Election Results...
eds...@my-deja.com
when the electoral college votes... right?
Ed
(who voted for Harry Brown in Ohio...)
--
Founding member of the ND-NBPC
Bnet:DeliriumTremens
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Kaspar Hauser
people do not really elect the president and that on a least one
occasion the people's choice was hi-jacked and the old boy's candidate
became the pres. without the popular votes to justify their choice.
Moral:Don't set the foxes to guard the henhouse!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sultan Of Swing
> Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless till Dec
13th or 18th
> when the electoral college votes... right?
The electoral college always votes the same as the people.
California's man will not vote bush no matter how much he likes him. If
such a thing were to happen, you'd have wide spread riots and revolution
talk around the country. The current system today, with citizen voting,
is there because the old system of just electoral college voting failed
when political parties were introduced.
Agelmar
"Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:t0j6u7m...@corp.supernews.com...
Wrong. Actually, one of the electors in 1976 cast a vote against the wishes
of the people of the state (they "elected" one person, but he cast the vote
for another person.) 24 states have laws requiring electors to cast votes as
the voters wish, but the constitutionality of these is unknown, never been
tested (that state didn't have such a law).
>
Sultan Of Swing
news:vwiO5.10730$%x4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
But since the vote didn't make a difference in who became president
in '76, there wasn't really a fuss about it. There will never be a
president elected by the college who failed to win the electoral votes
from the people without having major reprocutions on the state of this
country, and without being highly challenged by both parties.
Hanky'
<eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
> Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless till Dec
13th or 18th
> when the electoral college votes... right?
Yup, I think it would be funny to see them just ignore everyone's vote
completely and bring in the socialist worker's party or something like
that's candidate just to flaunt their power ;p
> (who voted for Harry Brown in Ohio...)
Woohoo, go Browne, did he beat out Buchannon? He was ahead at one point
when I checked. When I turn 18, I plan on voting straight Libertarian :)
Hanky'
--
And yet I find, repeating in my head
If I cannot be my own, I'd feel better dead
ICQ 10777858
Sultan Of Swing
news:SVlO5.2147$U46.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...> news:t0jkkn2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Agelmar" <ia...@NOSPAMmediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:vwiO5.10730$%x4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> > >
> > > "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:t0j6u7m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
> > > > > Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless
till
> > Dec
> > > > 13th or 18th
> > > > > when the electoral college votes... right?
> > > >
people and
> elected the other guy, but the last time was in 1888 so that fact is
moot
> today :P
> but there's a good chance it could happen this time
> it all rests on florida, and if florida goes Bush, then there's going
to be
> a MASSIVE backlash
The political system of 1888 is in a lot of ways different than the
political system of 2000. The electoral college will most likely vote
Bush if he wins Florida, even though Gore loses the popular. I seriously
doubt the electoral college will lower itself to the whim of the people
if Bush wins, and if it does it'll be the last you'll ever hear of the
college. If it's going to change its vote to confer with the popular
opinion of the people instead of voting with the popular opinion of the
state, than the entire system becomes completely invalid. I'd hate to
have that happen, because then the president of the united states would
just be looking out for the larger states like California, NY, and
Illinois, and more so the larger cities with in them. At least this way
smaller states get some attention. The only way I can see Florida voting
against the numbers is if because the vote was so close it becomes
impossible to find a clear winner with recounts with out a large
possibility of error either way. But if a president were to win the
electoral votes from the people, there's no way he'd not be elected in
modern America. My whole point being that who you vote for does mean
shit.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
I disagree, but I think the more important people on the day to day
level is senator, governor, congressmen, and judges. Seriously, I
don't think which president is in has as much power as they'd like us
to think while they are running. After all they don't write budgets
alone. Congress has to approve / modify them first.
Their prescription plan? What about congress and the house? Don't they
have a say? Clinton had no luck getting his socialized medicine plan
passed and he was far more popular than either of these bozos.
Yeah, so they're president and Gore was more pleasant to look at and
his laugh wasn't annoying like Bush. People would've had more
respect/fear of Bush than Gore but he's got that laugh... But day to
day life? There are a lot of people with far more impact on our lives
than President and they aren't elected by any electoral college. They
are elected by you and me.
--
Rich G.
(R.I.C.H.G.: Robotic Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Gratification)
http://luna.spaceports.com/~richg/index.html for my calendar.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Sultan Of Swing
news:svuj0tkqoivg0sc0g...@4ax.com...
With which statement? Everything? The american political system is a
carbon copy of 1888, the electoral college will vote with the popular
candidate, and who we vote for doesn't mean shit? just asking.
but I think the more important people on the day to day
> level is senator, governor, congressmen, and judges. Seriously, I
> don't think which president is in has as much power as they'd like us
> to think while they are running. After all they don't write budgets
> alone. Congress has to approve / modify them first.
>
You're right and wrong. The president doesn't have as much power in
the areas he says he does as they'd like us to believe, but they do have
a lot of power over this country. One of them being just influence. The
president is the closest thing to a leader this country has, and history
has shown that many times the country tends to follow trends that are
started by the president. When we have a racist president in office, we
see a rise in racism and segragation. It happened with Wilson in the
twenties, and it happened to a lesser degree with Regean and Bush in the
eighties. A lot of the current acceptance of and use of marijuana, and
the growing trend towards legalization, is because of Clinton. I can
show you potheads that justify their use as, "If the president of the
united states can smoke out, I can." The morals and integrety of a
president tend to flow out to the citizenship. Another big bit of power
is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. They stay for life after the
president is gone, and they have more power than any other branch of the
government. A president is going to appoint judges that agree with his
philosphy of what should and should not be OK in this country, and most
cases are a matter of opinion. More than once the supreme court has
reversed one of its previos desicions based on laws that were in effect
during the first case. The only difference was the judges presiding over
the case. If Bush is elected, freedom of speech may not be as free as it
is now down the road, and if Gore is elected then the right to bear arms
may be further infringed upon. Also don't forget the appointment of
cabinet members, which isn't as big as the supreme court, but still has
a lot of power. The good thing about Bush is we get rid of Janet Reno
with Gore. The last one, which is my highest concern, is the military
influence of a president. Not only are they our commander in chief, but
they have a lot of influence with the people and a pretty good chance of
pushing America into a war if that's what they want. If shit really
starts to go down around the world in the next four years, I think Gore
is more likely to dodge the war bullet and Bush is more likely to push
us into a very long drawn out battle.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
I think I cleared that up in the big paragraphs later on :P
>but I think the more important people on the day to day
>> level is senator, governor, congressmen, and judges. Seriously, I
>> don't think which president is in has as much power as they'd like us
>> to think while they are running. After all they don't write budgets
>> alone. Congress has to approve / modify them first.
>>
>
> You're right and wrong. The president doesn't have as much power in
>the areas he says he does as they'd like us to believe, but they do have
>a lot of power over this country. One of them being just influence. The
>president is the closest thing to a leader this country has, and history
>has shown that many times the country tends to follow trends that are
>started by the president. When we have a racist president in office, we
>see a rise in racism and segragation. It happened with Wilson in the
>twenties, and it happened to a lesser degree with Regean and Bush in the
Or perhaps the president is elected that represents what the country
is at the time. hard to determine causality here. Racism is also more
pronounced when times are hard for the poor and I think most will
agree that under Reagan/Bush was a bad time to not be middle class or
higher. As for Wilson, no idea. I wasn't alive. When people are poor
they are looking for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone they can
point to and say, yeah, but it's THEIR fault. Ref: WWII and Jews.
>eighties. A lot of the current acceptance of and use of marijuana, and
>the growing trend towards legalization, is because of Clinton. I can
>show you potheads that justify their use as, "If the president of the
>united states can smoke out, I can." The morals and integrety of a
Bunk and you know it. The person they refer to as being the one
they're going to follow changes is all. How many people decided to
become actors because Reagan was? How many people thought raising
peanuts would be a good idea since Carter did it? When did the
phenomenal rise in oil-made millionaires happen after Bush was
elected? Where was the huge giant upwelling of cross-dressers after
Hoover? No... people don't take the president as their moral compass.
If they do they're idiots. That's not what the president is there for.
Any pot head that you can show me that uses as their sole reason for
smoking pot that the president did it so it must be ok is a damned
liar. I haven't noticed a surge in cigar shaped vibrator sales, and I
think I would have. No... that argument is weak and anecdotal at best
and something they're saying to rationalize behavior they'd already
made up their minds to do.
>president tend to flow out to the citizenship. Another big bit of power
>is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. They stay for life after the
>president is gone, and they have more power than any other branch of the
>government. A president is going to appoint judges that agree with his
>philosphy of what should and should not be OK in this country, and most
>cases are a matter of opinion. More than once the supreme court has
>reversed one of its previos desicions based on laws that were in effect
I agree with you completely. This is an important power of the
president.
>during the first case. The only difference was the judges presiding over
>the case. If Bush is elected, freedom of speech may not be as free as it
>is now down the road, and if Gore is elected then the right to bear arms
>may be further infringed upon. Also don't forget the appointment of
I wouldn't count on freedom of speech under Gore. Remember his
comments about the irresponsible behavior of the entertainment
industry? Remember Tipper and her labeling fiasco with the devil's
rock music? Look to CT to see what his VP thinks of freedom of speech
and its application to adult oriented media. I wouldn't count on Gore
to be the 1st amendment lover some people think he is. He's not. As
for Bush/Cheney... I think that the laws in TX are better now than
they were under Ann Richards... the laws that are something I have to
worry with... they're still not great, but they're not getting worse,
and that's a good sign as far as I'm concerned.
Gun Control... that is an issue that I agree with your take on.
>cabinet members, which isn't as big as the supreme court, but still has
>a lot of power. The good thing about Bush is we get rid of Janet Reno
>with Gore. The last one, which is my highest concern, is the military
>influence of a president. Not only are they our commander in chief, but
>they have a lot of influence with the people and a pretty good chance of
>pushing America into a war if that's what they want. If shit really
>starts to go down around the world in the next four years, I think Gore
>is more likely to dodge the war bullet and Bush is more likely to push
>us into a very long drawn out battle.
I agree here but it goes further. I was in the Navy under Reagan/Bush.
These people risk their lives for us on foreign soil to carry out the
orders given them by pinheads in Washington and the do it for no pay
at all. Our military personnel NEED a raise, desperately. Our military
hardware isn't at all what it could be, or should be if we intend to
be in as many countries as we are in right now. Our military support
personnel, the G-rated jobs are paid ok (I believe) but they have
squat for materiel and supplies. There are schools with no text
books... these are the kids of our men and women who are fighting for
our country, and as a reward we're shipping their family over seas to
live in completely crappy housing on base with deteriorating schools
that were they here in the US would be the first to die to voucher
programs. Under which president will these problems be remedied?
That's a part of the military budget... It affects our military
readiness... It affects our effectiveness as a world power and our
ability to defend ourselves, much less every other country we decide
to trample over for their own good while we're sticking our nose into
places it has no business being.
OK, I'm done. I think I have Repetitive Motion Syndrome now. : )
Sultan Of Swing
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:47:22 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> leaned forward and whispered:
>
is a
> >carbon copy of 1888, the electoral college will vote with the popular
> >candidate, and who we vote for doesn't mean shit? just asking.
>
> I think I cleared that up in the big paragraphs later on :P
I now regret not reading your post at all, and instead just replying
with conjecture and propaganda which probably makes no sense, but is
pleasing enough to make me accepted as right.
> >but I think the more important people on the day to day
> >> level is senator, governor, congressmen, and judges. Seriously, I
> >> don't think which president is in has as much power as they'd like
us
> >> to think while they are running. After all they don't write budgets
> >> alone. Congress has to approve / modify them first.
> >>
> >
> > You're right and wrong. The president doesn't have as much power
in
> >the areas he says he does as they'd like us to believe, but they do
have
> >a lot of power over this country. One of them being just influence.
The
> >president is the closest thing to a leader this country has, and
history
> >has shown that many times the country tends to follow trends that are
> >started by the president. When we have a racist president in office,
we
> >see a rise in racism and segragation. It happened with Wilson in the
> >twenties, and it happened to a lesser degree with Regean and Bush in
the
>
> Or perhaps the president is elected that represents what the country
> is at the time. hard to determine causality here.
Well you could argue the chicken and the egg theory all night, but
there are instances where it definitly looks as if the president has
held a major influence on the trends of the country, and not vice-versa.
Seriously we barely know anything about Gore or Bush right now, and
we'll probably learn so much more about the winner in a couple of years.
Just think of what it was like before we had the television media and
instanious communication. As an example, after Wilson endorsed the KKK
there was a very quick and high peak in KKK members, in fact it was high
enough to save the group and keep it alive until today since it was
dying down at the time.
Racism is also more
> pronounced when times are hard for the poor and I think most will
> agree that under Reagan/Bush was a bad time to not be middle class or
> higher. As for Wilson, no idea. I wasn't alive. When people are poor
> they are looking for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone they can
> point to and say, yeah, but it's THEIR fault. Ref: WWII and Jews.
A good point on influencal power. How likely do you think the
holocaust would have been had Hitler not been in power? I know the forms
of leadership are different, but Hitler did have the support of the
majority of his people.
> >eighties. A lot of the current acceptance of and use of marijuana,
and
> >the growing trend towards legalization, is because of Clinton. I can
> >show you potheads that justify their use as, "If the president of the
> >united states can smoke out, I can." The morals and integrety of a
>
> Bunk and you know it. The person they refer to as being the one
> they're going to follow changes is all. How many people decided to
> become actors because Reagan was? How many people thought raising
> peanuts would be a good idea since Carter did it? When did the
> phenomenal rise in oil-made millionaires happen after Bush was
> elected? Where was the huge giant upwelling of cross-dressers after
> Hoover? No... people don't take the president as their moral compass.
> If they do they're idiots. That's not what the president is there for.
> Any pot head that you can show me that uses as their sole reason for
> smoking pot that the president did it so it must be ok is a damned
> liar. I haven't noticed a surge in cigar shaped vibrator sales, and I
> think I would have. No... that argument is weak and anecdotal at best
> and something they're saying to rationalize behavior they'd already
> made up their minds to do.
Do you really think the whole Clinton-weed fiasco hasn't done
anything to futher the cause of smoking out. There are some people who
might have ended up in the same place a little while down the road, but
if they were standing on the line of choosing that's just the thing
someone would need to make the jump. Not to mention some people who may
have never thought of it before looking into the activity after the
president's approval. More than anything though, he's had a positive
effect on the legalization and acception of Marijuana. You can talk to a
lot of people now that don't see much wrong with it and think it should
be legalized who wouldn't have thought that way eight years ago. I've
seen a lot of people who don't smoke, some who have never smoked, that
you'd never expect to accept it and they do. I think my grandfather was
the real surprise to me, and I garuntee he had an entirely different POV
on the subject before it all came out with Clinton.
> >during the first case. The only difference was the judges presiding
over
> >the case. If Bush is elected, freedom of speech may not be as free as
it
> >is now down the road, and if Gore is elected then the right to bear
arms
> >may be further infringed upon. Also don't forget the appointment of
>
> I wouldn't count on freedom of speech under Gore. Remember his
> comments about the irresponsible behavior of the entertainment
> industry? Remember Tipper and her labeling fiasco with the devil's
> rock music? Look to CT to see what his VP thinks of freedom of speech
> and its application to adult oriented media. I wouldn't count on Gore
> to be the 1st amendment lover some people think he is. He's not.
He's a democrat, and more than likely he's going to appoint more
liberal and left-centralist judges to the supreme court. Liberal's
generally support freedom of speech, and democrats receive a lot of
funding from the media. I don't think Gore's a complete fool and is
going to take this freedom of speech thing all that far. After all
Tipper never as far to try to get legislation passed to regulate the
media.
How do these military schools differ from mainland US schools? :)
Actually though I've got some friends from the military base on Quaj and
I've heard the exact opposite complaints. More along the lines of money
just being thrown away. Quaj is pretty much made up of military
personal, civilians employed by the military, and their families. There
is no tourist market. But the military decided to sink tons of money
into cleaning up the island. Money was spent on such stupid things as
rearranging rocks. They also planted some trees and brought in some new
rocks from what I hear. But no one really knows the point behind it. No
one down there really cared what order the rocks were in before.
As for the whole military situation, it needs to be cut. There's no
reason why we need the size military we have. The airforce has already
proven that it can handle moderate conflicts efficiently and alone with
no casualties. There's no real threat of invasion anymore, and there's
no country strong enough to attack us even if we did make major cuts to
the military. As for being in other places, I'd support it if we were
there for the right reasons. I have nothing against America intervening
in the sake of humanity. But America has never intervened in the sake of
humanity. America looks out for America. Every military action we've
ever taken we've done to get something out of it. And I'd hate to see
another Vietnam over some bullshit cause, or see more money thrown into
something like Dessert Storm so we can make sure the Middle East knows
what might happen if oil goes up an extra quarter of a cent a gallon. If
we cut the military, we'd have a surplus, most of which could go back
into other government programs and the remainder should be enough to
make all the improvements you talked about. The military really serves
no purpose in being so big. It doesn't do anything for the US except eat
away at are national production without any returns. The only way it
could be justified in pulling its weight is if we were invading foreign
lands to obtain more resources. But imperialism went out of style a
while ago and that really wouldn't fly. Well, we're quickly becoming one
of the few imperialistic countries left though.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
OK, I'll yield that one. I know nothing about Wilson.
>Racism is also more
>> pronounced when times are hard for the poor and I think most will
>> agree that under Reagan/Bush was a bad time to not be middle class or
>> higher. As for Wilson, no idea. I wasn't alive. When people are poor
>> they are looking for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone they can
>> point to and say, yeah, but it's THEIR fault. Ref: WWII and Jews.
>
> A good point on influencal power. How likely do you think the
>holocaust would have been had Hitler not been in power? I know the forms
>of leadership are different, but Hitler did have the support of the
>majority of his people.
He also had control of the food if memory serves. Them what were IN
the party had a much better time of it than those that were not in the
party.
Oh, good. That is encouraging for extra-marital sex, the influence of
parents and teachers, etc. I would think that there was a time we
could have mentioned it being acceptable and fine for women to get
viable fetuses sucked out of their bodies and people would've said
that was a bad thing. Now it's simply a woman's right to choose. Lots
more than the president has changed in the intervening time. : P
>> >during the first case. The only difference was the judges presiding
>over
>> >the case. If Bush is elected, freedom of speech may not be as free as
>it
>> >is now down the road, and if Gore is elected then the right to bear
>arms
>> >may be further infringed upon. Also don't forget the appointment of
>>
>> I wouldn't count on freedom of speech under Gore. Remember his
>> comments about the irresponsible behavior of the entertainment
>> industry? Remember Tipper and her labeling fiasco with the devil's
>> rock music? Look to CT to see what his VP thinks of freedom of speech
>> and its application to adult oriented media. I wouldn't count on Gore
>> to be the 1st amendment lover some people think he is. He's not.
>
> He's a democrat, and more than likely he's going to appoint more
>liberal and left-centralist judges to the supreme court. Liberal's
>generally support freedom of speech, and democrats receive a lot of
>funding from the media. I don't think Gore's a complete fool and is
>going to take this freedom of speech thing all that far. After all
>Tipper never as far to try to get legislation passed to regulate the
>media.
Don't the CD's now bear labels warning about profanity and
didn't/doesn't wal-mart carry only edited versions of the ones bearing
this label? I can't answer that for sure because I don't buy from them
as a method of protest against that crap.
