BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as
a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as
a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect
the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible
redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves
the rest without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem
it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control
more of your life.



I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Nice cherry picking Krause.

I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry
doesn't?

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms
holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream.
Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you
present as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century,
and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and
organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our
military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of
"regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with
firearms.
Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.
And maybe you are full of schitt.

Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise
you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight.
Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook.


I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years
can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the
firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who
fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm.

Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could
still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and
shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load
and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit
targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon.

Sight alignment, sight picture...


Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many
years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well
is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't
shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit
small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they
were young and in practice.

Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you
with at 300 yards any day of the week.



Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot
camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..."

"Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former.

All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem
with that?

Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can
offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small
circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty
good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further
than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals.

Try to be a bit consistent, eh?

What is a "very very small circle?"

A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is
just a target.

Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you
are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter
distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you
should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open
areas you should be practicing for 300 yards.



A small circle on a well-known target:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg

25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot.
Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so
inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you.

Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you?

I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance.

"Standard range distance", what does that mean?

I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter.

Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of
the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want
to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test
of one's shooting ability.

Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right?

What does that have to do with anything?

Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada
as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but
the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it
does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it
is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of
your life.
I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates
to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Agreed, public record is better:

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/13/26/

1 for, 6 against and one neutral. While Obama's mouth moves one way his
votes tend to go the other way.




I'm familiar with some of those proposals and as a responsible gun
owner, I support most of them. None of them interfere with my use or
enjoyment of firearms. You'll have to do a little better.

Oh...I favor closing the "gun show loophole."

jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present
as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized
as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to
protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars"
in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had
some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible
redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves
the rest without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem
it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control
more of your life.



I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Nice cherry picking Krause.

I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry
doesn't?


D'oh...without on-going fear-mongering, the NRA's funds and "influence"
dry up.

jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present
as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized
as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to
protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars"
in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had
some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible
redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves
the rest without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem
it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control
more of your life.



I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Nice cherry picking Krause.

I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry
doesn't?

Harry opens his eyes but he fails to see, he opens his ears but fails to
hear.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms
holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream.
Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you
present as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th
century, and that any huge invading army is going to be
equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going
to be up to our military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of
"regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with
firearms.
Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.
And maybe you are full of schitt.

Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might
surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot
straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even
the cook.


I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years
can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the
firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who
fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm.

Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they
could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field
strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could
still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could
still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon.

Sight alignment, sight picture...


Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many
years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well
is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't
shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit
small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they
were young and in practice.

Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against
you with at 300 yards any day of the week.



Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot
camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..."

"Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former.

All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem
with that?

Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can
offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small
circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty
good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further
than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals.

Try to be a bit consistent, eh?

What is a "very very small circle?"

A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is
just a target.

Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you
are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter
distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you
should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open
areas you should be practicing for 300 yards.



A small circle on a well-known target:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg

25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot.
Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so
inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you.

Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you?

I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance.

"Standard range distance", what does that mean?

I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and
shooter.

Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of
the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want
to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test
of one's shooting ability.

Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right?

What does that have to do with anything?


Your ignorance of shooting skills is noted.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms
holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream.
Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you
present as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th
century, and that any huge invading army is going to be
equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going
to be up to our military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of
"regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with
firearms.
Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.
And maybe you are full of schitt.

Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might
surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot
straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even
the cook.


I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years
can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the
firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who
fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm.

Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they
could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field
strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could
still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could
still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon.

Sight alignment, sight picture...


Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many
years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well
is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't
shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit
small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they
were young and in practice.

Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against
you with at 300 yards any day of the week.



Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot
camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..."

"Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former.

All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem
with that?

Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can
offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small
circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty
good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further
than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals.

Try to be a bit consistent, eh?

What is a "very very small circle?"

A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is
just a target.

Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you
are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter
distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you
should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open
areas you should be practicing for 300 yards.



A small circle on a well-known target:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg

25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot.
Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so
inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you.

Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you?

I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance.

"Standard range distance", what does that mean?

I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and
shooter.

Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of
the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want
to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test
of one's shooting ability.

Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right?

What does that have to do with anything?


Offhand shooting for the terminally ignorant:

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2...s-offhand.html

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada
as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but
the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it
does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it
is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of
your life.


I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates
to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.


Mo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhL8a...eature=related

By his argument, we should ban cars because cars kill people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4ew09eoeQ&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk9GwXJNM2c&NR=1

Whatever you do, keep the right to defend your home and property. If you
blow a home thief or robber out the window, I don't what the color is of his
ass is let them bleed on the grass. It isn't about protecting Ghetto
criminals, it is about the right to safety in your own home.

Loss of personal freedom starts in earnest by taking away guns from
responsible people.

Maybe he has it backwards. Take away guns from the criminals first. Or
better yet, toss the criminals in jail for longer times before they graduate
to killing. Maybe ask, how many are criminals before they get busted for
firearms offences?

Canada has a long running gun control policy, and the criminals are still
better armed than the police.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms
holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream.
Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you
present as a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th
century, and that any huge invading army is going to be
equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going
to be up to our military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of
"regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with
firearms.
Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.
And maybe you are full of schitt.

Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might
surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot
straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even
the cook.


I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years
can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the
firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who
fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm.

Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they
could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field
strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could
still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could
still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon.

Sight alignment, sight picture...


Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many
years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well
is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't
shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit
small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when
they were young and in practice.

Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against
you with at 300 yards any day of the week.



Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot
camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..."

"Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former.

All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem
with that?

Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can
offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small
circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty
good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any
further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals.

Try to be a bit consistent, eh?

What is a "very very small circle?"

A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it
is just a target.

Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you
are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter
distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you
should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open
areas you should be practicing for 300 yards.



A small circle on a well-known target:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg

25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot.
Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so
inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you.

Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you?

I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance.

"Standard range distance", what does that mean?

I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and
shooter.

Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of
the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you
want to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a
test of one's shooting ability.

Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right?

What does that have to do with anything?


Your ignorance of shooting skills is noted.

What competitive shooting shoots at 100 yards?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as
a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch

Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as
a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect
the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out
for your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.

We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?
Yes, you are a coward. When it was your turn to defend the homeland you
pussied out and when and hid behind a college deferment.

Boater was likely a coward.


When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that
required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but
that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got
their butts kicked there and left.

Ho Chi Minh had no designs on U.S. territory. He did work as a baker here,
though. And he did seek the help of the United States in evicting the
French from his country, but we paid no attention to him.

Who knows...had we really been a champion of democracy around the world,
we might have helped the Vietnamese after WW II achieve it. But we didn't.

So you never did join up. Figures, nothing happening is your excuse. What
is Obama's?

Yep, while busy with Vietnam were you smoking dope in protest?