True, but it is not difficult to find glass bottles if you care to look for them.

But plastic water bottles don't break...

Sadly, by the time you got to "Porter" one of the "just obeying the commands of those over me" privates will have shot you. Remember there are people in the service who feel their CIC is always right, even when he's wrong wrong wrong. Look at Katrina. Look at the NG at airports right after 9-11-01.

Because it only takes that one to put out the lights of a resister... and remember, to the gov YOU, not them, are the quislings...

Of course, the French Resistance accomplished a lot with glass containers filled with anything flammable. For that matter, they became quite accomplished at stopping tanks by having someone run out with a crowbar and jam it into one of the tracks. Whether one could still do that I have no idea.

You'd have to ask them about that--I've only seen the pictures.

I seem to recall one of the Javanese Generals did not want to invade America because there would "be an American with a rifle behind every bush". I can't recall the name but it was the same general who planned Pearl harbor invasion opening WWII.

Sorry, but I think that you're in a dream land. I am much more in agreement with DrZarkov99 that geographical isolation has been the major protector of America and, I would add, sheer size and past strength. None of those factors are relevant today or in the near future. After WWII, most nations have learned that it is much cheaper and more effective to conquer other nations with economics rather than weapons. And we are loosing the war...

Geographic isolation is the main reason the U.S.A. hasn't been attacked. Canada could make the same claim, since no one has attempted an invasion of their soil, either (except for a few misguided Americans).

It's delusional to attribute some magical quality to American independence. The simple fact is that we're mostly rejects, who rebel at any idea of control - sort of the juvenile delinquents of proper, domesticated European society.

The big problem Progressives are facing is an equally delusional idea that the (supposedly) peaceful, idyllic European condition is due to an equally unrealistic idea that a more communal society is more rational. There's always been the conflict between liberty and security, and the rebels always favor liberty (even when they espouse security).

Scarier yet are those who hunt wild boar or bears with a spear or knife. I don't think I'd want to be alone in the dark around one of those people.

There are a lot of dead guys who felt that way, just during my lifetime from Vietnam through Afghanistan and Iraq (and much much more, I'm sure) who were fighting and dying for this country. Were they fighting and dying for Nixon? For me personally? For my parents (my dad was active military, too, now RIP)? Who were they dying for? It seems that they were dying so that this over-reaching government would not escalate and cause even more deaths of its own citizens and others. In a simplistic way, kind of like throwing virgins into the volcano to accomplish the same thing.

(to my friends here: please be sure that I am NOT crapping on anyone who has served, and/or died doing so!!! My position is still that the government is the bad guy. And I also love my neighbor as myself, and I will stand with him when the goons come to take his (or my) guns away.

I think that my community is smaller than it was before... it used to be roughly the size of the US and now it's more limited to people who agree with my "limited government" point of view. I will still "defend to the death" certain things for certain people, but not "all for one / one for all" like it used to be.

Sorry.

American soldiers will fire on Americans when ordered by thinking, "I'm safe, my family is safe, I have a career ahead of me and too much to lose by disobeying orders." As, I believe, Thoreau said, "When you say you have too much to lose, you have already lost." They have made a choice and will rationalize that choice by minimizing their oath.

My best friend's mom made a comment about 50 years ago (I'm 70) that finally sunk in. And being on the down slope of my life, it has sunk in, making sense. She said, "When the final tally is made, if you get two of them, they can never get even."

Upper ranks in any military are always political animals. The purging of the flag officer ranks of the American military now ongoing is due to the ignorance of the political establishment, thinking the loyalty of senior officer ranks will guarantee blind obedience from the lower ranks. There is a reason why most military purges originate in the field grade leadership (Majors and Lt Colonels).

It never was "all for one/one for all". Even after the publication of the Declaration of Independence, only about a third of the colonists expressed a willingness to fight for the freedom demanded in that document. Another third were passionately hoping the Crown would negotiate to give them the rights of other English citizens, and the rest just wanted to be left alone.

Less than 10% of the American colonists took up arms against the Crown, and just about as many were "tories" who fought as a civilian militia against the revolutionaries.

What made the difference in the outcome was a combination of a skillful, experienced American commander, arrogance and stupid decisions by some British commanders, luck, and the canny ability of Benjamin Franklin to gain French support.

America's uniqueness has been the ability to pull together in spite of our differences, even when some refuse to act on their own behalf. Any new American conflict will not be anything but a bloody mess, with the outcome likely to be either fragmentation into smaller states, or a more militaristic, authoritarian government.

In case anyone has forgotten, the first meeting of the citizen militia and the professional British military on Lexington Green didn't go so well for the civilians. Going head-to-head against technologically superior professionals is definitely stupid. A citizen militia has to engage in asymmetric conflict, using ambush and surprise as much as possible.

It took many of the American revolutionaries a few hard, bloody lessons to learn that standing toe-to-toe against a superior foe may be brave, but guarantees defeat. It was the Virginia rifle companies, able to kill at longer range from cover that made the difference until a truly competitive American military force was built and trained.

Arrogance and stupidity isn't just apparent in some of the "taunters". Our government is so obsessed with controlling "assault" weapons they've forgotten that the deadliest enemy is an experienced hunter that can kill with every shot from a bolt action rifle, or kill from ambush with a shotgun.

Molon Labe!!!!

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
Thomas Jefferson

Molon Labe!!

And I shall be in the front ranks, flag of parley in hand, citing a poem to my opponent "under arms".


My name is Charlie Porter
I was a union soldier
In ‘61, I signed up to fight
And it was a great adventure
But I have to tell you
Not the fairytale I had in mind

And when General Lee surrendered
And victory finally arrived
I heard no one hoot or holler
No hip-hurray for the stars and stripes
We only cried

Back when it started
Proud and foolish hearted
I thought I had a taste for rebel blood
But we were only children
They killed us and we killed them
And the misery and the dying made us numb

By then, holding back the sorrow
Was kind of like holding back the tide
The men did not hoot or holler
Nor hip-hurray for the stars and stripes
We only cried

And oh, victory seems hollow
At the price of half a million lives
A cold and weary stillness follows
You hear no hip-hurray for stars and stripes
You only cry

You can hear the song here. http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/35308...

Of course it is difficult to distance yourself from it if people shoot back. But then i think it quickly devolves into an "us" vs "them" mentality and the soldiers and marines will act with enthusiasm.

There is a great segment on wnd radio interviewing a soldier regarding hurricane Katrina. He felt surreal taking citizens' firearm protection but the units distanced themselves from the moral delimna by joking about it.

Does anybody buy into the notion that the US military will not fire on those upholding the 2nd Amendment if it comes to it? I don't. I think most soldiers and marines will pull the trigger on their fellow citizens when told to do so. Especially if it is framed in such a way that they are defending the nation from a few radical right wing terrorists.

In our country where freedom of speech is one of the hallmarks of our republic, does anyone have a guess why this good and open video might not meet with the "approval" of those who choose what you see during a "station break"???

I sure don't, except, perhaps it is just too close to the truth or too close to telling the "Emperor he has no clothes" or perhaps it's just too close to telling "The King", we aren't going to give in. Or are these willing accomplices telling US that WE aren't going to be allowed to tell him that we've had enough????