I'm hearing different from schools in Europe but we're both using
anecdotal evidence here so it's not worth the paper it's not printed
on. *shrug* hehehe
> As for the whole military situation, it needs to be cut. There's no
>reason why we need the size military we have. The airforce has already
>proven that it can handle moderate conflicts efficiently and alone with
>no casualties. There's no real threat of invasion anymore, and there's
>no country strong enough to attack us even if we did make major cuts to
>the military. As for being in other places, I'd support it if we were
I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one. : )
>make all the improvements you talked about. The military really serves
>no purpose in being so big. It doesn't do anything for the US except eat
>away at are national production without any returns. The only way it
>could be justified in pulling its weight is if we were invading foreign
>lands to obtain more resources. But imperialism went out of style a
>while ago and that really wouldn't fly. Well, we're quickly becoming one
>of the few imperialistic countries left though.
Ibid.
Nicholas Knight
news:t0jkkn2...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Agelmar" <ia...@NOSPAMmediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:vwiO5.10730$%x4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> >
> > "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> > news:t0j6u7m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
Dalai Lama
wrote:
> But since the vote didn't make a difference in who became president
>in '76, there wasn't really a fuss about it. There will never be a
>president elected by the college who failed to win the electoral votes
>from the people without having major reprocutions on the state of this
>country, and without being highly challenged by both parties.
Constitutionally, such a dishonest vote would stand (since the
purpose of the electoral college was to have a second wiser voice in
case the uninformed mass mob populace voted for someone rash and
foolish- say we elected Farnham for President by the popular vote).
It would quickly trigger an amendment rectifying the problem
(requiring electoral collge to vote as states did) though I don't
think the small states would be willing to go to an all popular vote
method, since that would skew the balance of power towards the large
states tremendously. As it is now, the electoral college needs to
be tweaked, perhaps by giving each state 3 votes (instead of 2 for
senators) or by reducing the number of represenatives downard.
There's no reason why 5 or 6 states should control the national
election.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>I disagree, but I think the more important people on the day to day
>level is senator, governor, congressmen, and judges. Seriously, I
>don't think which president is in has as much power as they'd like us
>to think while they are running.
They don't. It's an important job, but primarily the president puts a
unified face on America for the world to deal with, and the president
(hopefully) provides a sort of national conscience override on a
wayward congress or judiciary (people tend to forget that the
judicary needs to be restrained as much as the other 2 branches).
The overall effect is one with limitations on all 3 brances.
The moral of the story is that the founding fathers didn't trust
government in any form, but tried to do the best they could with a
necessary evil.
Public outrage and potential revampment of the system only goes to
show that the constitution is working and that we still haven't fallen
into a dictatorship/monarchy/junta system.
<ooops> snipped the far more popular part. Last electiopn, Clinton
only got 43% of a less than 50% turnout, so he was *Less* popular than
either of the current 2 bozos :-)
Dalai Lama
wrote:
> Another big bit of power
>is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. They stay for life after the
>president is gone, and they have more power than any other branch of the
>government.
They do, even though they are not supposed to be more powerful, just
equal with the other 2. Among whatever other factors are in this
equation, the dignified comportment of the judiciary has helped them
tremendously in their acension of power. If our Presidents and
Congress acted with as much grace and honor at *all* times, they too
would have more power, and the Supreme Court would be more reserved in
it's use of legislative rulings.
The Supreme Court justices might beat each other with baseball bats in
the back rooms for all we know, but they sure don't take those
disagreements to the public with slander, innuendo, corruption, and
deception, as our elected leaders do.
>A president is going to appoint judges that agree with his
>philosphy of what should and should not be OK in this country, and most
>cases are a matter of opinion. More than once the supreme court has
>reversed one of its previos desicions based on laws that were in effect
>during the first case.
The reliance of precedence instead of tough judgment calls is found
far too often. When the judges don't know what to do, they rely on
someone else, whether that person was right or wrong, just because
they ruled prior to the current case :-(
>. If shit really
>starts to go down around the world in the next four years, I think Gore
>is more likely to dodge the war bullet and Bush is more likely to push
>us into a very long drawn out battle.
Gore has already proposed areas and reasons he would like to see more
US military involvement in. The liberal fascination (seems leaders
more than voters on this) with Goverment solving problems,
unfortunately, extends to using military might oversees.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>I agree here but it goes further. I was in the Navy under Reagan/Bush.
>These people risk their lives for us on foreign soil to carry out the
>orders given them by pinheads in Washington and the do it for no pay
>at all. Our military personnel NEED a raise, desperately. Our military
>hardware isn't at all what it could be, or should be if we intend to
>be in as many countries as we are in right now. Our military support
>personnel, the G-rated jobs are paid ok (I believe) but they have
>squat for materiel and supplies. There are schools with no text
>books... these are the kids of our men and women who are fighting for
>our country, and as a reward we're shipping their family over seas to
>live in completely crappy housing on base with deteriorating schools
>that were they here in the US would be the first to die to voucher
>programs. Under which president will these problems be remedied?
>That's a part of the military budget... It affects our military
>readiness... It affects our effectiveness as a world power and our
>ability to defend ourselves, much less every other country we decide
>to trample over for their own good while we're sticking our nose into
>places it has no business being.
The more ready the miltary is, (particularly the ability to project
enough force at a moments notice, and the ability to sustain logistic
support) and the more powerful and deadly it is perceived to be, the
less likely we will actually have to enage in combat. If we deceive
ourselves and allow our thinking to be having a military that is just
big enough o fight likely wars, than our enemies will pounce upon this
perceived weakness and we will be forced into battles that we could
otherwise avoid just by sending a carrier or threat of action. What
we want is to have 246 cards in our hand, and for our opponent to know
that we are never ever ever bluffing, and that we always have several
hands of royal flushes to thrash them with at any time. If they
call our bluff, we will have US Citizens that must die to rectify the
problem. If they are too scared to call our bluff, than we will have
thrown another perfect game.
LineNoise
<Mac_...@hotmail.com> gave us the following Prophecy:
>
><eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
>> Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless till Dec
>13th or 18th
>> when the electoral college votes... right?
>
>Yup, I think it would be funny to see them just ignore everyone's vote
>completely and bring in the socialist worker's party or something like
>that's candidate just to flaunt their power ;p
>
>> (who voted for Harry Brown in Ohio...)
>
>Woohoo, go Browne, did he beat out Buchannon? He was ahead at one point
>when I checked. When I turn 18, I plan on voting straight Libertarian :)
>
>Hanky'
Good luck voting straight Libertarian. You will quickly find that it is
impossible, due to the number of races which have no Libertarian candidate.
T'would be nice though. I'm actually rooting for Nader somewhat, since
he's our best shot at getting a viable third-party alternative.
LineNoise
--
ICQ# 68214833
Dalamar - 16th level Elven Sorcerer - Master of the Planar Sphere
Ehlanna - 16th level Human Inquisitor - Dragonslayer
_
You can't help the poor man by destroying the rich.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
><ooops> snipped the far more popular part. Last electiopn, Clinton
>only got 43% of a less than 50% turnout, so he was *Less* popular than
>either of the current 2 bozos :-)
OOOH I dare ya to say that in Iowa where they have several lakes roped
off that he walked across to shake some hands. LOL For the first time
I'll admit a vote in a public forum. I didn't vote for him either time
tho, I just sit back and keep my mouth shut at work or, even worse,
mirror the politics of whichever customer is griping to me about
"those damned politicians."
tcells
Dalai Lama wrote in message <3a0a375b...@news.qwest.net>...
If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your land?
>
>
>
Hanky'
"LineNoise" <Brian...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:h3lk0t0qn3b6cg2o0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:39:04 -0800, the Oracle known as "Hanky'"
> <Mac_...@hotmail.com> gave us the following Prophecy:
>
> >
> ><eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
> >> Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless till Dec
> >13th or 18th
> >> when the electoral college votes... right?
> >
> >Yup, I think it would be funny to see them just ignore everyone's vote
> >completely and bring in the socialist worker's party or something like
> >that's candidate just to flaunt their power ;p
> >
> >> (who voted for Harry Brown in Ohio...)
> >
> >Woohoo, go Browne, did he beat out Buchannon? He was ahead at one point
> >when I checked. When I turn 18, I plan on voting straight Libertarian :)
> >
> >Hanky'
>
> Good luck voting straight Libertarian. You will quickly find that it is
> impossible, due to the number of races which have no Libertarian
candidate.
> T'would be nice though. I'm actually rooting for Nader somewhat, since
> he's our best shot at getting a viable third-party alternative.
True, True, but here in Washington, all three major votes, Govenor, Senator
and President all had libertarians running.
Hanky'
--
Nothing can stop me now because I just don't care anymore
ICQ 10777858
Sultan Of Swing
news:3a0a375b...@news.qwest.net...
I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military power,
who'd be strong enough to attack us even then? Most of America's
military build up is a result of the cold war, which is over with. There
really isn't a major threat left. Cuba is too damn f*cked up right now
to even get past the coast guard before we deported their military.
After Castro's death, the country will probably fall. The main concern
with the previous Soviet Union is their access to Nuclear weapons. We
need some involvement there to make sure those nukes don't fall into the
wrong hands, but there really isn't anything besides nuclear missiles we
could use to fight an all out war. Iraq isn't powerful enough to reach
the US, let alone make a strategic attack. And Red China doesn't stand a
chance in hell against the free world.
What do we need out of our military? The airforce is a keeper. It's
the military of the future. We'll be needing it to keep the peace in the
countries formally known as the soviet union and control the nukes over
there. And it may come in handy if that Pakistan-India thing ever gets
too out of hand for everyone's good. As for the Navy, we pretty much
just need the nuclear subs and maybe some of the aircraft carriers. I
don't know how useful the carriers are right now, but in a little while
they'll probably be obsolete all together. We're getting pretty close to
a point where we can launch jets from American soil and have them reach
any point in the world within a few hours, perform their mission, and
still have enough gas left to get back home. Since ground attacks are so
1900s now, the army and the marines aren't going to be all that useful.
The only way we'd need them is if we got into a very close battle that
may drift on to American or allied soil. As for an American invasion, we
still have the national guard sitting ready, and we don't need the huge
army we have for fighting on foreign soil. If you just want to use them
to do busy work for the air force, then train air force guys to do it
for themselves.
When we look through out history, one of the major causes of an
internal fall of a state is a large standing military. They take too
much out of a state with out giving anything back. And right now we are
in a pretty peaceful state of being. Communism has lost and is now dying
out, imperialism doesn't happen anymore so there isn't a major fear of
invasion, and the most powerful countries in the world are allied with
us. You really don't think the other major world powers like the United
Kingdoms, France, Germany, Japan, and the rest are really going to band
together and formulate an attack against us the minute we let our guard
down, do you? More than likely we can count on them for military backing
should anything ever happen.
Right now as transportation and communication are reaching more
closely to instantaneous results and the whole world is being globalized
the military's use is becoming less and less necessary. Assuming nothing
goes horribly wrong and throws us into the second dark age, we are
moving closer and closer to what will probably be one day considered the
fifth stage of government. Entire global unity. When that happens all
the rules are going to change, and military's will become obsolete until
we reach the second age of exploration and start colonizing the galaxy,
and possibly in the process meeting other alien races.
If keeping a strong standing military was so all important, than why
are there so many other states out there getting along just fine without
a large military backing them up? One of the main things that need to be
stressed is that America does have a lot of allies through out the world
who don't have an all-powerful military. The only strength they hold is
in unity. No one will attack them because the combination of several
states will be enough to hold back an attack. America should become at
least somewhat dependent on its allies to help in an important military
action. (In other words not bullshit like a two cent increase in some
natural resource that is only going to effect the pocket books of some
of America's most richest members who'll feel the burn when it's bought
in bulk.) If you want to argue that those allied states aren't strong
enough to stand on their own and need American military back-up to
survive, then it's about time they started to pick up some of the tab in
our mutual survival. We shouldn't have to pay to have a military force
that can protect everyone everywhere at any time.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
> If keeping a strong standing military was so all important, than why
>are there so many other states out there getting along just fine without
>a large military backing them up? One of the main things that need to be
>stressed is that America does have a lot of allies through out the world
>who don't have an all-powerful military. The only strength they hold is
>in unity. No one will attack them because the combination of several
>states will be enough to hold back an attack. America should become at
>least somewhat dependent on its allies to help in an important military
>action. (In other words not bullshit like a two cent increase in some
>natural resource that is only going to effect the pocket books of some
>of America's most richest members who'll feel the burn when it's bought
>in bulk.) If you want to argue that those allied states aren't strong
>enough to stand on their own and need American military back-up to
>survive, then it's about time they started to pick up some of the tab in
>our mutual survival. We shouldn't have to pay to have a military force
>that can protect everyone everywhere at any time.
I agree on most of what you said I think. But I see our troops in like
60 countries in the world for some reason. Why? I dunno either.
Something about us sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong. I'm a
borderline isolationist when it comes to our troops... I know, it's
wrong to think that way, but you're right. Who is going to invade in
the Western World? Nobody I can think of. Maybe in the middle east or
the third world. How much of a threat could they be? *shrug*
tcells
Grand Fromage wrote in message
<20001109194146...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>>If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your
land?
>
China
>and Russia could both take us out, India could probably, an alliance
between
>two or three European countries (France/Germany or England/Germany most
>prominantly) could, and I do believe a couple South American countries
could
>stand a chance at that point, Brazil and Argentina most prominantly. Don't
>quote me on anything but China and Russia, however, I'm totally speculating
>about the others. And I know that Germany/France/Englahd wouldn't attack,
but
>this is hypothetical. Also, Iraq could if it managed to bring itself back
up.
>It was the fourth most powerful military before Bush nailed 'em.
I asked who would - Russia not on your nelly Russia is not that big. China -
nopers too poor and wanting to be rich; we are talking invasion here not
which countries would refuse to listen to you. If you talk in nukes, well
it wouldn't really matter if you cut it down by 99%.
France/Germany/England? as yoiu say paranoia
Brazil/Argetina I had no idea you saw them as a threat.
India - I'd worry more about a fruit loop in Pakistan first. Neither has
the nuclear capabilities to take you out much less the ability to invade.
Iraq? not a chance in this millenium (or next if you say it ends 2001)
invading Kuwait is not invading the USA.
My question is who would invade you? Not who would send up oil prices
because they were no longer that worried.
My guess is that your biggest threat in terms of likelihood/damage would be
from some terrorist organisation or something cooked up in labs which
managed to escape.
If I am allowed to speak for the Kiwis, the reason they opted out of anzus
was because they saw more likelihood of them being a target of an attack
*because* US nuclear ships parked there, they didn't see them as a deterent
at all.
No country would be capable of invading the USA; with home ground advantage
it's as simple as that.
>--
> There is but one answer
> in this love of disaster:
> deny all the masters -
> the defiant shadow-casters.
>
> Oh, my soul fades
> behind the clouded shades
> as the horrible mage
> sends forth hell's page.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>Well, unless our second amendment is revoked. No one would be capable of
>*holding* the USA, but they could sure invade. That's the nice thing; it's
>really really hard to control a country with 270 million people who have guns
>and don't like you. But I'm not even getting into a gun debate so don't start,
>I think we had plenty of that on AGD.
Did someone say gun-debate? <VEG> /me runs.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>>>Well, unless our second amendment is revoked. No one would be capable of
>>>*holding* the USA, but they could sure invade. That's the nice thing; it's
>>>really really hard to control a country with 270 million people who have
>>guns
>>>and don't like you. But I'm not even getting into a gun debate so don't
>>start,
>>>I think we had plenty of that on AGD.
>>
>>Did someone say gun-debate? <VEG> /me runs.
>
>::chases Rich down and beats him with a table leg::
/me rolls over "You missed a spot right here." pointing to his left
calf.
tcells
Rich G. wrote in message ...
>On 10 Nov 2000 03:44:37 GMT, ppk...@aol.comediespam (Grand Fromage)
>leaned forward and whispered:
>
>>>>Well, unless our second amendment is revoked. No one would be capable
of
>>>>*holding* the USA, but they could sure invade. That's the nice thing;
it's
>>>>really really hard to control a country with 270 million people who have
>>>guns
>>>>and don't like you. But I'm not even getting into a gun debate so don't
>>>start,
>>>>I think we had plenty of that on AGD.
>>>
>>>Did someone say gun-debate? <VEG> /me runs.
>>
>>::chases Rich down and beats him with a table leg::
>
>/me rolls over "You missed a spot right here." pointing to his left
>calf.
/me watches Rich and the Great Cheese each pull guns then sit down in ernest
discussion as to whether they should have them and where the hell all the
muffins have gone
Grand Fromage
None for sure, but as it is now and especially if we halved our power, China
and Russia could both take us out, India could probably, an alliance between
two or three European countries (France/Germany or England/Germany most
prominantly) could, and I do believe a couple South American countries could
stand a chance at that point, Brazil and Argentina most prominantly. Don't
quote me on anything but China and Russia, however, I'm totally speculating
about the others. And I know that Germany/France/Englahd wouldn't attack, but
this is hypothetical. Also, Iraq could if it managed to bring itself back up.
It was the fourth most powerful military before Bush nailed 'em.
Grand Fromage
Remember, there are only three or four million people in our military, IIRC...
at least in the infantry. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Russians also have more
tanks and a MiG beats one of ours anyday... they can take some hits before
going down. Like an A-10.
>China -
>nopers too poor and wanting to be rich; we are talking invasion here not
>which countries would refuse to listen to you. If you talk in nukes, well
>it wouldn't really matter if you cut it down by 99%.
China isn't likely, but it could. I'm talking who *could* take us out if they
saw an oppertunity. Biggest Chinese advantage other than the stuff they've
stolen/been sold from us is that you can slaughter a billion Chinese and they
still outnumber you, and their government can draft *everyone* into the
military.
>France/Germany/England? as yoiu say paranoia
As I said, they could if banding together, but they won't unless the political
climate went down the hole really badly.
>
>Brazil/Argetina I had no idea you saw them as a threat.
Not yet, but they're becoming one, and the Argentinans don't like us much.
They're both near nuclear.
>India - I'd worry more about a fruit loop in Pakistan first. Neither has
>the nuclear capabilities to take you out much less the ability to invade.
I only included India because it's in the same boat as China--they'll always
outnumber you unless you turn the place into a glass factory.
>Iraq? not a chance in this millenium (or next if you say it ends 2001)
>invading Kuwait is not invading the USA.
No, but they do hate us and they did have power, which I'm sure Saddam is
building his way back up. Iraq should be the world's glass factory...
>My question is who would invade you? Not who would send up oil prices
>because they were no longer that worried.
Ok, as far as who, the only ones I can see are China/Russia because neither of
them really like us, they just put up with us to get cash. Of course, it's far
far more likely that they'd go to war instead since they *really* hate each
other and have a border.
>My guess is that your biggest threat in terms of likelihood/damage would be
>from some terrorist organisation or something cooked up in labs which
>managed to escape.
True. Terrorists can use technology nowadays to become extremely nasty.
>No country would be capable of invading the USA; with home ground advantage
>it's as simple as that.
>
Well, unless our second amendment is revoked. No one would be capable of
*holding* the USA, but they could sure invade. That's the nice thing; it's
really really hard to control a country with 270 million people who have guns
and don't like you. But I'm not even getting into a gun debate so don't start,
I think we had plenty of that on AGD.
Grand Fromage
>>*holding* the USA, but they could sure invade. That's the nice thing; it's
>>really really hard to control a country with 270 million people who have
>guns
>>and don't like you. But I'm not even getting into a gun debate so don't
>start,
>>I think we had plenty of that on AGD.
>
::chases Rich down and beats him with a table leg::
Agelmar
"Grand Fromage" <ppk...@aol.comediespam> wrote in message
news:20001109194146...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your
land?
>
> None for sure, but as it is now and especially if we halved our power,
China
> and Russia could both take us out, India could probably, an alliance
between
> two or three European countries (France/Germany or England/Germany most
> prominantly) could, and I do believe a couple South American countries
could
> stand a chance at that point, Brazil and Argentina most prominantly.
Don't
> quote me on anything but China and Russia, however, I'm totally
speculating
> about the others. And I know that Germany/France/Englahd wouldn't attack,
but
> this is hypothetical. Also, Iraq could if it managed to bring itself back
up.
