Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here for Dragon Serpents
https://www.crepnw.com/
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

A.....Hypothetical.....Question

sobek Sep 11, 2004 05:13 PM

Say John-Doe has a nice house, and inside his nice house, he has many nice and expensive things.

John-Doe watches the news and sees that the crime rate is steadily climbing.

John-Doe decides to get a big mean rottweiler to protect his home,family, and goods.

Say his neighbor Jane-Lane also has a nice house, And inside her house, she also has many nice things.

Jane-Lane watches the news and sees the crime rate is steadily climbing.

Jane lane also decides to get a big mean rottweiler to protect her home,family, and goods.

Say John-Doe calls the police on Jane-Lane for having such a big mean rottweiler protecting her home, and wants the police to come take her dog away.

Yet he tries to justify why he can have a big mean rottweiler, but she cant.

Does Jane-Lane not have the right to protect her home, family, and goods with a rottweiler?

If just next door John-Doe has one?

Replies (21)

lilroach56 Sep 11, 2004 06:31 PM

the cops take Jane's dog away they need to take Johns dog away.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

H+E Stoeckl Sep 12, 2004 08:42 AM

replace the names of the two neighbours with U.S. and Iraq.

rearfang Sep 12, 2004 08:46 AM

To be fair about this, one party has a dog for protection. The other releases his "guard dog" to threaten the neighbors and then crys that he has no control over it when the cops show up.

Try that one.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Sep 12, 2004 09:34 AM

USA kept the dog at home.
Iraq used the dog to threaten its neighbors and attack USA troops (this is before the war).
Iraq promised it didn't have banned weapons (the dog), it did.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

H+E Stoeckl Sep 12, 2004 01:04 PM

Maybe you should dig in your recent history before you pose as the innocent lamb.

May I remind you on all the dirty stunts the CIA has pulled? Chile for instance, Noriega, Bin Laden and Saddam who were first obedient servants of the interests of your country and then they were removed when they had served their purposes or became disobedient.

And the war on Vietnam? Who was the aggressor then? Is the world a worse place now since you have lost the war on Vietnam? No. Vietnam still exists, there is still communism and you even started to diplomatic relationships.

I claim that the U.S. can be damned wicked and agressive to innocents when it serves it purposes. And I mean wicked without being threatened or attacked.

lilroach56 Sep 12, 2004 04:01 PM

My country can be the schoolyard bully (and by schoolyard i mean the world) whenever we want to. The USA is one MASSIVE corparation, doing whatever we wants as long as we think it will help us in the future. The things that you mentioned (Chile, noriega, etc) are my favorite parts of USA history (right after the Third War for American Independance). It is the things i don't read in textbooks that i love the most.

But i still stand that you can't compare the USA and Iraq having WMD's. Two totally different situations.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

H+E Stoeckl Sep 12, 2004 04:37 PM

Most of the operations of the U.S. had been subtle and many of them worked.

The war on Vietnam was a mistake, but it hurt only Vietnam and the U.S. (at least by and large).

The war on Iraq was the most stupid thing you ever did. You meddled with guys who are WAY MORE dangerous than the Vietcong and they already let you know it. Compared with radical fanatic muslims the Vietcong were from the YMCA.

The bad thing is, that this war is not the private pleasure of the U.S. and Iraq, but a lot of other countries has to abide the consequences (which are just beginning now).

Furthermore, this war costed you a lot of sympathy in many of your allies and friends. And meanwhile it turned out that even the most powerful country in the world has almost reached its limits.

Just imagine you would have to fight another war NOW (maybe Iran or North Korea). A necessary war, not one that had been broken from the fence (German saying). You couldn't ...

lilroach56 Sep 12, 2004 06:10 PM

"Most of the operations of the U.S. had been subtle and many of them worked."
yup.

"The war on Vietnam was a mistake, but it hurt only Vietnam and the U.S. (at least by and large)."
Mistake, i don't think i could call it that if i lived while it was going on.

