to help the slaves.


Lincoln was a politician, and flip flopped on any issue, predominantly controlled by finances, power, and economical concerns. When the two cultures were at odds, one depended on slaves and the other did not. Obviously destroying the economy of the people you are at war with is a quick way to defeat them.


Now several of the founding fathers years before were in fact against slavery, even some that ironicly had slaves (most wealthy people did at the time, and they were one of the most expensive things someone could possible have.)
They felt it contradicted some of thier beliefs, but had bigger issues at the time.
They believed that the issue would resolve itself in a competitive society within a few generations.
It was already dying out in many places and was not practical. They were right and slavery was dying off as predicted.
Only the invention of the cotton gin 'saved' slavery from earlier extinction.

 

[Redtail]

+1 to Zoogster. Read The South was Right by James Ronald Kennedy.

 

[Brian Dale]

Regardless of Lincoln's motivations, even his actions, one result of the 1861-1865 war was that human beings in the United States could no longer be held as "property" by other people.

 

[RedLion]

^^ Exactly, Emancipation proclamation and 13th amendment both signed during the civil war.

 

[c_yeager]

Regardless of Lincoln's motivations, even his actions, one result of the 1861-1865 war was that human beings in the United States could no longer be held as "property" by other people.

Most importantly, if the other side had won, human beings would have remained a commodity. Real easy to figure out who the bad guys are in that fight. Of course this is why people try so hard to separate the slavery issue from the civil war, because it is the only way a person can argue that their side wasn't fundamentally evil without inspiring laughter from all who would listen.

 

[1911Tuner]

On topic, please.

 

[Zoogster]

Real easy to figure out who the bad guys are in that fight. Of course this is why people try so hard to separate the slavery issue from the civil war, because it is the only way a person can argue that their side wasn't fundamentally evil without inspiring laughter from all who would listen.

Actualy many of the slave ships were from Boston and New York.

The factory conditions of New England were even worse than the slave conditions in the south. Children lost hands on a regular basis, and child labor was common, with the hours of a work day almost double what they are now, and 6 day work weeks the norm.
Now they were not owned, but they were usualy forced to make a living in much worse conditions.

The North also used a lot of indentured servants, considered better than slavery because you only kept the 'slave' for thier most healthy and productive years and did not have to care for them when they got old. They were much cheaper. They became free right about the time most hard workers' bodies began to break down in that time period. So the result was often much more cruel.
Use them up and discard them to fend for themselves. If they still had some good years left, they were kept in debt (for expenses paid for by employer out of thier controll) and they had to work that off before being released from the contract.
Indentured servitude was often worse than slavery. It was slavery with no retirement plan.

Most of the war crimes were done by the northern soldiers. Mass murders of non combatants. They would frequently perform gang rapes of the Southern Bells, who were a unique feminine 'treat' to the yanks that had no such thing up north.
Virginia was hit the hardest by many of the war crimes.


I have no loyalty to either side, I have family from both and I reside on the left coast. Slavery was a bad thing and needed to be destroyed. However if you really know your history, the North was definately the worse side. The end to slavery was a good thing, but it was not the key issue at the time, and not what the North was fighting about.

 

[rainbowbob]

...they [slaves] were one of the most expensive things someone could possible have.

Not to invoke PC, but that's a poor choice of words.

They were right and slavery was dying off as predicted.

In fact, much of the conflict had to do with the South's intention to expand slavery into the new territiories. If it was "dying off", why argue over expansion?

Lincoln was a politician, and flip flopped on any issue...

Great leaders must have the courage to change their minds - and admit they may have been wrong - when presented with new information.

 

[Zoogster]

...they [slaves] were one of the most expensive things someone could possible have.

Not to invoke PC, but that's a poor choice of words.

It is important in the context of the founding fathers. Telling people to give up the most expensive possession they owned was not something they were willing to tackle when a large percentage of the population was already against them or loyalists to the crown.
If you told everyone in America they could solve much of the worlds wrongs by giving up thier homes and vehicles, they would resent you just as much. It might have caused them to lose enough support that the colonies reverted to English control.
So they decided not to tackle the issue then.

In fact, much of the conflict had to do with the South's intention to expand slavery into the new territiories. If it was "dying off", why argue over expansion?

You clearly missed what I was talking about at that time, decades previously when the founding fathers were considering the issue.
The cotton gin just like I said, invented years after they considered the topic caused slavery to become viable and popular once again in places that grew cotton.
Prior to that it was fading.

 

[Apple a Day]

When I saw the title I immediately thought of that fateful day in Lexington and Concord. Much closer to here men seized the powder magazine in Williamsburg and further south at Charleston. In Virginia there is - or at least was- a law on the books that every household had to have a pound of powder and two pounds of shot ready to go at a moment's notice.
I'm proud to be still in compliance with that law.

 

[Jeff White]

And since we can't keep the thread on topic, it's closed. Take the discussion over to APS: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/