> It was the fourth most powerful military before Bush nailed 'em.
Look, the fact is that we can nuke the entire world 201 times over... we
could do with a few less of those nukes :-) And one nuke to NYC could be
EXTREMELY devistating to this country... five might as well destroy the
entire thing (NYC, SF, Seattle, DC, Dallas... factoring in radiation that
would kill the majority of americans... five nukes could do sooo much)
Mike
wrote:
><eds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:3a096...@news2.one.net...
>> Um... y'all realize that the election results are meaningless till Dec
>13th or 18th
>> when the electoral college votes... right?
>
> The electoral college always votes the same as the people.
>California's man will not vote bush no matter how much he likes him. If
>such a thing were to happen, you'd have wide spread riots and revolution
>talk around the country. The current system today, with citizen voting,
>is there because the old system of just electoral college voting failed
>when political parties were introduced.
>
Buzz! its happened 3 times already that the winner of the popular vote
did NOT win the presidency. Add to that whatever shakes out of this
one.
Some states have laws requiring the electoral voters to vote the
winner of their states popular vote for the electoral vote. A couple
of states actually have a law allowing a split electoral vote in
proportion to the popular vote.
Right now its still wait and see.
Mike aka MM
--
Dame Magelet level 29 Sorceress
Off topic? whats that :^P
Grand Fromage
>could do with a few less of those nukes :-)
Doesn't matter, we probably won't ever use them, and I'm not talking about
nukes, I'm talking about the military we use. This might not be an excellent
metaphor, but imagine you've lived in a neighborhood for twenty years and no
one has ever been burglared. Aren't you going to still keep locks on the door,
just so you feel safer at night?
>five might as well destroy the
>entire thing (NYC, SF, Seattle, DC, Dallas... factoring in radiation that
>would kill the majority of americans... five nukes could do sooo much)
Nah, five'd probably do NYC, LA, Omaha, Dayton, and DC... take out the biggest
cities, SAC, military research, and government... but it's a moot point. If
nukes go flying it's over anyway.
MadJack
"Grand Fromage" <ppk...@aol.comediespam> schrieb:
> >I asked who would - Russia not on your nelly Russia is not that big.
>
> Remember, there are only three or four million people in our military,
> also have more tanks and a MiG beats one of ours anyday... they can
> take some hits before going down. Like an A-10.
The Russians don't have enough money to feed their soldiers and pay their
officers, let alone stage an invasion of the US. It's estimated that the
Russian army could at the moment only field around 100,000 troops
well-equipped and trained enough to respond to a serious threat.
--
Cheers and all,
Hardy G.
"Farewell happy fields
Where joy forever dwells
Hail horrors hail"
Grand Fromage
>officers, let alone stage an invasion of the US.
I hate this "argument". Did they have any money in WW2? Not really, I believe
their economy was even WORSE, the only reason they had ANY production was
because Stalin killed them if they didn't produce, and look what they did to
Germany with fairly minimal help. I believe the exact words of Eisenhower
regarding the invasion of Germany proper and especially Berlin were "Let the
Russians handle it."
MadJack
"Grand Fromage" <ppk...@aol.comediespam> schrieb:
> >The Russians don't have enough money to feed their soldiers and pay their
> >officers, let alone stage an invasion of the US.
>
> I hate this "argument". Did they have any money in WW2? Not really,
> I believe their economy was even WORSE,
They out-produced all countries except the US, under way more difficult
circumstances.
> the only reason they had ANY production was because Stalin killed them
> if they didn't produce, and look what they did to Germany with fairly
> minimal help. I believe the exact words of Eisenhower regarding the
> invasion of Germany proper and especially Berlin were "Let the Russians
> handle it."
You are mistaken if you should assume I don't know and appreciate
what the Russians are capable of achieving, and you're running in open
doors if you want to convince me that the Russians did an amazing job
in WW2.
I just tried to point out that in times when Russian conscripts starve
(in peace time!) and army colonels are forced to become cab drivers
to support their families, when there's not enough money to do the most
basic maintenance on their equipment the Russian military is only a shadow
of its former self.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>OOOH I dare ya to say that in Iowa where they have several lakes roped
>off that he walked across
Errrm, around here bodies of water have to be deeper than your shins
before you can call them a lake. I'm sure they are plenty deep for
all those Iowa drivers without centerpunches though :-)
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your land?
Perhaps you have forgotten a destroyer that was recently bombed?
If you think the enemy ever sleeps, than you might as well go sign up
for them now, because they will be dominating you soon enough.
It doesn't take all out global thermonuclear warfare to cause people
to die. The little skirmishes are just as important as the big ones.
Just as all characters start out at level one, so do all wars.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>No country would be capable of invading the USA; with home ground advantage
>it's as simple as that.
Sentiments such as these are the foundation of military failure.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>The Russians don't have enough money to feed their soldiers and pay their
>officers, let alone stage an invasion of the US. It's estimated that the
>Russian army could at the moment only field around 100,000 troops
>well-equipped and trained enough to respond to a serious threat.
I'm sure the Chinese are drooling over the prospects even now.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>I just tried to point out that in times when Russian conscripts starve
>(in peace time!) and army colonels are forced to become cab drivers
>to support their families, when there's not enough money to do the most
>basic maintenance on their equipment the Russian military is only a shadow
>of its former self.
They are in a shambles, which is why we are pumping so much money to
them. Nothing like nuclear weapons in the hands of a desperate
nation. They have resources and people. If the corruption can be
brought down, there are enough potential investments to turn them
around. It's a shame that so many people should suffer because of
their government.
All those in favor of big government take a long hard look at Russia
and China first.
Grand Fromage
>Sorry to disenfranshise you, but that is simply not true. Hurricaine
>Camille had more power than all the nuclear weapons ever produced.
>I didn't see Florida getting ripped off the planet and thrown into
>outer space though.
>
Well, every nuke ever produced can rip the entire Earth into an asteroid field
something like three times over. At least, according to the History Channel's
special on nukes. As for bio weapons, well duh they're more powerful, it only
takes one to wipe out the world if done properly.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>Look, the fact is that we can nuke the entire world 201 times over..
Sorry to disenfranshise you, but that is simply not true. Hurricaine
Camille had more power than all the nuclear weapons ever produced.
I didn't see Florida getting ripped off the planet and thrown into
outer space though.
> And one nuke to NYC could be EXTREMELY devistating to this country.
To the democrats at least... JUST KIDDING!
Yeah, it could, which is why we need to try and have some sort of
defense. You don't think Iran with it's newfound Al Gore given
nuclear capability will make an attempt on NYC? Unless they decide
LA and Hollywood make a better target.
>.. five might as well destroy the
>entire thing (NYC, SF, Seattle, DC, Dallas... factoring in radiation that
>would kill the majority of americans...
Nah, the radiation levels from five nukes would be devastating, but
they wouldn't even begin to take out the USA. All those "nuclear
winter" predictions you may have seen are predicated on large nuclear
assaults at the worst time of year and in the worst weather
conditions. The 2 nuclear weapons used in Japan didn't posion all
of the pacific rim did they?
Perhaps the best thing you can do if you really want to know the truth
is dig up a history of statements on both sides, and see who sticks to
their stories and who keeps changing them to cover their lies.
>five nukes could do sooo much)
Biological weapons are the worst danger now.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:01:50 GMT, "Agelmar" <ia...@NOSPAMmediaone.net>
>wrote:
>>Look, the fact is that we can nuke the entire world 201 times over..
>
>Sorry to disenfranshise you, but that is simply not true. Hurricaine
>Camille had more power than all the nuclear weapons ever produced.
>I didn't see Florida getting ripped off the planet and thrown into
>outer space though.
Man did you date yourself! I was just barely alive for that one... and
we lived in a trailer (the old aluminum kind) during that hurricane...
poor teachers in southern alabama were happy to have a roof over their
heads hehehe
>> And one nuke to NYC could be EXTREMELY devistating to this country.
>
>To the democrats at least... JUST KIDDING!
LOL Shame on you.
>Nah, the radiation levels from five nukes would be devastating, but
>they wouldn't even begin to take out the USA. All those "nuclear
>winter" predictions you may have seen are predicated on large nuclear
>assaults at the worst time of year and in the worst weather
>conditions. The 2 nuclear weapons used in Japan didn't posion all
>of the pacific rim did they?
I may be wrong here but I heard there was a war memorial of some sort
in Hiroshima already? People aren't living there now are they? I
mean... what about all the hullabaloo about living under ground like
troglodytes for 100 years...
>Biological weapons are the worst danger now.
agreed.
--
Rich G.
(R.I.C.H.G.: Robotic Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Gratification)
http://communities.msn.com/SimplyRich
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 07:51:16 -0600, Rich G. <psyb...@email.com>
Damn you for catching me in a contradiction!!!
OK, they weren't really lakes... ponds maybe?
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:43:56 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military power,
>>who'd be strong enough to attack us even then?
>
>Anyone who wanted to. You could attack a miltary base yourself with a
>big wet noodle if you wanted to. It is the perceived outcome that
>matters to the attacker. They may not be after winning, they may
>only be after ruining things for the USA or it's allies. Look at it
>this way, With one big Ryder truck full of McVey materials, you
>couldn't take over Las Vegas, but you could sure do a lot of damage.
>The point of the military isn't just to keep us from being taken over,
>it's to keep us from being attacked if at all possible, and to bring
>any conflcit under control and minimize causualties as quickly as
>possible.
hows that saying go? the best defense is a good what? Sorry, couldn't
hear you WHAT?
>>Most of America's military build up is a result of the cold war,
>
>Actually WW2.
>
>>which is over with. There
>>really isn't a major threat left.
>
>Nee Hwei Schwo Jong Wemma?
Should those have all been capitalized?
>Don't worry, all your great grandchildren will if America follows
>this foolish path of thinking we are invulnerable.
>
>>. Iraq isn't powerful enough to reach
>>the US
>
>
>Not unless they had new targeting computers from the Chinese (gee, I
>wonder which adminsitartion handed them those on a silver platter) and
>missiles (also from China, and unfortunately testing out to be longer
>ranged than had been originally thought). Now if only they could
>launch those missiles from a submarine. Good thing they don't get
>along with Iran, which has one (Courtesy of Al Gore).
Forget that, why send troops when terrorist attacks are VERY
effective. Seriously. I don't think we'll face a head on war on US
soil sooner than we'll find ourselves living in a police state because
of terrorism. Why fight the US when you can get the US and its
National Police Force to do the fighting for you? No, I'm not a
conspiracy theorist, I'm just saying... if I wanted to take out the US
I wouldn't do it head on... I'd lose. I'd come in and blow the crap
out of places until the gov't cracked down so hard on the populace
'for their own good' that my work was mostly done for me. Then you
control the politicians who control the police and don't bother with a
messy time consuming ground war. Get the Randy Weaver's out of the way
and the road is open for whomever wants the place. Go ahead, vote for
someone who is for centralization of power, it makes it easier to
control later by someone else. BAH!
>> let alone make a strategic attack. And Red China doesn't stand a
>>chance in hell against the free world.
>
>Watch Taiwan carefully. If they ever move definitively against
>Taiwan, than China has already decided they are indeed strong enough
>to take what they want (and Japan will be on their wish list too).
>
>> What do we need out of our military? The airforce is a keeper. It's
>>the military of the future.
>
>I wish it was that easy. The Air Force can't win wars, just give an
>advantage to either side. The stealth advantage will soon be gone
>(no thanks to Boeing-who let a former Soviet Aerospace engineer with
>ties to the KGB have ultra-secret stealth modeling data.)
>
>>e'll be needing it to keep the peace in the
>>countries formally known as the soviet union and control the nukes over
>>there. And it may come in handy if that Pakistan-India thing ever gets
>>too out of hand for everyone's good.
>
>How does a bomber take out a bomb that is hidden and smaller than your
>computer? Ask the Soviets how easy it was to bomb the Afgahnis into
>submission? Now try using B-1 Stealth Bombers against an unknown
>bakcpacking nuke suicide terrorist riding the subway somewhere in Ms
>Clinton's State. (Believe me, the arab world hasn't forgotten her
>foray into their dispute and NYC has always been on their wish list).
>It will be far more than a shame if it takes 10 million dead Americans
>before the idiots in the media are all drug into the street and beaten
>to death with the very same microphones that they used to lure us into
>this false sense of security.
Well said. Only people will congregate in those numbers in such a
small area. You do that to rats and they'll go mad and eat each
other... well, maybe that's what's happening in NYC right now. I said
it before and I'll say it again. The next war the US is involved in
will be started by terrorist attacks on our own soil. We can piss off
the rest of it as an unfortunate happening that was far away... I mean
no disrespect for the families of those who died on the ship that was
attacked. If I'd been driving the country I wouldn't have reacted
nearly as calmly as he did... then again, I'm not a politician and do
tend to be rather defensive when american lives are lost.
>>As for the Navy, we pretty much
>>just need the nuclear subs and maybe some of the aircraft carriers. I
>>don't know how useful the carriers are right now, but in a little while
>>they'll probably be obsolete all together.
Have you ever SEEN a carrier group? I mean in real life, not on tv.
You want a very nice display of power plop a carrier group complete
with escorts in the water near your coast. Those things are HUGE and
the guns on them... man alive.
>Errr. Mmm, kind of like binary programs will be obsolete in 2003?
ah, replaced with trinary and fuzzy math, erm logic?
>Carriers project force (like nothing else on this planet does) and
>with their support group can deal with a largey array of problems.
>Basically if the US Navy sends a carrier group to your neck of the
>woods to deal with something, it means they are willing to kick your
>teeth in to solve the problem. Those carrier groups are most likely
>carrying nuclear weapons, and most if not all of our enemies
>undertsand that as well.
>
>>We're getting pretty close to
>>a point where we can launch jets from American soil and have them reach
>>any point in the world within a few hours,
>
>Flying from North Carolina (just an example) to the Desert Storm
>theatre was a major task, and not something the pilots could begin
>an attack from.
Well, I COULD drive from here to Birmingham, AL straight through in 24
hours. I've done it. I wasn't worth shooting when I arrived though.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. You
don't want pilots arriving for the important part of the mission tired
and with numb butts. The getting there is really unimportant. It's
what they do when they're there, and to keep that at peak performance
they need to arrive at their target rested.
>>perform their mission, and
>>still have enough gas left to get back home.
>
>And 50 US dollars will buy you a brand new Ocean Front Beach house.
>
>This simply isn't so. IIRC, it takes 3 refuelings just to get across
>the Atalantic Ocean and into the middle east. Not to mention pilot
>fatigue. A tired pilot is a dead one.
Oh, I guess you said that. never mind
>>Since ground attacks are so
>>1900s now, the army and the marines aren't going to be all that useful.
>
>yikes! We're going to have to send you off to some ROTC classes
>pronto!
>
>BTW- whoever you've been reading for military info should be dumped.
>Try some London Institute of Strategic Studies (Better known through
>their "Jane's" publications) for reasonably accurate figures, and
>then pick up some Foreign Affairs and hit the US Documents section for
>state department briefs to get an idea of what current military
>concerns are and then go rooting around for info. Once you find
>enough info (enough to keep you reading for a year or three) you will
>see patterns and the truth will be apparent. The solutions to the
>problems with a limited budget aren't so easy, but you will no longer
>see the military through uninformed eyes.
And somewhere in there find the info on just how many countries the US
Military is IN right now. It's huge, last I saw it was between 60 and
80, I could be wrong though, and most probably am. If there are only
70 countries in the world I'll be so embarrassed.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>Mwahahaha! You have a car now, which needs oil. Those bastages
>could make you walk to work again.
And I would before I'd kow-tow to them! I don't kiss ass after I clock
out, and even when I'm clocked in I don't do it without a great deal
of sarcasm and vitriol. :)
BTW: One more day of time clock punching and then no more!
tcells
Dalai Lama wrote in message <3a1077e6...@news.qwest.net>...
>On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:43:18 -0800, "tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your
land?
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten a destroyer that was recently bombed?
>If you think the enemy ever sleeps, than you might as well go sign up
>for them now, because they will be dominating you soon enough.
where was it?, who was it done by? Not exactly an invasion by a foreign
govt
>
>It doesn't take all out global thermonuclear warfare to cause people
>to die. The little skirmishes are just as important as the big ones.
>Just as all characters start out at level one, so do all wars.
Personally I'd rather see them worrying about a comet, as in the long run I
think it's safer for us here on the ground than everyone building huge
militaries, and what the hell, you can still pump the tax dollar into
corporations.
Look at the geography of the USA, it's either the Canadians or the Mexicans.
Sure the Mexicans have done it before, they'd argue the other way, but it's
not going to happen again (well hostily ;)
>
>
Dalai Lama
wrote:
> I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military power,
>who'd be strong enough to attack us even then?
Anyone who wanted to. You could attack a miltary base yourself with a
big wet noodle if you wanted to. It is the perceived outcome that
matters to the attacker. They may not be after winning, they may
only be after ruining things for the USA or it's allies. Look at it
this way, With one big Ryder truck full of McVey materials, you
couldn't take over Las Vegas, but you could sure do a lot of damage.
The point of the military isn't just to keep us from being taken over,
it's to keep us from being attacked if at all possible, and to bring
any conflcit under control and minimize causualties as quickly as
possible.
>Most of America's military build up is a result of the cold war,
Actually WW2.
>which is over with. There
>really isn't a major threat left.
Nee Hwei Schwo Jong Wemma?
Don't worry, all your great grandchildren will if America follows
this foolish path of thinking we are invulnerable.
>. Iraq isn't powerful enough to reach
>the US
Not unless they had new targeting computers from the Chinese (gee, I
wonder which adminsitartion handed them those on a silver platter) and
missiles (also from China, and unfortunately testing out to be longer
ranged than had been originally thought). Now if only they could
launch those missiles from a submarine. Good thing they don't get
along with Iran, which has one (Courtesy of Al Gore).
> let alone make a strategic attack. And Red China doesn't stand a
The cold war was real. If the public knew how many times nukes were
ready to go and just awaiting final commands, perhaps they'd
understand that if the USSR hadn't been in the hands of miltray
leaders, we would be living in a post nuclear holo-caust world today.
War is an ugly evil horrifying thing. It should not be taken lightly
and all efforts to prevent it breaking out should be taken.
>As for the Navy, we pretty much
>just need the nuclear subs and maybe some of the aircraft carriers. I
>don't know how useful the carriers are right now, but in a little while
>they'll probably be obsolete all together.
Errr. Mmm, kind of like binary programs will be obsolete in 2003?
Carriers project force (like nothing else on this planet does) and
with their support group can deal with a largey array of problems.
Basically if the US Navy sends a carrier group to your neck of the
woods to deal with something, it means they are willing to kick your
teeth in to solve the problem. Those carrier groups are most likely
carrying nuclear weapons, and most if not all of our enemies
undertsand that as well.
>We're getting pretty close to
>a point where we can launch jets from American soil and have them reach
>any point in the world within a few hours,
Flying from North Carolina (just an example) to the Desert Storm
theatre was a major task, and not something the pilots could begin
an attack from.
>perform their mission, and
>still have enough gas left to get back home.
And 50 US dollars will buy you a brand new Ocean Front Beach house.
This simply isn't so. IIRC, it takes 3 refuelings just to get across
the Atalantic Ocean and into the middle east. Not to mention pilot
fatigue. A tired pilot is a dead one.
>Since ground attacks are so
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>I agree on most of what you said I think. But I see our troops in like
>60 countries in the world for some reason. Why? I dunno either.
>Something about us sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong.
Exactly. I'd wager that most military members wouldn't send their
fellows out to die for a lackluster cause. What we have is a
govenment as ready to use our troops as they are to use our tax
dollars. To our fearless leaders, both are expendable and
replenishable. It has to end.
<aside> Is there anyway to rip the FJKJKJFKJKJLing Typeover feature
out of Agent? It sucks big time. I know how to set it back, but it
seems to come back to over-write on its own periodically.