"The war on Iraq was the most stupid thing you ever did. You meddled with guys who are WAY MORE dangerous than the Vietcong and they already let you know it. Compared with radical fanatic muslims the Vietcong were from the YMCA."
HAHAHA. Totally disagree. While Iraq might not have been the smartest thing, i think it is necessary. But yes the fanatics make Vietcong look like YMCA people.

"The bad thing is, that this war is not the private pleasure of the U.S. and Iraq, but a lot of other countries has to abide the consequences (which are just beginning now)."
Yup. But sometimes sacrifice is needed for the prosperity of others.

"Furthermore, this war costed you a lot of sympathy in many of your allies and friends. And meanwhile it turned out that even the most powerful country in the world has almost reached its limits."
No modern army can sucessfully fight in a guerilla war.

"Just imagine you would have to fight another war NOW (maybe Iran or North Korea). A necessary war, not one that had been broken from the fence (German saying). You couldn't"
What do you mean by necessary? If Iran or N. Korea threaten american lives i beliee we will be able to fight them as there will be lots of American volunteers. Plus it will most likely have UN involvement.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

rearfang Sep 12, 2004 06:20 PM

I did live as an adult and a serviceman during the Nam war. In my opinion that war was a big mistake we inherited from the French (read your history).

The war in Iraq was not necessary. They did not attack us and political means had not been exhausted. While there were still options, war was not necessary.

As to it being the dumbest thing our country ever did...Far from it. Anyone who thinks so underates our country's capacity for being real stupid.

I think having the idiocy to not ban slavery (which of course caused the Civil war)is pretty much #1 on the list.

But as decisions go...prematurely attacking Iraq when our troops were engaged elsewhere was not too bright. It over streched our resources at a time when our economy was allready hurting.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

fred albury Sep 13, 2004 02:25 PM

It is HARd to rate the sheer stupidity of our government. What many times looks stupid to us is actually insidious and well planned. Not abolishing slavery does rank as the stupidist thing that this governemnt allowed to blossom. Iraq is a close second.

The players change but the tune remains the same.

Fred A.

H+E Stoeckl Sep 12, 2004 06:52 PM

"But sometimes sacrifice is needed for the prosperity of others"

You mean some big companies, right? I totally agree with you. A lot of sacrifice has happened in order to make them even more prosperous *LOL*

lilroach56 Sep 13, 2004 03:02 PM

i didn't mean it in that sense, but it is true.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

sobek Sep 12, 2004 02:02 PM

If we the US are so hell bent on destroying WMD, then tell me WHY IN GODS NAME does the US, and our groupie Israel ALWAYS VETO the non proliferation of WMD?

When the rest of the international community votes for it?

The war in Iraq did one thing, and one thing only. It showed every sovereign nation If you want to be left alone, GET A NUKE!

lilroach56 Sep 12, 2004 03:57 PM

So we can still be the biggest dog around. Without WMD we would go from a Huge Mastiff to a minature pinscher (sp?). WMD is a part of USA ego, without it we dont feel good.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

My image Gallery

H+E Stoeckl Sep 12, 2004 04:39 PM

...

rearfang Sep 12, 2004 06:30 PM

If the USA did not have WMD's that would mean that China, or North Korea would be able to threaten the world with impunity. It is not about USA egos. It is about keeping nations with totalitarian goals from ruling the world.

Think about it. Where would we have been if WW2 had been fought and Germany and/or Japan had been the only forces that had WMD's (Germany was allready working on nukes and had early missle capacity so this is not a far fetched scenario). We won only because we were able to defeat them before they could develope that capacity.

Do you honestly think The USSR would have fallen if the USA had not been able to use the threat of WMD's to keep them from world conquest?

Some pretty short memory's here...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rodmalm Sep 13, 2004 07:19 AM

If we the US are so hell bent on destroying WMD, then tell me WHY IN GODS NAME does the US, and our groupie Israel ALWAYS VETO the non proliferation of WMD?

A good analogy to this nonsensical thinking would be to replace the subjects in your sentence with gangsters and police.

Would gangsters want the police to be armed? If gangsters could vote on whether police were armed or not, how do you think they would vote?

Why would police want to be armed, when they don't think the criminals should be?