>I'm a borderline isolationist when it comes to our troops... I know, it's
>wrong to think that way,
We should be far more reluctant to commit our people. Keep them
strong and keep their noses clean. "Speak softly and carry a big
stick" comes to mind here.
>but you're right. Who is going to invade in
>the Western World? Nobody I can think of. Maybe in the middle east or
>the third world. How much of a threat could they be? *shrug*
Ashen Shugar
> >>If you halved US military power who are the enemies would invade your
> land?
> >
> >Perhaps you have forgotten a destroyer that was recently bombed?
> >If you think the enemy ever sleeps, than you might as well go sign up
> >for them now, because they will be dominating you soon enough.
>
> where was it?, who was it done by? Not exactly an invasion by a foreign
> govt
>
> >
> >It doesn't take all out global thermonuclear warfare to cause people
> >to die. The little skirmishes are just as important as the big ones.
> >Just as all characters start out at level one, so do all wars.
>
> Personally I'd rather see them worrying about a comet, as in the long run
I
> think it's safer for us here on the ground than everyone building huge
> militaries, and what the hell, you can still pump the tax dollar into
> corporations.
>
> Look at the geography of the USA, it's either the Canadians or the
Mexicans.
> Sure the Mexicans have done it before, they'd argue the other way, but
it's
> not going to happen again (well hostily ;)
>
There's more than one way to procure a cat and persuade it to part with its
skin.
--
Ashen Shugar
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>Well, every nuke ever produced can rip the entire Earth into an asteroid field
>something like three times over.
I did notice that the Earth was split into asteroid fields twice
during World War 2, and into pex size pieces by all the post war
testing.
> At least, according to the History Channel's
>special on nukes.
They probably neglected to mention the meteorite hitting Tunguska
(IIRC something around a 50 megaton blast) didn't destroy the Earth.
Nor did the Eltanin asteroid impact several milion years ago
"triking the Bellingshausen Sea with the explosive power of 100
billion tons of TNT, the asteroid Eltanin blew a column of water 5
kilometers (3 miles) high and punched a temporary "oceanic crater" in
the sea, according to the paper, which appeared in the British science
journal Nature"
"The Eltanin impact was a medium blast, as asteroids go."
Obviously the media hasn't the foggiest notion of what nuclear weapons
are, how they work, or what kind of damage they really do.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>I may be wrong here but I heard there was a war memorial of some sort
>in Hiroshima already? People aren't living there now are they? I
>mean... what about all the hullabaloo about living under ground like
>troglodytes for 100 years...
I've seen a couple documentaries on wildlife near some of the Soviet
radiation accident sites, and the wildlife seems to be in better shape
than ever (scientists speculate that somehow the disaster gave the
species some sort of evolutionary jolt-taking out the weak and
accelerating evolution, which made the animals healthier)
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>BTW: One more day of time clock punching and then no more!
Beware of the 70-90 hour work weeks they may try to lay on you!
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>>Nee Hwei Schwo Jong Wemma?
>Should those have all been capitalized?
Chinese doesn't have any capitals, so it really doesn't matter :-)
If you're talking Pinyinization, I guess the only capitals would be Ni
and Zhongwen.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>Have you ever SEEN a carrier group? I mean in real life, not on tv.
>You want a very nice display of power plop a carrier group complete
>with escorts in the water near your coast. Those things are HUGE and
>the guns on them... man alive.
I still like the old 18 inchers on the New Jersey. At the moment I
can't remember how far they could shoot a VW bug, but I'd sure like to
see that on film :-) A co-worker of mine did fire control in Beirut
(not sure of correct term for the land based targeting officer who
would say- "shoot here"- but I have forgotten most of the stories.
>>Errr. Mmm, kind of like binary programs will be obsolete in 2003?
>
>ah, replaced with trinary and fuzzy math, erm logic?
Nah, we'll have central recounting units inside the boxes, and instead
of hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del , we'll have tiny little abaci inside for
manual restarts.
>And somewhere in there find the info on just how many countries the US
>Military is IN right now. It's huge, last I saw it was between 60 and
>80, I could be wrong though, and most probably am. If there are only
>70 countries in the world I'll be so embarrassed.
Take over as many countries as you want, they just keep making more
of them every day.
LineNoise
(Grand Fromage) gave us the following Prophecy:
>>
>>Sorry to disenfranshise you, but that is simply not true. Hurricaine
>>Camille had more power than all the nuclear weapons ever produced.
>>I didn't see Florida getting ripped off the planet and thrown into
>>outer space though.
>>
>
>Well, every nuke ever produced can rip the entire Earth into an asteroid field
>something like three times over. At least, according to the History Channel's
>special on nukes. As for bio weapons, well duh they're more powerful, it only
>takes one to wipe out the world if done properly.
No matter how many nukes you've got, the best result you're going to get is
a glass ball. With some nuclear winter to boot. You can not crack the
crust with a nuclear blast.
LineNoise
--
ICQ# 68214833
Dalamar - 19th level Elven Sorcerer - Master of the Planar Sphere
Ehlanna - 20th level Human Inquisitor - Dragonslayer
_
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Marshall 1
"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
news:vJ3Q5.193$ct.5...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>
> Dalai Lama wrote in message <3a1077e6...@news.qwest.net>...
> >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:43:18 -0800, "tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> land?
> >
> >Perhaps you have forgotten a destroyer that was recently bombed?
> >If you think the enemy ever sleeps, than you might as well go sign up
> >for them now, because they will be dominating you soon enough.
>
> where was it?, who was it done by? Not exactly an invasion by a foreign
> govt
>
> >
> >It doesn't take all out global thermonuclear warfare to cause people
> >to die. The little skirmishes are just as important as the big ones.
> >Just as all characters start out at level one, so do all wars.
>
> Personally I'd rather see them worrying about a comet, as in the long run
I
> think it's safer for us here on the ground than everyone building huge
> militaries, and what the hell, you can still pump the tax dollar into
> corporations.
Freedom is not maintained by allowing the defenses of free nations
to lapse into apathy and disrepair. This has been learned (and sadly,
'relearned') many times, over the course of history. Until there is
never again a chance of any megalomaniac or religious fanatic (or
groups thereof, etc.) taking control of any country with the ability or
the potential ability to actively threaten world peace in any way, and
humans learn to live together as lambs in the pasture <grin>,
there will always be a need to maintain them, and to do it well.
Those who argue otherwise, are just asking for a repeat of the
awful and costly mistakes of history. Work for peace, yes- but don't
just lay down and roll over and expect those who would gladly take
your freedom away (or the freedom of many other nations who de-
pend on your defenses to support their own weaker ones), to not
take notice.
Sure, we in the free world could decide 'to hell with it', and just
stop keeping up our militaries... and we'd probably be fine and dan-
dy for a while, maybe even a decade or two. But how long would it
take, before Taiwan was 're-integrated' by force, if the Mainland
knew they didn't have a thing to worry about, from the US Navy?
How long before Iraq or Iran figured out that grabbing the other
rich Persian Gulf oil states would be a walk in the park? You think
OPEC is bad now... bwuhahahaaaaa!!!!
Would the weak and undermanned US Army, with less than half
the divisions of the early 90's (already!), be anything to really be
reckoned with anymore, after a further sorry decade or two of neg-
lect? How long before China decided that the extremely vast, rich
and almost completely unpopulated land of Siberia was a good
spot for their overflowing billions to 'annex'? (with tanks, of course).
Power abhors a vacuum, and sombody always appears, to fill it.
Those who are naive enough to think that such things could never
happen in our modern 'enlightened' world... hehe, think again. The
only reason they haven't happened *more* often, is because of our
deterrent factor. And no, nuclear missles are not enough, and never
will be- they only truly apply to 'end-game' scenarios, where two
massive powers face off with potential 'assured mutual destruction'.
No sane country can just start slinging them about like artillery
or bombs, to fight wars with- and the potential troublemakers
know that.
We see a new and awful example of why we absolutely must stay
on our collective toes, almost every year... East Timor was only a minor
but quite graphic scenario of what our species is still quite capable of
doing, on a much vaster scale. That 'little' situation could very easily
have turned into at *least* a serious regional conflict, but for the
still potent threat of various freeworld militaries.
And it isn't a far stretch from some of these not-so-far-out
'what-ifs', until the newly emboldened and powerful big Chinese
(known by 2018, as the 'New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere')
Navy sails along the coasts of NZ and Oz, just for innocent summer
exercises, of course... and to let the locals know who's the Big Dog
on the block, from here on out- whom they'd better give good commer-
cial concessions (and mayhap a mite of their 'unused' landmass?) to,
*or*.... hehe. I'm no Chinaphobe, but stranger things have happened
in our bloody history, and no doubt will again. The examples are
endless, and sobering. Let our military deterrent wane to nothing?
I surely hope not. Every so often, freedom loving people end up
having to fight for their lands and lives, to keep it. This is a fact.
Nothing has changed, just because it's the year '2000'. I just hope
that when that time (and it will) rolls around again, that we have-
n't decided to scrap all the tanks and planes and ships, and turned
all the trained fighters into burger-flippers.
-Marshall
Marshall 1
"LineNoise" <Brian...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ljn11tgtrs7slnq90...@4ax.com...
> On 13 Nov 2000 23:42:50 GMT, the Oracle known as ppk...@aol.comediespam
> (Grand Fromage) gave us the following Prophecy:
>
> >>
> >>Sorry to disenfranshise you, but that is simply not true. Hurricaine
> >>Camille had more power than all the nuclear weapons ever produced.
> >>I didn't see Florida getting ripped off the planet and thrown into
> >>outer space though.
> >>
> >
> >Well, every nuke ever produced can rip the entire Earth into an asteroid
field
> >something like three times over. At least, according to the History
Channel's
> >special on nukes. As for bio weapons, well duh they're more powerful, it
only
> >takes one to wipe out the world if done properly.
>
> No matter how many nukes you've got, the best result you're going to get
is
> a glass ball. With some nuclear winter to boot. You can not crack the
> crust with a nuclear blast.
Hmm... unless they've got *much* better ones than they've
been telling us about... they wouldn't hold info like that back,
would they???
-Marshall
Ashen Shugar
heard bandied around before some place.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:41:56 -0600, Rich G. <psyb...@email.com>
Just getting done with those now. : ) As supervisor that isn't
supposed to happen as much... they say.
--
Rich G.
(R.I.C.H.G.: Robotic Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Gratification)
http://communities.msn.com/SimplyRich
"Kwyjibo - a big dumb balding north american ape with no chin."
LineNoise
<pja...@CHAOSstudent.CHAOSmonash.CHAOSedu.CHAOSau> gave us the following
Prophecy:
>So like, the price of peace is constant vigilence. That's a saying I've
>heard bandied around before some place.
Or a slightly different perspective:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
LineNoise
--
Assistant Tagline Keeper
ICQ# 68214833 | TCotSSS #1
TCotCSig #140 | TCotBSig #59
_
Only dead fish go with the flow.
tcells
Marshall 1 wrote in message ...
>
>"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
>news:vJ3Q5.193$ct.5...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>>
>> Dalai Lama wrote in message <3a1077e6...@news.qwest.net>...
>> >On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:43:18 -0800, "tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
snip
>
>Freedom is not maintained by allowing the defenses of free nations
>to lapse into apathy and disrepair.
True, but it is a matter of degree. Whether you like it or not, there are
many people who argue that the US, or any other foreign military power on
their soil or in their waters is taking away their freedom.
This has been learned (and sadly,
>'relearned') many times, over the course of history. Until there is
>never again a chance of any megalomaniac or religious fanatic (or
>groups thereof, etc.) taking control of any country with the ability or
>the potential ability to actively threaten world peace in any way,
but, but, but that is how they see it *happening* *now*
and
>humans learn to live together as lambs in the pasture <grin>,
>there will always be a need to maintain them, and to do it well.
>Those who argue otherwise, are just asking for a repeat of the
>awful and costly mistakes of history. Work for peace, yes- but don't
>just lay down and roll over and expect those who would gladly take
>your freedom away (or the freedom of many other nations who de-
>pend on your defenses to support their own weaker ones), to not
>take notice.
and don't overdo so much either or else you run risk of becoming the real
threat to people's freedom
>
> Sure, we in the free world could decide 'to hell with it', and just
>stop keeping up our militaries... and we'd probably be fine and dan-
>dy for a while, maybe even a decade or two. But how long would it
>take, before Taiwan was 're-integrated' by force, if the Mainland
>knew they didn't have a thing to worry about, from the US Navy?
>How long before Iraq or Iran figured out that grabbing the other
>rich Persian Gulf oil states would be a walk in the park? You think
>OPEC is bad now... bwuhahahaaaaa!!!!
>
Well it is *their* oil, what ever happened to free enterprise?
> Would the weak and undermanned US Army, with less than half
>the divisions of the early 90's (already!), be anything to really be
>reckoned with anymore, after a further sorry decade or two of neg-
>lect? How long before China decided that the extremely vast, rich
>and almost completely unpopulated land of Siberia was a good
>spot for their overflowing billions to 'annex'? (with tanks, of course).
China is a huge country. Would have the huge US forces kept during the cold
war come to the aid of the USSR?
>
> Power abhors a vacuum, and sombody always appears, to fill it.
true, and there's other powers eg economic
>Those who are naive enough to think that such things could never
>happen in our modern 'enlightened' world... hehe, think again. The
>only reason they haven't happened *more* often, is because of our
>deterrent factor. And no, nuclear missles are not enough, and never
>will be- they only truly apply to 'end-game' scenarios, where two
>massive powers face off with potential 'assured mutual destruction'.
>No sane country can just start slinging them about like artillery
>or bombs, to fight wars with- and the potential troublemakers
>know that.
>
> We see a new and awful example of why we absolutely must stay
>on our collective toes, almost every year... East Timor
Point in case. What happened at East Timor could have, and should have been
done 30 years ago - why wasn't it done then? East Timor shows us how wrong
the arguement of dominating military might is. It was not politically
expediant for it to happen 20 years ago. The west are not cowboys in white
hats, they are not benefactors of the down trodden, we'll only do what is
right *if* it suites us. What about the huge stores of wasting produce,
just about always over produced by producers subsidised by govt - why not
put that to good use?
was only a minor
>but quite graphic scenario of what our species is still quite capable of
>doing, on a much vaster scale.
We let it go on for 30 years, how much better are we?
That 'little' situation could very easily
>have turned into at *least* a serious regional conflict, but for the
>still potent threat of various freeworld militaries.
>
> And it isn't a far stretch from some of these not-so-far-out
>'what-ifs', until the newly emboldened and powerful big Chinese
>(known by 2018, as the 'New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere')
>Navy sails along the coasts of NZ and Oz,
We have the best training possible. The Chinese simply won't stand a
chance, don't you remember what happened to the US pilots using the
simulator in Queensland - they got totally fragged when the kangaroos turned
around and shot at them ;)
just for innocent summer
>exercises, of course... and to let the locals know who's the Big Dog
>on the block, from here on out- whom they'd better give good commer-
>cial concessions (and mayhap a mite of their 'unused' landmass?) to,
>*or*.... hehe. I'm no Chinaphobe, but stranger things have happened
>in our bloody history, and no doubt will again.
yep, but chances are if we were building up a nuclear navy, we'd see that
threat more likely to happen.
The examples are
>endless, and sobering. Let our military deterrent wane to nothing?
There's a difference between a deterrent and being over sized.
>I surely hope not. Every so often, freedom loving people end up
>having to fight for their lands and lives, to keep it. This is a fact.
>Nothing has changed, just because it's the year '2000'. I just hope
>that when that time (and it will) rolls around again, that we have-
>n't decided to scrap all the tanks and planes and ships, and turned
>all the trained fighters into burger-flippers.
well right now there are many places where this is happening. Why aren't
the US or Australia (seeing we were so vocal about east timor) doing
anything about it? Perhaps those places have no bearing on our oil and gas
prices. Maybe the media isn't kicking up enough of a stink so that
politicians don't see the political game, maybe I'm wrong and we are helping
them just it's being kept quite and no political mileage is being sought.
> -Marshall
>
>
Sultan Of Swing
news:3a108cda...@news.qwest.net...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:43:56 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military
power,
> >who'd be strong enough to attack us even then?
>
> Anyone who wanted to. You could attack a miltary base yourself with a
> big wet noodle if you wanted to. It is the perceived outcome that
> matters to the attacker. They may not be after winning, they may
> only be after ruining things for the USA or it's allies. Look at it
> this way, With one big Ryder truck full of McVey materials, you
> couldn't take over Las Vegas, but you could sure do a lot of damage.
> The point of the military isn't just to keep us from being taken over,
> it's to keep us from being attacked if at all possible, and to bring
> any conflcit under control and minimize causualties as quickly as
> possible.
But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use with
in the country itself. If a conflict were drawn out a bit longer, we'll
lose X amount of lives over it. If that money is put into use through
out the country, we can save X * Y lives. We shouldn't disband the
entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right now.
But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum military
to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could grab
men from with in the country, a draft. You're saying that if we don't
have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw. If we lessen
the military, we put the state in less danger. If the USA falls
internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long time.
> >which is over with. There
> >really isn't a major threat left.
>
> Nee Hwei Schwo Jong Wemma?
>
> Don't worry, all your great grandchildren will if America follows
> this foolish path of thinking we are invulnerable.
China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is at
X and not X-1. Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be strong
enough to conquer us straight out. With the many allies who are going to
protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance. There
are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a situation
like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it. Besides
in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
lately? The country's falling apart, and as communism falls it's losing
most of its world strength. More than likely the country won't be around
much longer, at least not in its current incarnation.
> >. Iraq isn't powerful enough to reach
> >the US
>
>
> Not unless they had new targeting computers from the Chinese (gee, I
> wonder which adminsitartion handed them those on a silver platter) and
> missiles (also from China, and unfortunately testing out to be longer
> ranged than had been originally thought). Now if only they could
> launch those missiles from a submarine. Good thing they don't get
> along with Iran, which has one (Courtesy of Al Gore).
Do you really think Iraq would formulate a serious attack against
the US. If they did, they wouldn't be there anymore. Even if they took
us out, the rest of the free world would ride their ass into submission.
> > let alone make a strategic attack. And Red China doesn't stand a
> >chance in hell against the free world.
>
> Watch Taiwan carefully. If they ever move definitively against
> Taiwan, than China has already decided they are indeed strong enough
> to take what they want (and Japan will be on their wish list too).
And you think everyone's just going to let it happen? There are a
lot of countries in this world who'd be worse off if Japan fell into
China's hands. Even the US being the strongest country in the world, it
still wouldn't be able to win a worse case scenerio of the whole world
versus the US. What makes you think China can do it?
> > What do we need out of our military? The airforce is a keeper.
It's
> >the military of the future.
>
> I wish it was that easy. The Air Force can't win wars, just give an
> advantage to either side. The stealth advantage will soon be gone
> (no thanks to Boeing-who let a former Soviet Aerospace engineer with
> ties to the KGB have ultra-secret stealth modeling data.)
The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no american
causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they pretty
much were.
> >e'll be needing it to keep the peace in the
> >countries formally known as the soviet union and control the nukes
over
> >there. And it may come in handy if that Pakistan-India thing ever
gets
> >too out of hand for everyone's good.
>
> How does a bomber take out a bomb that is hidden and smaller than your
> computer? Ask the Soviets how easy it was to bomb the Afgahnis into
> submission? Now try using B-1 Stealth Bombers against an unknown
> bakcpacking nuke suicide terrorist riding the subway somewhere in Ms
> Clinton's State. (Believe me, the arab world hasn't forgotten her
> foray into their dispute and NYC has always been on their wish list).
> It will be far more than a shame if it takes 10 million dead Americans
> before the idiots in the media are all drug into the street and beaten
> to death with the very same microphones that they used to lure us into
> this false sense of security.
That's a very unlikely scenerio to start with. Even if it were true,
what are tanks, hoover crafts, a few hundred thousand soldairs, a bunch
of ships, missles, some truck drivers, ect. going to do to stop the
situation. Anything that could nulify the situation of a single person
with a small nuclear device could probably be provided by the man power
NY police department and national gaurd. If they couldn't stop it given
the proper military authorization and devices, along with the correct
bomb specialists, there really isn't anything we can do to stop the
explosion.
> The cold war was real. If the public knew how many times nukes were
> ready to go and just awaiting final commands, perhaps they'd
> understand that if the USSR hadn't been in the hands of miltray
> leaders, we would be living in a post nuclear holo-caust world today.
I never claimed it was fake. But it is over with. There's still a
matter of nuclear firepower that needs to be taken care of, but it's
being worked on. But with the fall of the USSR we've eliminated any
country that might have a reasonable chance of succeeding in a war
against us. Without it, the military build-up serves no real purpose.
> War is an ugly evil horrifying thing. It should not be taken lightly
> and all efforts to prevent it breaking out should be taken.
Then why don't we just destroy all the schools in this country, make
every person between the ages of 18 and 40 join the military, get rid of
most of our public programs, and have this country concentrate on being
nothing more than a military power so we'll have enough guns to destroy
any country that even talks about us with a funny look in their eyes.
Then we can prevent any war from happening at any time. We can not go to
an extreme to prevent any scenerio that may lead to a long drawn out
war. We need to concentrate on preventing the worst and most likely
scenerios. We also need to be more dependent on our allies. If something
goes wrong it may lead to a war that might have been prevented, but when
everything's put together this country'll be stronger for it.
> >As for the Navy, we pretty much
> >just need the nuclear subs and maybe some of the aircraft carriers. I
> >don't know how useful the carriers are right now, but in a little
while
> >they'll probably be obsolete all together.
>
>
> Errr. Mmm, kind of like binary programs will be obsolete in 2003?
>
> Carriers project force (like nothing else on this planet does) and
> with their support group can deal with a largey array of problems.
> Basically if the US Navy sends a carrier group to your neck of the
> woods to deal with something, it means they are willing to kick your
> teeth in to solve the problem. Those carrier groups are most likely
> carrying nuclear weapons, and most if not all of our enemies
> undertsand that as well.
OK, you can keep a couple. But not all of them.
> >We're getting pretty close to
> >a point where we can launch jets from American soil and have them
reach
> >any point in the world within a few hours,
>
> Flying from North Carolina (just an example) to the Desert Storm
> theatre was a major task, and not something the pilots could begin
> an attack from.
>
> >perform their mission, and
> >still have enough gas left to get back home.
>
> And 50 US dollars will buy you a brand new Ocean Front Beach house.
>
> This simply isn't so. IIRC, it takes 3 refuelings just to get across
> the Atalantic Ocean and into the middle east. Not to mention pilot
> fatigue. A tired pilot is a dead one.
And jets get faster and we're able to build bigger gas tanks on
them. If they don't got 'em already, it's only a matter of time before
the airforce is able to launch a jet from American soil that with in a
few hours can carry out a mission and get home.
> >Since ground attacks are so
> >1900s now, the army and the marines aren't going to be all that
useful.
>
> yikes! We're going to have to send you off to some ROTC classes
> pronto!
What is the real purpose of an army now? We aren't going to try to
capture any forgien soil, now are we? Imperalism is dead. More than
likely we'll just bomb the hell out of a country until it gives in.
That's our current method of attack through out the world. If we needed
an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we? A strong standing
military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
> But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
>what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use with
>in the country itself. If a conflict were drawn out a bit longer, we'll
>lose X amount of lives over it. If that money is put into use through
>out the country, we can save X * Y lives. We shouldn't disband the
>entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right now.
>But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum military
>to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
>military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could grab
>men from with in the country, a draft. You're saying that if we don't
>have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
>flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
>military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw. If we lessen
>the military, we put the state in less danger. If the USA falls
>internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long time.
I can't believe you just said you'd willingly be drafted to go fight
in a war you don't believe in solely because your country needs you. I
judged you incorrectly. I'm sorry... I underestimated you.
> China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is at
>X and not X-1. Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be strong
>enough to conquer us straight out. With the many allies who are going to
>protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
>excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance. There
>are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a situation
>like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it. Besides
>in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
>lately? The country's falling apart, and as communism falls it's losing
>most of its world strength. More than likely the country won't be around
>much longer, at least not in its current incarnation.
And because they're falling apart I worry. Germany was falling apart
after WWI nothing unites a country more than a war... I seem to
remember we were all excited (all is too strong I know) about Desert
Storm... six months before it started though my money says nobody
(public nobody) would've seen it coming or thought it a worthy
engagement.
> Do you really think Iraq would formulate a serious attack against
>the US. If they did, they wouldn't be there anymore. Even if they took
>us out, the rest of the free world would ride their ass into submission.
but we would have lost... I'm against that.
> The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no american
>causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they pretty
>much were.
WW1 & 2 were wars, Vietnam, Korea, those were wars... Desert Storm was
probably a war but it was the smallest you can go and still be a
war... anything less is a battle. : ) Yep, just made that up hehehe.
> What is the real purpose of an army now? We aren't going to try to
>capture any forgien soil, now are we? Imperalism is dead. More than
>likely we'll just bomb the hell out of a country until it gives in.
>That's our current method of attack through out the world. If we needed
>an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we? A strong standing
>military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
I think this is the sticking point that is going to end up with people
pounding their head on the wall hehehe. I disagree that a strong
standing military is a bad thing. : )
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>True, but I wonder how much damage a couple could do on some fault lines? Not
>that anyone would target those when you could kill people direct.
What do you mean? Of course they could. : )
Think 3 nukes in california cities or 3 along San Andreas fault at the
sweet spots to tip that damned state off and into the ocean... Which
would you choose? hehe... oh wait, that's not funny. Oh, *cough*
ahm... I'll be over here being somber and trying not to attack anybody
else in the group today. Sorry Rob. I really seem to enjoy arguing
with you. I don't mean it in a bad way you know that right? If you
want me to lay off I will just tell me to lighten up and shut up and
I'll do both.
PS. I know Rob didn't write the post I'm replying to.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>>But it doesn't need to be as big as it is.
>
>It's all ready too small to deal with the strain placed on it. The only way we
>could think about making it smaller is to either make it weak as a leaf or pull
>the hell out of all those spots we don't need to be.
Here here! Let's leave those places that a) they don't want us and b)
we've got no business being! I'm all for that!!! I really am. : )
>> The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no american
>>causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they pretty
>>much were.
>
>You cannot win a war without infantry. It's a law of the battlefield. If
>there is no one to hold the conquered land, then it is not under your control,
>no matter how many craters you stick in it.
Well you can make it uninhabitable for anybody but I don't think
that's something any of us want. It makes for bad press.
>>But with the fall of the USSR we've eliminated any
>>country that might have a reasonable chance of succeeding in a war
>>against us
>
>China, Russia, China, Russia, China, Russia.. ::chant::
>
>>
>> OK, you can keep a couple. But not all of them.
>
>We don't have enough to project our power as it is. We also need the nuclear
>deterrant subs and the hunter-killers to keep enemy ones at bay, then we need
>frigates, destroyers and such to protect the carrier groups, etc etc.
>
>> What is the real purpose of an army now?
>
>To defend against invasion, to hold ground taken during a conflict, to destroy
>targets that cannot be reached by aircraft, to occupy enemy territory, to
>protect American interests abroad, et cetera.
>
>> We aren't going to try to
>>capture any forgien soil, now are we?
>
>How do you win a war without invading? You don't. Not even Desert Storm was
>won without ground troops. For an example why mass-bombing and technology do
>not work, I point you at a small Asian country called Vietnam which kicked our
>ass with guys pushing bicycles. You can't hit a guy on a bike with a two
>billion dollar bomber. You hit him with machine gun fire, and none of this
>sissy M-16 crap either.
Well said.
>>If we needed
>>an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we?
>
>I suppose if training was unimportant.
What? Those planes, tanks, smart missiles etc. don't just
fly/drive/fire themselves? What're you talking abou... oh wait...
there are 2 years of schooling almost before you can be qualified as a
nuclear submariner (MM is 18 months, ET is 24 I think, but that maybe
EM, can't remember those other two... I was a knuckle dragger. *grin*)
>>A strong standing
>>military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
>>
>
>Where's your logic?
History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important to
pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
template... or any other for that matter.
tcells
Rich G. wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:40:43 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
>leaned forward and whispered:
snip
>I think this is the sticking point that is going to end up with people
>pounding their head on the wall hehehe.
but quite a few points where raised which made me stop and think :)
Sultan Of Swing
news:20001114221130...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> >But it doesn't need to be as big as it is.
>
only way we
> could think about making it smaller is to either make it weak as a
leaf or pull
> the hell out of all those spots we don't need to be.
If we don't need to be there, then why are we there? We're just
flushing money down the toliet.
> > The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no american
> >causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they
pretty
> >much were.
>
> You cannot win a war without infantry. It's a law of the battlefield.
If
> there is no one to hold the conquered land, then it is not under your
control,
> no matter how many craters you stick in it.
We're not trying to conquer anything anymore. All we want now is to
force a surrender. America is not about to take more land under its
control. Imperialism is dead, and the UN is already on our ass to
declare are five major territories states or let them succeed the union.
> >But with the fall of the USSR we've eliminated any
> >country that might have a reasonable chance of succeeding in a war
> >against us
>
> China, Russia, China, Russia, China, Russia.. ::chant::
Niether one of them could take out a quarter of our military power
without resorting to nuclear warfare, in which case we'll be mostly
defenseless in preventing the outcome no matter how strong our military
is, unless if you want to invade them and hope they don't launch the
nukes 'till we get there.
> >
> > OK, you can keep a couple. But not all of them.
>
> We don't have enough to project our power as it is. We also need the
nuclear
> deterrant subs and the hunter-killers to keep enemy ones at bay, then
we need
> frigates, destroyers and such to protect the carrier groups, etc etc.
We have more than enough military power to protect US soil, and
enough in access to give sufficient aid to our allies.
> > What is the real purpose of an army now?
>
> To defend against invasion, to hold ground taken during a conflict, to
destroy
> targets that cannot be reached by aircraft, to occupy enemy territory,
to
> protect American interests abroad, et cetera.
The national gaurd defends us against invasion. We need the huge
army we have to occupy enemy territory and to destroy targets that
cannot be reached by aircraft? We can draft the majority of what we will
need. It doesn't take that long to teach a person to march in file and
to shoot a weapon.
> > We aren't going to try to
> >capture any forgien soil, now are we?
>
> How do you win a war without invading? You don't. Not even Desert
Storm was
> won without ground troops. For an example why mass-bombing and
technology do
> not work, I point you at a small Asian country called Vietnam which
kicked our
> ass with guys pushing bicycles. You can't hit a guy on a bike with a
two
> billion dollar bomber. You hit him with machine gun fire, and none of
this
> sissy M-16 crap either.
Vietnam kicked our ass because we had a low troop moral, low support
through out the country, and we never decleared war so we pulled our
punches a bit. If we would have dropped A-bombs on vital cities inside
vietnam like we did in Japan the country would have surrendered.
Unfortunatly that wasn't an option because we hadn't declared war.
> >If we needed
> >an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we?
>
> I suppose if training was unimportant.
How much training does a truck driver need? How about a foot
soldiar? With a lot of these jobs, training isn't going to take all that
long. And if we wanted to we could require every person to spend X
amount of weeks training for a predetermined military position. People
wouldn't be too much against it if it was just classroom training type
stuff. They could get room and board, they'd learn a skill which could
possibly be taken with them into the work force, and we'd have civilian
personel trained and ready to be drafted.
> >A strong standing
> >military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
> >
>
> Where's your logic?
OK, here's your history lesson. Basically governments are divided
into four different types. The hunter-gatherer, the tribe, the chieftom,
and the state. The hunter-gatherer form of government is one rank.
Everyone is equal and everyone has an equal say in what goes on. There
are the people and that's it. The tribe has two. One guy in charge, and
the rest follow. You got a ruler and the people. Chieftum is three. You
got a guy in charge, advisors, generals, or whatever below him that help
him take care of things. Then you have the people. These three forms of
government can last an eternity without change if they aren't threatened
by external forces. The fourth is the state, which is defined as having
four or more ranks of government. It is destined to fall. Basically it
works like this, excluding an external force. The beuracracy and
military, which may or may not be defined as a single entity, grows
through-out the lifespan of the state at a constant rate. I think the
estimate is something like 3% growth per year. Now the state itself has
a production rate. In other words the sum total of everything the state
produces per year. This production goes to the state and back outward to
the people of the state. But a some of the production rate doesn't go
back because it has to be used to fund the beuracracy and the military.
In the begining, this works fine. The beuracracy and military are both
small, and normally a state's production holds a steady increase early
on. As time goes on the state will eventually expand to its limit. At
this point the production rate tends to flatline. Meanwhile the military
and beuracracy continue to grow despite a lack in growth of state
production. Eventually it reaches the point where almost all of the
state's production has to be used to fund the beuracracy and military.
At this point the state is very weak, and any internal or external
conflict will cause the state to fall, since it can not produce enough
to rectify the situation. OTOH if a state has a small beuracracy and
military and is producing a lot of surplus, the state then has enough
production to fix the situation and reconstruct itself following the
conflict. The conflict can come in many forms. A plague, internal
distress and revolutions, external wars, even things like stock market
crashes and floods. The only ways that the fall of a state can be
prevented are by reaching the fifth level of government, which has never
been done, or by reducing the size of the military and beuracracy, which
has never been done.
Sultan Of Swing
news:n4241t80ei8cp66pp...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:40:43 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> leaned forward and whispered:
>
> > But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
> >what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use
with
> >in the country itself. If a conflict were drawn out a bit longer,
we'll
> >lose X amount of lives over it. If that money is put into use through
> >out the country, we can save X * Y lives. We shouldn't disband the
> >entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right
now.
> >But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum
military
> >to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
> >military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could
grab
> >men from with in the country, a draft. You're saying that if we don't
> >have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
> >flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
> >military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw. If we lessen
> >the military, we put the state in less danger. If the USA falls
> >internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long
time.
>
> in a war you don't believe in solely because your country needs you. I
> judged you incorrectly. I'm sorry... I underestimated you.
Well if I get my bachlor's I'll get to be an officer, then I'll have
unimaginable power. Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha. Honestly though if I was
drafted I'd go. I'm not going to hang around here watching the thing on
TV so I can spit on our war heroes when they get back. But I won't
willingly sign up for the military, it's a little too faschist for my
tastes. And I won't let myself be drafted so I can spend the next three
years hanging out in some military base in germany or something because
congress decided they needed a bigger army just so they can have more
bases around the globe. But if anyone ever actually did manage to attack
on US soil (Real US soil, not an embassy or something) I'd go sign up,
assuming I wasn't already fighting for the opposition that is.
> > China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is
at
> >X and not X-1. Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be
strong
> >enough to conquer us straight out. With the many allies who are going
to
> >protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
> >excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance.
There
> >are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a
situation
> >like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it.
Besides
> >in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
> >lately? The country's falling apart, and as communism falls it's
losing
> >most of its world strength. More than likely the country won't be
around
> >much longer, at least not in its current incarnation.
>
> And because they're falling apart I worry. Germany was falling apart
> after WWI nothing unites a country more than a war... I seem to
> remember we were all excited (all is too strong I know) about Desert
> Storm... six months before it started though my money says nobody
> (public nobody) would've seen it coming or thought it a worthy
> engagement.
Germany's Nazi government was also in its infancy during WW2. They
had a great politician and military strategist leading them, probably
the best the world has ever seen, and they had high moral through out
the country. Everyone thought that the war would be the thing that saved
them. China OTOH is a different case. If China were to go into an
all-out war right now they would have a lot of internal disruption.
They'd have to fight on multiple fronts, troop moral would be low, and
the country moral would be low. Most likely many of the revolutionaries
with in the country would sieze the oppurtunity now that the military
was spread out across the globe and use it to make internal strikes now
that the country was weak. If China were to go into a major war right
now, it'd end up destroying the country as we know it instead of uniting
it.
> > Do you really think Iraq would formulate a serious attack against
> >the US. If they did, they wouldn't be there anymore. Even if they
took
> >us out, the rest of the free world would ride their ass into
submission.
>
> but we would have lost... I'm against that.
1. We probably wouldn't lose even with a weak military. B. Iraq is
unlikely to make such a stupid mistake because they know the rest of the
free world would ride their ass into submission.
> > The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no
american
> >causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they
pretty
> >much were.
>
> WW1 & 2 were wars, Vietnam, Korea, those were wars... Desert Storm was
> probably a war but it was the smallest you can go and still be a
> war... anything less is a battle. : ) Yep, just made that up hehehe.
Well if you want to start defining things, Vietnam was not a war. We
never declared war. We only sent troops to train men, and later a
conspiracy was put into place to force congress to allow them to fire
back on enemy troops.
> > What is the real purpose of an army now? We aren't going to try
to
> >capture any forgien soil, now are we? Imperalism is dead. More than
> >likely we'll just bomb the hell out of a country until it gives in.
> >That's our current method of attack through out the world. If we
needed
> >an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we? A strong standing
> >military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
>
> I think this is the sticking point that is going to end up with people
> pounding their head on the wall hehehe. I disagree that a strong
> standing military is a bad thing. : )
It just sucks away our resources without giving anything back.
tcells
Rich G. wrote in message <7q241t412a72058qn...@4ax.com>...
>On 15 Nov 2000 03:11:30 GMT, ppk...@aol.comediespam (Grand Fromage)
>
snip
>
>Well you can make it uninhabitable for anybody but I don't think
>that's something any of us want. It makes for bad press.
nuke the media outlets as a matter of course ;)
>
snip
>What? Those planes, tanks, smart missiles etc. don't just
>fly/drive/fire themselves? What're you talking abou... oh wait...
>there are 2 years of schooling almost before you can be qualified as a
>nuclear submariner (MM is 18 months, ET is 24 I think, but that maybe
>EM, can't remember those other two... I was a knuckle dragger. *grin*)
I saw independence day, no such training is reqd - once you learn to ride a
bike, you never forget (no I don't think I'll go out and prove that this
afternoon)
>
>>>A strong standing
>>>military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
>>>
>>
>>Where's your logic?
>
>History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
>sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important to
>pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
>situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
>template... or any other for that matter.
who's Nero? Bush or Gore?
Grand Fromage
>during World War 2, and into pex size pieces by all the post war
>testing.
Read again. *Every nuke ever produced*, IE every one we've ever made at once.
>They probably neglected to mention the meteorite hitting Tunguska
>(IIRC something around a 50 megaton blast) didn't destroy the Earth.
>Nor did the Eltanin asteroid impact several milion years ago
>
50 megatons isn't that large. The largest recorded one was a Soviet nuke that
was around 68, back in the 1960's.
>Obviously the media hasn't the foggiest notion of what nuclear weapons
>are, how they work, or what kind of damage they really do.
Tell that to the nuclear engineer, then.
--
There is but one answer
in this love of disaster:
deny all the masters -
the defiant shadow-casters.
Oh, my soul fades
behind the clouded shades
as the horrible mage
sends forth hell's page.
Marshall 1
"Ashen Shugar" <pja...@CHAOSstudent.CHAOSmonash.CHAOSedu.CHAOSau> wrote in
message news:8uquat$vnr$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au...
> So like, the price of peace is constant vigilence. That's a saying I've
> heard bandied around before some place.
Ayup.
-Marshall
Grand Fromage
It's all ready too small to deal with the strain placed on it. The only way we
could think about making it smaller is to either make it weak as a leaf or pull
the hell out of all those spots we don't need to be.
> The airforce has already won small wars by itself, with no american
>causualties. Sure they weren't called wars, but that's what they pretty
>much were.