(You don't have to answer, it's obvious)(And if you think the UN is totally unlike the gangster analogy, why is it they allow nations with the worst human rights violations in history to be on the human rights committee? Why did they kick the US off that committee, when we have about the best human rights record in history? How many Muslim nations are on the UN? How many of these nations use religion to dictate their politics? Has the UN ever been able to do anything without the US doing 99% of the military work?)

The reason Israel and the US can possess nukes reasonably is because we are not willing to use them (except in extreme cases, and to defend ourselves). Many people believe that other countries are very willing to use them for offense. Look at how much effort and cost (both monetarily and in lives) that the U.S. is willing to spend to minimize civilian casualties.

Have you seen this type of behavior (to protect civilians), in say, Muslim terrorists that shoot children in the back (like just happened in Russia)? Think they care about civilian casualties? Civilian casualties is their goal. How about the Palestinians? Think they try not to hurt Israeli civilians? How about through out history? The Nazis? Did they care about killing Jews who were no threat to them? How about Saddam? Did he try to not kill 500,000 plus civilians in his own country?

Now ask those questions about Israel and the US to get your answer. The US and Israel both have a lot of military power, but we use it very sparingly and judiciously, many other countries do not have that kind of mindset. Does Israel try to target only terrorists in Palestine? Yep! Are some civilians occasionally hit by mistake? Yep, but that is the difference,-- they don't try to hit anyone except those that are trying to hurt them. (Think the Muslims that shot all those Russian kids in the back, as they were running away, did so because those kids were a serious threat to them?) Nope! Why didn't the US use nukes on Iraq? It would have been a lot safer for our troops, and a lot less costly?--civilians is why! (the US population would be outraged by this, as would many other coutries) Think some Islamic fundamentalists would hesitate, even the slightest amount, before using a nuke on our civilians if they could? (If you can't answer this last question, think about 9/11 and then try to answer it!)

By the way, a lot of people reject the theory that other countries try to get nukes to prevent the US from attacking. Here's some questions for you to think about.

How many countries have we never attacked that don't have nukes, and aren't trying to get them? (This show that a lack of nukes does not mean we will attack you)

How many hostile countries have we attacked to prevent them from getting nukes? (This shows that trying to get nukes may be the cause of a war, if you are an unfriendly/unstable country)
It is the case of being unfriendly/unstable and getting the weapons that causes the war in this case, not just the weapons.

If we were so afraid of all other countries getting nukes, why would we help some (like Israel) to achieve nukes to protect themselves? (I would have no probelm with Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, to have nukes, just to name a few, because they are stable and reasonable.)

Here's another good example of why obtaining nukes does not achieve non-invasion with the US, Lybia! Why did they suddenly abandon their programs to achieve nukes? You don't think it was because of the Iraq thing do you? Do you think the US will now invade them because they abandoned their nuke programs? NOT A CHANCE!

Rodney

rearfang Sep 13, 2004 07:24 AM

Np
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

BRYAN139 Sep 14, 2004 02:45 PM

And was fully capable of controlling my dog but Jane was not and her dog ran out the front door without a leash constantly or something of the such, I would want it gone. And if nobody was willing to do anything about it I would take it on myself to get rid of the dog before I or somebody I loved was bitten. Hots make a good example as well. We all have met or heard about people who just shouldn't have them, even if they're neighbor does.

rearfang Sep 14, 2004 02:51 PM

Bryan....uh...You do understand we were not reffering to dogs literally.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

BRYAN139 Sep 15, 2004 08:18 AM

And was fully capable of controlling my weapons but Iraq was not and was a threat I would want them gone. And if the UN was not willing to do anything about it I would take it on myself to get rid of their weapons before I or somebody I loved was killed. Hots make a good example as well. We all have met or heard about people who just shouldn't have them, even if they're neighbor does. Just like some countries shouldn't be allowed some weapons, even if their neighbor has them.
Better? All I did was copy and paste, change a few words. OH, I made the whole dog getting loose thing just "threat". I fully support the invasion of Iraq. JUST MY OPINION! I also think it's time to bring our boys home though.

Site Tools