You cannot win a war without infantry. It's a law of the battlefield. If
there is no one to hold the conquered land, then it is not under your control,
no matter how many craters you stick in it.
>But with the fall of the USSR we've eliminated any
>country that might have a reasonable chance of succeeding in a war
>against us
China, Russia, China, Russia, China, Russia.. ::chant::
>
> OK, you can keep a couple. But not all of them.
We don't have enough to project our power as it is. We also need the nuclear
deterrant subs and the hunter-killers to keep enemy ones at bay, then we need
frigates, destroyers and such to protect the carrier groups, etc etc.
> What is the real purpose of an army now?
To defend against invasion, to hold ground taken during a conflict, to destroy
targets that cannot be reached by aircraft, to occupy enemy territory, to
protect American interests abroad, et cetera.
> We aren't going to try to
>capture any forgien soil, now are we?
How do you win a war without invading? You don't. Not even Desert Storm was
won without ground troops. For an example why mass-bombing and technology do
not work, I point you at a small Asian country called Vietnam which kicked our
ass with guys pushing bicycles. You can't hit a guy on a bike with a two
billion dollar bomber. You hit him with machine gun fire, and none of this
sissy M-16 crap either.
>If we needed
>an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we?
I suppose if training was unimportant.
>A strong standing
>military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
>
Where's your logic?
Erthbender
>No matter how many nukes you've got, the best result you're going to get is
>a glass ball. With some nuclear winter to boot. You can not crack the
>crust with a nuclear blast.
True, but I wonder how much damage a couple could do on some fault lines? Not
that anyone would target those when you could kill people direct.
Erthbender
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
drop 2Dground from the address to reply
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>>Freedom is not maintained by allowing the defenses of free nations
>>to lapse into apathy and disrepair.
>True, but it is a matter of degree. Whether you like it or not, there are
>many people who argue that the US, or any other foreign military power on
>their soil or in their waters is taking away their freedom.
And they are 100% correct. If they are allies, than they aren't
losing a whole lot of freedom.
>and don't overdo so much either or else you run risk of becoming the real
>threat to people's freedom
The USSR learned that lesson the hard way.
>Well it is *their* oil, what ever happened to free enterprise?
Non-free tanks and bombers? Actually for free enterprise and
capitalism to work, you can't have monoploies running things and
that's what OPEC is. Contrary to many wanna-be presidents there
isn't a court that OPEC can be litigated in, so only diplomacy and
military might will work. Hmm, we could try drilling some of our own
resources, so we aren't so dependent on terrorist nations...
Nah, that doesn't make any sense at all.
>China is a huge country. Would have the huge US forces kept during the cold
>war come to the aid of the USSR?
Only after they had both duked it out a bit and were severly weakened
:-)
>> Power abhors a vacuum, and sombody always appears, to fill it.
>true, and there's other powers eg economic
Even Bill Gates' money can't stop an incoming nuclear warhead.
>Point in case. What happened at East Timor could have, and should have been
>done 30 years ago - why wasn't it done then? East Timor shows us how wrong
>the arguement of dominating military might is. It was not politically
>expediant for it to happen 20 years ago. The west are not cowboys in white
>hats, they are not benefactors of the down trodden, we'll only do what is
>right *if* it suites us.
Exactly. National interests and all that stuff, plus over-extension
of our limited forces.
>We have the best training possible. The Chinese simply won't stand a
>chance, don't you remember what happened to the US pilots using the
>simulator in Queensland - they got totally fragged when the kangaroos turned
>around and shot at them ;)
He he, didn't hear about that one :-)
>yep, but chances are if we were building up a nuclear navy, we'd see that
>threat more likely to happen.
We don't need any more nukes than we have, we just need more support,
better morale, less turnover, and more logistical ability. A
significant chunk of our equipment needs updating as well. How many
more years will the B-52's fly?
>There's a difference between a deterrent and being over sized.
Yup, and we are neither at the moment. Fielding a respectable force
at a moments notice, without weakening security is not as easy as the
pundits make it seem.
<snipped valid points on non-national interest places and complete
avoidance of even mentioning them by US Media and Govt>
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>>I did notice that the Earth was split into asteroid fields twice
>>during World War 2, and into pex size pieces by all the post war
>>testing.
>
>Read again. *Every nuke ever produced*, IE every one we've ever made at once.
Nope, Note even if you set them off on a crictical faultline. They
simply don't pack as much punch as people think they do.
>>They probably neglected to mention the meteorite hitting Tunguska
>>(IIRC something around a 50 megaton blast) didn't destroy the Earth.
>>Nor did the Eltanin asteroid impact several milion years ago
>50 megatons isn't that large. The largest recorded one was a Soviet nuke that
>was around 68, back in the 1960's.
That number sounds about right. 10,000 times 50 megatons isn't all
that large either when you are talking about severely impacting the
planet.
>>Obviously the media hasn't the foggiest notion of what nuclear weapons
>>are, how they work, or what kind of damage they really do.
>Tell that to the nuclear engineer, then.
It is less than you think it is.
Dalai Lama
>True, but I wonder how much damage a couple could do on some fault lines? Not
>that anyone would target those when you could kill people direct.
Not all that much. Your best bet damage wise is still a high aerial
blast so you can shower as much radiation as possible, get maximum EMP
effects, and still get a decent blast (using a lot of the ground
debris for shrapnel).
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>Think 3 nukes in california cities or 3 along San Andreas fault at
>the sweet spots to tip that damned state off and into the ocean...
*sigh* Public schools just don't teach like they used to. Didn't
anyone else have to learn and plan nuclear attacks and guage their
effects in high school?
Marshall 1
"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
>
> Marshall 1 wrote in message ...
> >
> >to lapse into apathy and disrepair.
>
> True, but it is a matter of degree. Whether you like it or not, there are
> many people who argue that the US, or any other foreign military power on
> their soil or in their waters is taking away their freedom.
When the Phillipines asked us to close down our bases there
and leave, we did. I agree with you on that, to force your
presence upon any other country that you are not at war with,
that has not asked for that presence, is tyranny. A good example:
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, and
Hungary... up till 1989-90. I don't remember seeing hundreds of
thousands of *West* Germans fleeing east over and around the
Iron Curtain, to escape the evil presence of American bases on their
soil- a presence which their elected goverments had always requested.
If Germany were to ask us to close up shop and go home, with the
last of our diminished forces in Europe, I imagine they wouldn't
receive too much argument from America ;) And NZ, I believe it was,
requested that the US Navy not visit their waters with ships armed with
any nuclear weapons... which I believe we have honored. Can you
give me an example of somewhere we are currently committing tyranny
against some hapless innocent country, by the presence of any of our
armed forces on their soil? If so, I would be the first to condemn it.
But as to your main point, I was not referring to placing our forces
on foreign soil, to maintain our defenses at an acceptable level. But,
with the realities of the world as it is, it is not possible to deter some
regional troublemakers from dreams of glory, by pulling all our forces
back to the States, and giving all of our servicemen and women every
weekend off to go to the local Wal Mart. Deterrence isn't a 9-to-5,
40-hour week, and then take-the-batteries-out-of-your-pager kind of
duty... and it doesn't have much affect, from 12,000 miles away.
And finally, I hope that your elders didn't resent the American
GI's and sailors too badly for their presence there, when Admiral
Yamamoto was preparing bases in the Solomons and Papua New
Guinea, from which to dispatch bombers and then invade to the
south ;-) But, mayhap the mighty fleet of aircraft carriers and battle-
ships that Canberra and Auckland were holding in reserve, might
well have turned the tide without them <grin>. No, I am not a fool
like those who ignorantly think we saved the world, all by ourselves-
there were few fighters in the Pacific campaign as skilled or cour-
ageous as those from Down Under... there just weren't enough of
them, by themselves.
> This has been learned (and sadly,
> >'relearned') many times, over the course of history. Until there is
> >never again a chance of any megalomaniac or religious fanatic (or
> >groups thereof, etc.) taking control of any country with the ability or
> >the potential ability to actively threaten world peace in any way,
>
> but, but, but that is how they see it *happening* *now*
Who is 'they', and what exactly do 'they' see happening?
> and
> >humans learn to live together as lambs in the pasture <grin>,
> >there will always be a need to maintain them, and to do it well.
> >Those who argue otherwise, are just asking for a repeat of the
> >awful and costly mistakes of history. Work for peace, yes- but don't
> >just lay down and roll over and expect those who would gladly take
> >your freedom away (or the freedom of many other nations who de-
> >pend on your defenses to support their own weaker ones), to not
> >take notice.
>
> and don't overdo so much either or else you run risk of becoming the real
> threat to people's freedom
'Overdo'? Explain, please? For the past decade, the US military has
shrunk drastically, in all branches, from it's Cold War strength. We
barely have half the carrier task-forces at sea at any time, that we
did then. We truly no longer have the ability to fight more than one
regional conflict at a time, anymore. So if two seperate countries
(North Korea and Iraq/Iran, for example) were smart and devious
enough to launch simultaneous trouble, we'd have to write one of
them off as a lost cause. Worst case scenario- but trouble doesn't
always play nice and fair. Or, I guess we could just not bother.
What has the rest of the ungrateful world done for us, lately?
All we ever catch is *shit*, for being there, and keeping the worst
of the chaos at bay. Maybe the isolationists have a point... perhaps
we shoulda just stayed home, and let Tojo and Yamamoto have the
south seas for their private playground. You guys mighta done just
fine without our help, anyway- you'd probably still have numerous
bands of brave resistance fighters out in the bush and in the hills,
to this day. Besides, the Sydney opera house might've looked even
cooler, with pagodas on it. If we'd known our strong military would
be seen as such a threat_to_people's_freedom, we surely wouldn't
have overstepped our bounds, to assist you. My apologies to you
and your country, for the presumptuous and unneeded actions of
our grandfathers in uniform- but, in their defense, they could not
have realized that their existence and assistance was somehow
making you less free.
> > Sure, we in the free world could decide 'to hell with it', and just
> >stop keeping up our militaries... and we'd probably be fine and dan-
> >dy for a while, maybe even a decade or two. But how long would it
> >take, before Taiwan was 're-integrated' by force, if the Mainland
> >knew they didn't have a thing to worry about, from the US Navy?
> >How long before Iraq or Iran figured out that grabbing the other
> >rich Persian Gulf oil states would be a walk in the park? You think
> >OPEC is bad now... bwuhahahaaaaa!!!!
> >
>
> Well it is *their* oil, what ever happened to free enterprise?
So, if Indonesia decides that your lucrative kiwi-fruit market would
make a nice addition to their national GNP, and comes and stomps
you and takes it over, I guess we should shrug our shoulders and
say "Oh well, it's just free enterprise at work"? Or are you referring
to OPEC's pricing? If so, yeah, that's business. We can bitch, but
nobody here's gonna invade Saudi Arabia, just because light sweet
crude just went up to $40 a barrel. Well, maybe the Europeans...
can't speak for them ;-)
> > Would the weak and undermanned US Army, with less than half
> >the divisions of the early 90's (already!), be anything to really be
> >reckoned with anymore, after a further sorry decade or two of neg-
> >lect? How long before China decided that the extremely vast, rich
> >and almost completely unpopulated land of Siberia was a good
> >spot for their overflowing billions to 'annex'? (with tanks, of course).
>
> China is a huge country. Would have the huge US forces kept during the
cold
> war come to the aid of the USSR?
Probably not during the Cold War, but now? Who knows. Not I ;)
It would be a toughie, as they could probably roll over whatever
the Russians have left there in a week, if they really decided to.
But if we let our forces deteriorate too much further, there wouldn't
even *be* the option, even if the Russians asked. But, desperate
nations do desperate things... I wouldn't be surprise if the Russians
used nukes, if that ever happened. Ouch- goodnight.
> > Power abhors a vacuum, and sombody always appears, to fill it.
>
> true, and there's other powers eg economic
True. And the most dangerous of powers, is a burgeoning new
world power feeling its oats, wanting to make a place for itself
in the sun, by either economic or military or both- one with not enough
natural resources of its own, and a desperate desire for lebensraum...
Japan and Germany of the 1930's fit that classic mold pretty well... I'll
leave speculation as to who best fills that mold today, up to your
imagination.
> >Those who are naive enough to think that such things could never
> >happen in our modern 'enlightened' world... hehe, think again. The
> >only reason they haven't happened *more* often, is because of our
> >deterrent factor. And no, nuclear missles are not enough, and never
> >will be- they only truly apply to 'end-game' scenarios, where two
> >massive powers face off with potential 'assured mutual destruction'.
> >No sane country can just start slinging them about like artillery
> >or bombs, to fight wars with- and the potential troublemakers
> >know that.
> >
> > We see a new and awful example of why we absolutely must stay
> >on our collective toes, almost every year... East Timor
>
> Point in case. What happened at East Timor could have, and should have
been
> done 30 years ago - why wasn't it done then? East Timor shows us how wrong
> the arguement of dominating military might is. It was not politically
> expediant for it to happen 20 years ago. The west are not cowboys in
white
> hats, they are not benefactors of the down trodden, we'll only do what is
> right *if* it suites us.
Agreed, not claiming the Western powers were ever white-hats, as
in perfect angelic heroes, etc. They made lots of decisions that wer-
en't particularly good for the peoples of countries dominated by
pro-western dictatorships, along the way. They claimed expedience,
preferring friendly dictators, to the possibility of 'leftist' goverments
that might replace them. In hindsight, it doesn't look too pretty, does
it? No argument from me, there. Too much of the old 'the enemy of
my enemy is my friend', even if those 'friends' weren't exactly the
kind you'd bring home to meet mama. There was way too much
stupid fear and loathing of any group that seemed to be a 'people's'
movement, and our leaders always had the stupid knee-jerk reaction
of labelling them 'communists', and doing anything possible to stop
them from toppling corrupt dictators, on the theory that they would
automatically turn their countries into Soviet bases and stepping-
stones towards world communist domination. Hell, if we'd just gave
Castro a chance, after he toppled the old regime and freed the
Cuban people from their corruption, he would be our friend today,
and would never have turned to the USSR for aid. Sad. But things
are finally turning around from those dumb actions of the past, I be-
lieve. The fall of the Soviets did away with the perceived need for
such 'expedient' alliances, and, as you point out- finally made pos-
sible the freedom of East Timor, belatedly.
Oh, and in regards to your comment on any kind of 'dominating'
military-might being unnecessary- firstly, if the US had wanted to
'dominate' the world (and I'm talking as in 'jack-boots and gulags',
not as in 'running the best economy in the world and maintaining
the strongest military'), we would have been in a perfect position to
do so militarily, at the end of WWII. Instead, we gave Germany
and Japan back their lands and freedom, and they are now two of the
world's leading economic powers, in no way controlled by us. On
the contrary, they can often be quite vexing on different issues...
but that's life, in the Free World ;) And you might ask the West
German villagers who lived along the Fulda Gap, whether they
thought a 'dominating' American (and British and French, at least
earlier in the Cold War) presence was a bad thing, as they watched
Stalin's hundreds of hardened tank divisions loitering a mile or two
away. Ask them, if they would have preferred to live on the *other*
side of those fences, away from American 'oppression' ;-) Or the
people of West Berlin, when the US planes of the Berlin Airlift were the
only lifeline between them and the Commissars. Don't ever forget,
that the whole chain of Soviet regimes, from Stalin on, repeatedly
*promised* to destroy western capitalism, and replace it with commu-
nism- by any_means_necessary. I'm not making that up- go look up
some old Pravda stories or film-clips- from Stalin, to Kruschev, to etc.
"We will bury you."
You focus on the bad things that happened from the Cold War, re-
sulting from the standoff and global jockeying done between the West
and East... yes, there was much wrong facilitated against various
peoples, by both sides- no one can deny that. But if not for the West's
'dominating' deterrent forces, those bad things would have seemed
as insignificant as a gnat bite, compared to the much worse events
that would have happened. Of that, I am certain.
I don't believe there is any need, at this time, to build up anybody's
military to those levels, again. But the reverse is also true- it is
never a good time, to let them slide into atrophy (until human nature
improves markedly, anyway).
> What about the huge stores of wasting produce,
> just about always over produced by producers subsidised by govt - why not
> put that to good use?
I don't believe in those subsidies, or wasting stored produce- you're
preaching to the choir, on that one. I'll have 'em change it by next
tuesday, ok? ;)
> was only a minor
> >but quite graphic scenario of what our species is still quite capable of
> >doing, on a much vaster scale.
>
> We let it go on for 30 years, how much better are we?
But 'we' (you/us/whomever) finally put a stop to it, no? Can't
change the past, but we can certainly learn from it, and do our
best to improve those bad situations when possible, now. Are
you condemning today's people for all the mistakes of the past,
with no possibility of redemption? Surely you're not that harsh
and inflexible?
> That 'little' situation could very easily
> >have turned into at *least* a serious regional conflict, but for the
> >still potent threat of various freeworld militaries.
> >
> > And it isn't a far stretch from some of these not-so-far-out
> >'what-ifs', until the newly emboldened and powerful big Chinese
> >(known by 2018, as the 'New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere')
> >Navy sails along the coasts of NZ and Oz,
>
> We have the best training possible. The Chinese simply won't stand a
> chance, don't you remember what happened to the US pilots using the
> simulator in Queensland - they got totally fragged when the kangaroos
turned
> around and shot at them ;)
Ah, but I hear the Air Force has contracted the gaming industry to
produce a top-notch 'roo simulator, so our pilots will do a tad
better, next time! ;)
> just for innocent summer
> >exercises, of course... and to let the locals know who's the Big Dog
> >on the block, from here on out- whom they'd better give good commer-
> >cial concessions (and mayhap a mite of their 'unused' landmass?) to,
> >*or*.... hehe. I'm no Chinaphobe, but stranger things have happened
> >in our bloody history, and no doubt will again.
>
> yep, but chances are if we were building up a nuclear navy, we'd see that
> threat more likely to happen.
Well, if you are talking about the Down Under folks trying to
build their forces up to super-power status... hehe, of course
that would be ridiculous. It would break your economies,
before you got a fraction of the way there. As for nukes, they
are not necessarily the be-all-end-all of deterrence, in reality.
If not backed up by serious conventional forces, the best they
could do is allow you to survive in beseiged isolation, as the
rest of the region was overrun. At any rate, if I wasn't able to
provide my country with a realistic level of defense against a
superior force, and had to leave that task primarily up to
historically friendly powers... I really don't think I'd be arguing
for those friends to lay down their arms, bend over, and stick
their rumps in the air ;) Point- threats will *always* be out
there- so you better hope *somebody* friendly is prepared for
them, and willing to help out.
> The examples are
> >endless, and sobering. Let our military deterrent wane to nothing?
>
> There's a difference between a deterrent and being over sized.
Absolutely. And in my opinion, the US is teetering right on the
edge of slipping from serious deterrent status, into being unable
to quickly and forcefully honor its defensive commitments to our
friends around the world, if they should desperately need help. We'll
see what the next administration does. I in no way wish for a 'Reagan
Era' type buildup, that is totally unnecessary, since the fall of the
Soviet Union. At this point, just keeping the military from deterior-
ating even more, is the key need.
> >I surely hope not. Every so often, freedom loving people end up
> >having to fight for their lands and lives, to keep it. This is a fact.
> >Nothing has changed, just because it's the year '2000'. I just hope
> >that when that time (and it will) rolls around again, that we have-
> >n't decided to scrap all the tanks and planes and ships, and turned
> >all the trained fighters into burger-flippers.
>
> well right now there are many places where this is happening. Why aren't
> the US or Australia (seeing we were so vocal about east timor) doing
> anything about it? Perhaps those places have no bearing on our oil and
gas
> prices. Maybe the media isn't kicking up enough of a stink so that
> politicians don't see the political game, maybe I'm wrong and we are
helping
> them just it's being kept quite and no political mileage is being sought.
Heh, we had to kick and drag the Europeans into helping us do anything
about the atrocities in Bosnia/Kosovo, right in their own back yard...
what kind of support are we going to get from the world, to go into all
those other many places you speak of? We went into Somalia, and instead
of being grateful for all the food, the multitudinous little warlords turned
their guns on us, for interfering in their business of starving their oppo-
nents into submission. Sure, the UN botched the whole operation, we
should never have let those idiotic clowns from the Tower of Babel
in New York (UN building) give orders to our troops to go capture the
bloody bastards. So, where shall you and me and the boys go fix up
next? Chechnya? Tibet? Kashmere? Afghanistan? Chase the Iraqi's
and Turks and Iranians out of ancient Kurdistan? Hehe, hop on the boat,
mate! You'll find out just what a shitty, thankless, and often futile job
it is, trying to be an international Mountie, the 'World's Policemen',
for everybody. Are some of the choices we all make, about who to help,
and who not to help- based on selfishness (and, yes- expediency)?
Of course. But not all, as the intervention in the old Yugoslavia is
proof of, and some of our attempts elsewhere- although it can be
argued that the Yugoslav intervention was to prevent potential re-
gional warfare, in Europe- something not in anyone's best interests.
It ain't easy, my friend- convincing the lady down the street that her
son or daughter should risk death, to keep a bunch of Tutsi's from
killing their neighbors, or to get in harm's way between two hate-
filled factions in Sri-Lanka, or wherever. From such decisions, often
come bloody and futile quagmires. Wanna put a battalion of Aussie
Marines in between Israel and the Islamic Jihad, in Southern Leb-
anon? Don't forget to take lots of body-bags, and survivor-sniffing
dogs. Wouldn't you just love to be President, and get to make all
those fun kinds of decisions? Ayup, didn't think so ;-)
-Marshall
Dalai Lama
wrote:
> But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
>what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use with
>in the country itself.
This is a reasonable argument. However, our antagonists will no
more rest if we are weak, than gun antigun, abortion-anti-abortion,
or any other heated enemies will rest. It is disgusting, but
necessary.
>We shouldn't disband the
>entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right now.
>But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum military
>to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
>military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could grab
>men from with in the country, a draft.
War is far too complex now to be won with people fresh out of boot
camp. When remoted helicopter dropped weapons can automatically
target anyone with contacts or glasses and gun them down, Joe Scmoe
will be dead before his third day in the conflict. Shock troops only
work until the real army is in place, and if you don't have a real
army than you have lost before the conflict has even begun. It
would be like a kindergarten football team going up against an NFL
team. In war you either go big or stay at home. This isn't a case
where you can lose the superbowl and try again next year.
>You're saying that if we don't
>have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
>flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
>military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw.
A strong militray that rules the country, is indeed a flaw. One that
our wise founding fathers avoided.
>If we lessen the military, we put the state in less danger. If the USA falls
>internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long time.
The only danger the US Military poises is being a burden on the
economy (which it is far worse than the entitlement programs). If you
had to choose between surrendering to the Chinese or discontinuing
social security, which would you choose?
> China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is at
>X and not X-1.
I wish this were true. China is being tracked, but our fearless
leader is ignoring it, because he is a fool of grave magnitude. His
superior than thou attitude is dangerous, and may cost us a large
number of American lives down the road. China doesn't think they are
better than everyone else. They KNOW it. The Aryan ideals are a
bunch of pansies compared to the hard-core 6,00+ year old ideals of
superiority to be found in China.
>Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be strong
>enough to conquer us straight out.
They don't really want our land, at least not for a long time. The
Chinese think in terms of generations, not in terms of years or
decades. The Chinese are'nt expecting to be militarily superior in
10-20 years. They are thinking in terms of 50-100 years. A patient
and dangerous people. Just take a look at where the majority of
Soviet nuclear weapons and conventional forces were aimed and stage to
see who the USSR feared most- (it wasn't the US or Nato).
>With the many allies who are going to
>protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
>excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance. There
>are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a situation
>like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it. Besides
>in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
>lately? The country's falling apart,
China is used to suffering. What we call poverty, they would call
vast wealth. The Chinese are a strong resilient people, and once they
learn how to adapt the capitalist system and retain their communist
leadership, they will be a juggernaut. US Corporations will be at
the front of financing this revolution (economic part).
> and as communism falls it's losing
>most of its world strength.
China and it's people are used to a centralized government. The
Confucian ideal has been around long before Athens, and communism is
just a re-working of the old system.
> Do you really think Iraq would formulate a serious attack against
>the US. If they did, they wouldn't be there anymore. Even if they took
>us out, the rest of the free world would ride their ass into submission.
They don't need to take us out. They just need one big attack
delivered somewhere. We can't very well take out a nation because of
an attack by Hamas can we?
<Re Taiwan>
> And you think everyone's just going to let it happen?
If China makes a move for Taiwan, it will be an even more precarious
moment than the Cuban Missile Crisis. A couple times already, fleet
exercises have been watched and guaged as to whether they were indeed
preludes to a war between the US and China. I'm not pulling your leg
on this stuff.
>> War is an ugly evil horrifying thing. It should not be taken lightly
>> and all efforts to prevent it breaking out should be taken.
> Then why don't we just destroy all the schools in this country, make
>every person between the ages of 18 and 40 join the military
I do believe everyone should serve a couple years in one of the
services, just as Israel does.
>, get rid of most of our public programs,
A big chunk of them can go. I never did understand how spending
200,000 for Airport art sculptures fed hungry people.
>and have this country concentrate on being
>nothing more than a military power so we'll have enough guns to destroy
>any country that even talks about us with a funny look in their eyes.
Now you're talking! He he.
>Then we can prevent any war from happening at any time. We can not go to
>an extreme to prevent any scenerio that may lead to a long drawn out
>war. We need to concentrate on preventing the worst and most likely
>scenerios. We also need to be more dependent on our allies.
Our allies seem content with dumping the financial burden on us.
Perhaps that is because we can afford it more than they, and perhaps
they trust us with that power (for the nonce).
> And jets get faster
They aren't progressing much on top speeds, and for good reason. Once
the testing of the Hi-Mat was done, they realized new aircraft design
needed to focus on the combat zone and not the pre-combat flight
ability. The result is aircraft with much more acceleration and
maneuverability in the transonic range ( where most combat tends to
occur) and better stand-off capabilities (such as locking on and
taking out enemies from a hundred miles away). The ability of the
newest designs are fantastic, but they don't help when we are still
flying F-15's, 16's and all the other outdated stuff. It is not
speed or range that they build planes towards now, but
maneuverability, loitering ability, stealth, and kill ability.
>and we're able to build bigger gas tanks on
>them. If they don't got 'em already,
More aerial refueling would help, but since the KC-10, we haven't
seen any increas in that area in over a decade.
> What is the real purpose of an army now? We aren't going to try to
>capture any forgien soil, now are we? Imperalism is dead. More than
>likely we'll just bomb the hell out of a country until it gives in.
>That's our current method of attack through out the world. If we needed
>an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we?
A conscripted army couldn't work the IFF units in time to keep
friendlies from blasting them to bits. Even the faintest wisp of fog
of war is deadly with current tactics and equipment.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>but quite a few points where raised which made me stop and think :)
The more thinking about war beforehand, and less actually engaging in
it, the better. It is ignoring the possibilities and not thinking
about it, that will get us in trouble.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>>>BTW: One more day of time clock punching and then no more!
>>Beware of the 70-90 hour work weeks they may try to lay on you!
>Just getting done with those now. : ) As supervisor that isn't
>supposed to happen as much... they say.
Yeah, did they mention the 100+ hour work weeks? They will happen
too. (they will be using your own conscience to drive you to do them)
Somewhere, you need to work out a binding agreement for some slack
time (say 25 hour work weeks) to compensate for the work till you drop
ones. If you can shake on that, then it isn't so bad. (especially
if you can organize things so efficiently that you get a lot more easy
weeks than tough ones. Beware the Beta-wolfs snapping at your job
though.
Marshall 1
"Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:t13u88...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dalai Lama" <daia...@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:3a108cda...@news.qwest.net...
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:43:56 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military
> power,
> > >who'd be strong enough to attack us even then?
> >
> > Anyone who wanted to. You could attack a miltary base yourself with a
> > big wet noodle if you wanted to. It is the perceived outcome that
> > matters to the attacker. They may not be after winning, they may
> > only be after ruining things for the USA or it's allies. Look at it
> > this way, With one big Ryder truck full of McVey materials, you
> > couldn't take over Las Vegas, but you could sure do a lot of damage.
> > The point of the military isn't just to keep us from being taken over,
> > it's to keep us from being attacked if at all possible, and to bring
> > any conflcit under control and minimize causualties as quickly as
> > possible.
>
> But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
> what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use with
> in the country itself.
If you'd stayed awake in history class, and learned anything
from it, you'd have a better idea of just why we stay prepared
for that "long shot". It's a pretty sure bet, in reality. And if we
let our defenses go to hell, the odds get even shorter- much faster.
Sorry 'bout the 'stayed awake' comment, but anyone who says
such things, is no student of history.
-Marshall
PS: there is no reason why we can't have both, today- a strong
military (within reasonable limits), and a better life for all
people in this country. We just need some real leadership...
too bad we can't buy that :-(
Marshall 1
> leaned forward and whispered:
>
> > China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is at
> >X and not X-1. Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be strong
> >enough to conquer us straight out. With the many allies who are going to
> >protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
> >excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance. There
> >are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a situation
> >like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it. Besides
> >in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
> >lately? The country's falling apart, and as communism falls it's losing
> >most of its world strength. More than likely the country won't be around
> >much longer, at least not in its current incarnation.
>
> after WWI nothing unites a country more than a war... I seem to
> remember we were all excited (all is too strong I know) about Desert
> Storm... six months before it started though my money says nobody
> (public nobody) would've seen it coming or thought it a worthy
> engagement.
Exactly. Another student of history, who looks beyond the tip of
their nose. Remember how the chinese populace was easily whipped
into a frenzy when we accidentally bombed their embassy in Serbia?
Kicking and taunting Chinese-Americans who were foolish enough
to go out into the streets of China? Sure it was a dumbass mistake,
but it was truly amazing, the instant hatred that the Chinese govt.
was able to incite over it, for propoganda purposes. They got a
lot of mileage out of that incident, and pointed out that despite
what we may like to think, the Chinese people on the street don't
necessarily harbor some secret love for us. If the Chinese govt.
ever thinks it's on the verge of losing power within, lookout. They
are not stupid old men... they paid close attention to what happened
in Russia, when Gorbachev eased off on the reins of power- you can
bank on that. You never see these things coming. Which is why you
always need to be prepared for them.
> > What is the real purpose of an army now? We aren't going to try to
> >capture any forgien soil, now are we? Imperalism is dead.
Ours, yeah ;) Don't be so presumptive about everyone else
in the world.
> More than
> >likely we'll just bomb the hell out of a country until it gives in.
> >That's our current method of attack through out the world.
Works fine, when you are facing a weaker nation with no strong
allies. Serbia was a putz. But if we had set foot *inside* of Serbia
Proper, not just Kosovo, we would have seen a whole 'nother story.
And planes and bombs didn't take back Kuwait, ground forces did.
Lots of them.
> If we needed
> >an army, we could always draft it now couldn't we? A strong standing
> >military will only weaken a state, not make it stronger.
>
> I think this is the sticking point that is going to end up with people
> pounding their head on the wall hehehe. I disagree that a strong
> standing military is a bad thing. : )
As do I. A rapidly drafted army/navy/etc., would not work in todays
world. It takes many months, to sufficiently train green draftees.
That is not a luxury we will likely have, in future conflicts. In Desert
Storm, even with several months to drill and prepare, the National
Guard units were still not up to snuff enough to put into the front
lines of battle. Only one or two saw action of any kind other than
support roles (truck drivers, communications, etc), I believe.
Also, it takes even longer to train modern soldiers/sailors/airmen,
because of the much steeper learning curve of all the gadgets and
technologies they must master, to fight nowadays. We don't just
throw a bunch of 30-day wonders from Brooklyn and the midwest
corn-patches into battle with a rifle and the knowledge of how
to thrust a bayonet, anymore. The notion of a draftee-based national
defense, only raised in emergencies, is utterly ridiculous. End of
story.
-Marshall
Marshall 1
>
> History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
> sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important to
> pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
> situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
> template... or any other for that matter.
Yes, not even the same, so the logic behind that analogy
is faulty. For one thing, unlike true 'imperialistic' historical
powers, we have a nasty habit of winning wars, then not
following through with the requirements of a proper con-
queror... we don't utterly subjugate the defeated populaces,
keep them in chains, enslave them and send anybody who
looks sideways at one of the Masters to concentration camps
for 'liquidation'... we don't remove everything of wealth from
their lands, and tax whatever the surviving workers make
until they can hardly even eat... on the contrary- we always
set them free, build them up, give 'em a big 'attaboy', and
then get inundated with BMW's and Sony Walkmans! The
best thing that can happen to a country, it seems, is to declare
war on everybody, then be conquered by America. No wonder
we don't get no respect, dammit! Where did we go wrong,
Rich?!? We really need to work on this Imperialism stuff :-(
-Marshall
Sultan Of Swing
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:40:43 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >We shouldn't disband the
> >entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right
now.
> >But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum
military
> >to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
> >military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could
grab
> >men from with in the country, a draft.
>
> War is far too complex now to be won with people fresh out of boot
> camp. When remoted helicopter dropped weapons can automatically
> target anyone with contacts or glasses and gun them down, Joe Scmoe
> will be dead before his third day in the conflict. Shock troops only
> work until the real army is in place, and if you don't have a real
> army than you have lost before the conflict has even begun. It
> would be like a kindergarten football team going up against an NFL
> team. In war you either go big or stay at home. This isn't a case
> where you can lose the superbowl and try again next year.
With the hundreds of positions a person can apply for with in just
the army there has to be some jobs a person can do fresh out of boot
camp. Some of them don't really seem like they need much training at
all. Not to mention there are people in civilian jobs that do have the
required experience to handle some of that high-tech equipment. And if
you really believe the military needs better trained personel, just
require some month-long training program as part of a high school
diploma. Teach them to use some of the gadgetry, or train them in the
use of fire-arms, or whatever you want to do with them. Then you'll let
them out into the work force with some type of skill, and you'll have
people somewhat pretrained for the draft.
> >You're saying that if we don't
> >have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
> >flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
> >military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw.
>
> A strong militray that rules the country, is indeed a flaw. One that
> our wise founding fathers avoided.
Replace the word flaw with fall. I'm high on pain killers right now.
> >If we lessen the military, we put the state in less danger. If the
USA falls
> >internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long
time.
>
> The only danger the US Military poises is being a burden on the
> economy (which it is far worse than the entitlement programs). If you
> had to choose between surrendering to the Chinese or discontinuing
> social security, which would you choose?
It's not just a burdon, but it is a threat on the country as a
whole. If we don't shrink our military and our government, sooner or
later it'll lead to our downfall.
> > China isn't being kept back just because our military strength is
at
> >X and not X-1.
>
> I wish this were true. China is being tracked, but our fearless
> leader is ignoring it, because he is a fool of grave magnitude. His
> superior than thou attitude is dangerous, and may cost us a large
> number of American lives down the road. China doesn't think they are
> better than everyone else. They KNOW it. The Aryan ideals are a
> bunch of pansies compared to the hard-core 6,00+ year old ideals of
> superiority to be found in China.
If China wants a fight, it'll be an uphill battle all the way. They
don't really have a friend in the world, and a lot of countries will
make sure the heavy hitters like America, Japan, and most of Europe
don't get taken, especially with the new global economy.
> >Even with a major military cut China wouldn't be strong
> >enough to conquer us straight out.
>
> They don't really want our land, at least not for a long time. The
> Chinese think in terms of generations, not in terms of years or
> decades. The Chinese are'nt expecting to be militarily superior in
> 10-20 years. They are thinking in terms of 50-100 years. A patient
> and dangerous people. Just take a look at where the majority of
> Soviet nuclear weapons and conventional forces were aimed and stage to
> see who the USSR feared most- (it wasn't the US or Nato).
They'll be lucky if their government survives the next 50-100 years.
I doubt they'll still be around in the next century. They're currently
facing a major problem over there. If they allow new technology to be
introduced, they're also letting in forgien ideals which won't go over
too well, and if they deny the technology, they're in danger of falling
behind with the rest of the world.
> >With the many allies who are going to
> >protect us over economic concern, their own wellfare, or just for an
> >excuse to beat the shit out of China they'll never stand a chance.
There
> >are other countries out there with other militaries, and in a
situation
> >like that we could count on their aid. Likewise China knows it.
Besides
> >in a few decades this point will be void. Have you looked at China
> >lately? The country's falling apart,
>
> China is used to suffering. What we call poverty, they would call
> vast wealth. The Chinese are a strong resilient people, and once they
> learn how to adapt the capitalist system and retain their communist
> leadership, they will be a juggernaut. US Corporations will be at
> the front of financing this revolution (economic part).
China isn't going to be able to adapt communism to a capatalist
world. Even if they did manage, they'd soon see their communist ideas
falling apart. It just isn't possible. Communism itself tends to fall
apart rather quickly when its done the way China's doing it. I doubt
they'll be able to keep their heads above water all that much longer.
Pretty soon the country's government is going to fall, and we'll
probably see it with in this life time if not shortly after.
> > and as communism falls it's losing
> >most of its world strength.
>
> China and it's people are used to a centralized government. The
> Confucian ideal has been around long before Athens, and communism is
> just a re-working of the old system.
China's also learned that isolationism doesn't work, which is going
to be one of the big things working against their communist government.
In fact, if we really wanted to we could convince the entire world to
put an embargo on them, and then they'd be just about dead in twenty
years time, and easy to conquer.
> > Do you really think Iraq would formulate a serious attack against
> >the US. If they did, they wouldn't be there anymore. Even if they
took
> >us out, the rest of the free world would ride their ass into
submission.
>
>
> They don't need to take us out. They just need one big attack
> delivered somewhere. We can't very well take out a nation because of
> an attack by Hamas can we?
What will one big attack do against the USA? Is there really a
concern that a single attack by a country could seriously cripple this
nation?
> > And you think everyone's just going to let it happen?
>
> If China makes a move for Taiwan, it will be an even more precarious
> moment than the Cuban Missile Crisis. A couple times already, fleet
> exercises have been watched and guaged as to whether they were indeed
> preludes to a war between the US and China. I'm not pulling your leg
> on this stuff.
But China doesn't have an ally out there. If China goes to war,
it'll end up being the entire world vs. China. Who's going to win
something like that?
> >> War is an ugly evil horrifying thing. It should not be taken
lightly
> >> and all efforts to prevent it breaking out should be taken.
>
> > Then why don't we just destroy all the schools in this country,
make
> >every person between the ages of 18 and 40 join the military
>
> I do believe everyone should serve a couple years in one of the
> services, just as Israel does.
And I believe we should all be free to make our own choices in where
we want to spend the next few years, and that we should try to reduce
and not expand our military.
> >, get rid of most of our public programs,
>
> A big chunk of them can go. I never did understand how spending
> 200,000 for Airport art sculptures fed hungry people.
You're living in the wrong state. Out here stupid stuff like that is
funded by private industry. In fact I believe our airport has always
been self-dependent not taking any money from the state. And casino's
have built many of our rodes near the strip, put up a boardwalk and
light show on freemont street, and soon are going to be building us a
monorail system. Some idiots tried to fight the monorail system saying
it was a waste of money because it has yet to work in any city, but that
was a void arguement since the state isn't paying a dime for the thing,
it's getting it free of charge.
> >and have this country concentrate on being
> >nothing more than a military power so we'll have enough guns to
destroy
> >any country that even talks about us with a funny look in their eyes.
>
> Now you're talking! He he.
>
> >Then we can prevent any war from happening at any time. We can not go
to
> >an extreme to prevent any scenerio that may lead to a long drawn out
> >war. We need to concentrate on preventing the worst and most likely
> >scenerios. We also need to be more dependent on our allies.
>
> Our allies seem content with dumping the financial burden on us.
> Perhaps that is because we can afford it more than they, and perhaps
> they trust us with that power (for the nonce).
If we really needed all this military power, and we cut back on it a
bit, our allies would be forced to increase their military power and
pick up some of the tab on this. It's one thing to have the military for
the USA, it's another to pay to have a military for the USA and company.
Marshall 1
"Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:t14i3rc...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> China isn't going to be able to adapt communism to a capatalist
> world. Even if they did manage, they'd soon see their communist ideas
> falling apart. It just isn't possible. Communism itself tends to fall
> apart rather quickly when its done the way China's doing it. I doubt
> they'll be able to keep their heads above water all that much longer.
> Pretty soon the country's government is going to fall, and we'll
> probably see it with in this life time if not shortly after.
Within this lifetime, or shortly thereafter, is "soon"? Hehe.
You know, I really hope you're right- I honestly do. But I'm
not going to bet the farm on it ;-)
-Marshall
PS: if you're right, and the current military dictatorship of
China (it's truly only 'communist' in name, anymore) takes
the big dive in the next decade (a realistic definition of
"soon"), instead of getting stronger and more dangerous,
I'll buy ya a case of your favorite brew. I'll be glad to pay
up, and you can hold me to that :-)
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
but in the cartoons you can just tip the whole mess over into the
water are you going against the cartoons? I'm against aerial blasts
because I don't want the crap up in the jetstream. Philosophical
difference I suppose. : )
Mike
wrote:
>"Dalai Lama" <daia...@aol.kom> wrote in message
>news:3a108cda...@news.qwest.net...
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:43:56 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think Tcells made a good point. If we halved our military
>power,
>> >who'd be strong enough to attack us even then?
>>
>> Anyone who wanted to. You could attack a miltary base yourself with a
>> big wet noodle if you wanted to. It is the perceived outcome that
>> matters to the attacker. They may not be after winning, they may
>> only be after ruining things for the USA or it's allies. Look at it
>> this way, With one big Ryder truck full of McVey materials, you
>> couldn't take over Las Vegas, but you could sure do a lot of damage.
>> The point of the military isn't just to keep us from being taken over,
>> it's to keep us from being attacked if at all possible, and to bring
>> any conflcit under control and minimize causualties as quickly as
>> possible.
>
> But what's the point. We're blowing billions for a very long shot
>what-if situation, when that money could be put to a lot better use with
>in the country itself. If a conflict were drawn out a bit longer, we'll
>lose X amount of lives over it. If that money is put into use through
>out the country, we can save X * Y lives. We shouldn't disband the
>entire military, mainly because it's needed for our survival right now.
>But it doesn't need to be as big as it is. We do need a minimum military
>to protect us from worse case scenerios, and handle our essential
>military actions abroad. If we do get into an all out war, we could grab
>men from with in the country, a draft. You're saying that if we don't
>have the military we become weaker and at a high risk of an external
>flaw. What history has shown over and over is that a strong standing
>military is one of the main factors in an internal flaw. If we lessen
>the military, we put the state in less danger. If the USA falls
>internally, the whole damn world's going to be in chaos for a long time.
>
It will seem to have been very cheap when we have to spend billionsx10
to catch up later, if that's even possible......
Mike aka MM
--
Dame Magelet level 29 Sorceress
Off topic? whats that :^P
Rich G.
recounts the hand-count always seems to come out in favor of Gore? I
mean, statistically if it's a machine screw up shouldn't it be a bit
more even handed? Increasing BOTH numbers a bit? It seems that the
hand count finds 100 for Gore and 7 for Bush. Can someone make this
make sense to me? The only thing I can figure is that there is
cheating happening BIG time cheating because this is the highest
political seat in the land.
Honestly... EVERY recount coming out in Gore's favor by SUCH a large
margin... doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?
Sultan Of Swing
>
> History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
> sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important to
> pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
> situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
> template... or any other for that matter.
The thing is though, the theory is taken from observations of every
known state to ever exist. It isn't just the fall of the Roman Empire or
any other that is being considered, it's the fall of every state in
existence. It'd be selective reasoning to believe that although every
other state in position X has fallen, but ours won't just because.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
But I would argue that the Roman Empire didn't fall but DID cease to
exist as it once did and grew/transformed/evolved and that we are a
continuation of that empire today. I think we can be traced back to
England from there to Rome, yes, it is different but I think it has
grown, not died out.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:56:53 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
>leaned forward and whispered:
>
>>"Rich G." <psyb...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:7q241t412a72058qn...@4ax.com...
>>> >
>>> >Where's your logic?
>>>
>>> History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
>>> sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important to
>>> pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
>>> situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
>>> template... or any other for that matter.
>>
>> The thing is though, the theory is taken from observations of every
>>known state to ever exist. It isn't just the fall of the Roman Empire or
>>any other that is being considered, it's the fall of every state in
>>existence. It'd be selective reasoning to believe that although every
>>other state in position X has fallen, but ours won't just because.
>
>But I would argue that the Roman Empire didn't fall but DID cease to
>exist as it once did and grew/transformed/evolved and that we are a
>continuation of that empire today. I think we can be traced back to
>England from there to Rome, yes, it is different but I think it has
>grown, not died out.
Hopefully while I'm offline. : ( I'll be able to come up with some
evidence other than what I've given here. Perhaps those more learned
than myself can take up the idea while I'm away. This will probably be
my last time online until I get to Des Moines, after Friday
sometime... Oh God give me strength.
Sultan Of Swing
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:56:53 -0800, "Sultan Of Swing" <r...@lvcm.com>
> leaned forward and whispered:
>
> >"Rich G." <psyb...@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:7q241t412a72058qn...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >Where's your logic?
> >>
> >> History is the example he's using. I have a problem extrapolating
> >> sometimes past events onto today. While I believe it is important
to
> >> pay attention to history and study it for trends I don't think our
> >> situation today can accurately be overlaid on a Roman Empire
> >> template... or any other for that matter.
> >
> > The thing is though, the theory is taken from observations of
every
> >known state to ever exist. It isn't just the fall of the Roman Empire
or
> >any other that is being considered, it's the fall of every state in
> >existence. It'd be selective reasoning to believe that although every
> >other state in position X has fallen, but ours won't just because.
>
> But I would argue that the Roman Empire didn't fall but DID cease to
> exist as it once did and grew/transformed/evolved and that we are a
> continuation of that empire today. I think we can be traced back to
> England from there to Rome, yes, it is different but I think it has
> grown, not died out.
The Roman government was the prelude to our existence, but that
doesn't mean the government didn't fall. It did, the form of government
of the Romans is long since dead. That would be like saying the Incas
and the Mayas didn't die, they were transformed and melded into modern
American countries. If you want more evidence, after the fall of Rome
most of Europe turned to the feudal system of government. The feudal
system was a step down from what Rome had already achieved, and it took
hundreds of years to recover what was lost. If Rome just evolved into
modern countries it would be logical that the evolution would be in a
forward direction, not a backwards one.
Grand Fromage
>any other that is being considered, it's the fall of every state in
>existence.
Besides, as I recall the Roman Empire fell because of infighting in the
government and dissention across the empire, along with the split into east and
west by Constantinople or whoever.
Dalai Lama
wrote:
>but in the cartoons you can just tip the whole mess over into the
>water are you going against the cartoons? I'm against aerial blasts
>because I don't want the crap up in the jetstream. Philosophical
>difference I suppose. : )
Ah, but think of the fun you'd have that way:
<Intercom Chime>
--Soothing female voice, over the 737 speakers--
"The captain has turned on the seat belt sign. Please return to your
seats at this time as the ride ahead may get a little bumpy. If you
look out your cabin windows, you should be able to make out some of
the Palm Beach voters as we plow through them."
Sultan Of Swing
Yeah. If a nuclear bomb drops on your city, your average school desk
is more than adequate protection to save you from any serious injury.
Seriously though we had drills in high school in case of a toxic
leak because of how many toxic materials get shipped through the state.
In the drill the teacher of every classroom was responsible for taping
up all the doors and air vents, and the janitors were responsible for
going on the roof and shutting the vents. Then we'd all be safe of the
toxic gases. Even in the portables which were about as air tight as your
average homemade tool shed.
I had a chemistry teacher one year who refused to participate
because of the idiocy involved in the plan. Said, "Do you really think
the minimum wage janitors that you treat like shit are going to
sacrifice their lives closing the air vents for you when they can get
away?" He also told us that our best bet for survival was to leave
campus, get in a car, and drive away. Because everyone else was trapping
themselves up inside the school there wouldn't be a panicky traffic jam
getting out of the parking lot that would prevent us from leaving before
the fumes became fatal. He said that was his plan if the drill was ever
real, and we were invited to do whatever the hell we wanted as he made
his escape.
Then again I had a lot of teachers who said the plan would keep us
safe if we just stayed inside the classroom, because if we went outside
our lungs would be torn out of our body and we'd die or something to
that effect. Can't really remember now.
Sultan Of Swing
news:7hqQ5.924$d73....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
> news:vzjQ5.23$0W....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >
> > Marshall 1 wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Freedom is not maintained by allowing the defenses of free nations
> > >to lapse into apathy and disrepair.
> >
> > True, but it is a matter of degree. Whether you like it or not,
there are
> > many people who argue that the US, or any other foreign military
power on
> > their soil or in their waters is taking away their freedom.
>
forces
> on foreign soil, to maintain our defenses at an acceptable level. But,
> with the realities of the world as it is, it is not possible to deter
some
> regional troublemakers from dreams of glory, by pulling all our forces
> back to the States, and giving all of our servicemen and women every
> weekend off to go to the local Wal Mart. Deterrence isn't a 9-to-5,
> 40-hour week, and then take-the-batteries-out-of-your-pager kind of
> duty... and it doesn't have much affect, from 12,000 miles away.
OK, take the US, take all the US allies, take all the neutral
countries where it would be in their best interest to see the US or any
of its allies retain their sovernity. Now take the sum total of all the
possible threats that may take place against the US and the free world
as a whole. Which is bigger by a huge margin? And don't go off saying
China's military strength is ten times that of ours now that president
so-and-so gave them some technology. China still has a reletively weak
military in comparrison to the free world.
> > This has been learned (and sadly,
> > >'relearned') many times, over the course of history. Until there is
> > >never again a chance of any megalomaniac or religious fanatic (or
> > >groups thereof, etc.) taking control of any country with the
ability or
> > >the potential ability to actively threaten world peace in any way,
> >
> > but, but, but that is how they see it *happening* *now*
>
> Who is 'they', and what exactly do 'they' see happening?
He's saying you've fallen victim to megalomaniac propaganda.
> > and
> > >humans learn to live together as lambs in the pasture <grin>,
> > >there will always be a need to maintain them, and to do it well.
> > >Those who argue otherwise, are just asking for a repeat of the
> > >awful and costly mistakes of history. Work for peace, yes- but
don't
> > >just lay down and roll over and expect those who would gladly take
> > >your freedom away (or the freedom of many other nations who de-
> > >pend on your defenses to support their own weaker ones), to not
> > >take notice.
> >
> > and don't overdo so much either or else you run risk of becoming the
real
> > threat to people's freedom
>
> 'Overdo'? Explain, please? For the past decade, the US military has
> shrunk drastically, in all branches, from it's Cold War strength. We
> barely have half the carrier task-forces at sea at any time, that we
> did then. We truly no longer have the ability to fight more than one
> regional conflict at a time, anymore. So if two seperate countries
> (North Korea and Iraq/Iran, for example) were smart and devious
> enough to launch simultaneous trouble, we'd have to write one of
> them off as a lost cause. Worst case scenario- but trouble doesn't
> always play nice and fair. Or, I guess we could just not bother.
I doubt either one is capable of serious trouble that couldn't be
depressed with in a matter of weeks if not days. Besides, there are
other militaries out there. There are other countries that can help
clean up the mess. It isn't just fighting patriots of the USA vs. all
the tyranny and utter evil of the world. Besides our military force is a
hell of a lot stronger than just prior to WW2, and we fought in both
Europe and Asia then.
> What has the rest of the ungrateful world done for us, lately?
> All we ever catch is *shit*, for being there, and keeping the worst
> of the chaos at bay. Maybe the isolationists have a point... perhaps
> we shoulda just stayed home, and let Tojo and Yamamoto have the
> south seas for their private playground. You guys mighta done just
> fine without our help, anyway- you'd probably still have numerous
> bands of brave resistance fighters out in the bush and in the hills,
> to this day. Besides, the Sydney opera house might've looked even
> cooler, with pagodas on it. If we'd known our strong military would
> be seen as such a threat_to_people's_freedom, we surely wouldn't
> have overstepped our bounds, to assist you. My apologies to you
> and your country, for the presumptuous and unneeded actions of
> our grandfathers in uniform- but, in their defense, they could not
> have realized that their existence and assistance was somehow
> making you less free.
Oh the US government has willingly and knowingly, along with its
troops, opressed freedom with in other countries for its own gain many
times in its history. Besides the main point is, what the hell is a
billion dollars worth of American military sitting in Australia really
going to do as a deterant anyways? If China attacks, they know they'll
have a war on their hands. All we do is put a partial delay on full
support. So what's the point of it being there?
> > > Sure, we in the free world could decide 'to hell with it', and
just
> > >stop keeping up our militaries... and we'd probably be fine and
dan-
> > >dy for a while, maybe even a decade or two. But how long would it
> > >take, before Taiwan was 're-integrated' by force, if the Mainland
> > >knew they didn't have a thing to worry about, from the US Navy?
> > >How long before Iraq or Iran figured out that grabbing the other
> > >rich Persian Gulf oil states would be a walk in the park? You think
> > >OPEC is bad now... bwuhahahaaaaa!!!!
> > >
> >
> > Well it is *their* oil, what ever happened to free enterprise?
>
> So, if Indonesia decides that your lucrative kiwi-fruit market would
> make a nice addition to their national GNP, and comes and stomps
> you and takes it over, I guess we should shrug our shoulders and
> say "Oh well, it's just free enterprise at work"? Or are you referring
> to OPEC's pricing? If so, yeah, that's business. We can bitch, but
> nobody here's gonna invade Saudi Arabia, just because light sweet
> crude just went up to $40 a barrel. Well, maybe the Europeans...
> can't speak for them ;-)
What do you think dessert storm was all about? We showed those Arabs
what western guns could do to them if they got too greedy with their oil
prices. Besides, its not like OPEC is the world's only supplier of oil.
Hell, we got enough in the states to last us at least a few more
centuries before we've dried up every option. More than enough time to
figure out an alternative energy source.
> > > Would the weak and undermanned US Army, with less than half
> > >the divisions of the early 90's (already!), be anything to really
be
> > >reckoned with anymore, after a further sorry decade or two of neg-
> > >lect? How long before China decided that the extremely vast, rich
> > >and almost completely unpopulated land of Siberia was a good
> > >spot for their overflowing billions to 'annex'? (with tanks, of
course).
> >
> > China is a huge country. Would have the huge US forces kept during
the
> cold
> > war come to the aid of the USSR?
>
> Probably not during the Cold War, but now? Who knows. Not I ;)
> It would be a toughie, as they could probably roll over whatever
> the Russians have left there in a week, if they really decided to.
> But if we let our forces deteriorate too much further, there wouldn't
> even *be* the option, even if the Russians asked. But, desperate
> nations do desperate things... I wouldn't be surprise if the Russians
> used nukes, if that ever happened. Ouch- goodnight.
And I start to wonder what the world ever did before America became
a world power... it must have been some dark times. And didn't Dalia
already explain what the consequences of a nuclear strike would most
likely be in the long term and global effects?
> > > Power abhors a vacuum, and sombody always appears, to fill it.
> >
> > true, and there's other powers eg economic
>
> True. And the most dangerous of powers, is a burgeoning new
> world power feeling its oats, wanting to make a place for itself
> in the sun, by either economic or military or both- one with not
enough
> natural resources of its own, and a desperate desire for lebensraum...
> Japan and Germany of the 1930's fit that classic mold pretty well...
I'll
> leave speculation as to who best fills that mold today, up to your
> imagination.
You talking about Russia? You think they're going to go after new
terrotories as their country rises in power? Even after the fall of
imperialism, and the old communist government which ruled not only
Russia but the surronding countries? I know, they can call the whole
thing the USSR for short.
Or do you mean China? China isn't really all that new of a power. In
fact its already dying at the roots.
Maybe iraq or iran or something along those lines. I doubt it.
Besides they really aren't all that powerful in the scheme of things.
You got someone else in mind?
Besides, there were a lot of factors that lead to Germany's uprising
and success, many of which are safe-gaurded against today.
> Oh, and in regards to your comment on any kind of 'dominating'
> military-might being unnecessary- firstly, if the US had wanted to
> 'dominate' the world (and I'm talking as in 'jack-boots and gulags',
> not as in 'running the best economy in the world and maintaining
> the strongest military'), we would have been in a perfect position to
> do so militarily, at the end of WWII. Instead, we gave Germany
> and Japan back their lands and freedom, and they are now two of the
> world's leading economic powers, in no way controlled by us.
Yeah, that was the smart thing to do when you look at the historical
record. Exactly the opposite was done at the end of WW1, and that led up
to WW2. America wasn't going to be stupid and put itself at risk of
being the cause of WW3. Not to mention after the fall of Nazi Germany
imperialism started to fall out of favor, which means that holding
Germany longer than nessecary may have resulted in an all out war
between Europe and the states.
On
> the contrary, they can often be quite vexing on different issues...
> but that's life, in the Free World ;) And you might ask the West
> German villagers who lived along the Fulda Gap, whether they
> thought a 'dominating' American (and British and French, at least
> earlier in the Cold War) presence was a bad thing, as they watched
> Stalin's hundreds of hardened tank divisions loitering a mile or two
> away. Ask them, if they would have preferred to live on the *other*
> side of those fences, away from American 'oppression' ;-) Or the
> people of West Berlin, when the US planes of the Berlin Airlift were
the
> only lifeline between them and the Commissars. Don't ever forget,
> that the whole chain of Soviet regimes, from Stalin on, repeatedly
> *promised* to destroy western capitalism, and replace it with commu-
> nism- by any_means_necessary. I'm not making that up- go look up
> some old Pravda stories or film-clips- from Stalin, to Kruschev, to
etc.
> "We will bury you."
And I'm sure the Russians loved it when we sent support to the
"white" side of its civil war, prolonging it even longer to no effect
after the war had already left scars across the country, and instigating
the whole Cold War thing with it. Or how about that time we invaded
Hatia with our marines and forced them to elect the president of our
choice. You remember that time we flooded a little island with american
buisness men and chinesse laborers, then after becoming bigger than the
native population convinced the American government to intervine, kill
their queen, and take it over as a US territory to save some money. Or
how about that time we just kept sending soldiars off to Vietnam to get
killed, and when their bodies came back we just sent more. Wouldn't even
declare it a war. After-all it was just normal diplomatic procedure. But
the good part was we made sure none of the rich kids got killed. If
their families were rich enough to send them to college, we saw to it
that they were excluded from the draft. See, we have some heart.
> You focus on the bad things that happened from the Cold War, re-
> sulting from the standoff and global jockeying done between the West
> and East... yes, there was much wrong facilitated against various
> peoples, by both sides- no one can deny that. But if not for the
West's
> 'dominating' deterrent forces, those bad things would have seemed
> as insignificant as a gnat bite, compared to the much worse events
> that would have happened. Of that, I am certain.
Read above. If not for the west's intervention, there may never have
been a cold war.
> I don't believe there is any need, at this time, to build up
anybody's
> military to those levels, again. But the reverse is also true- it is
> never a good time, to let them slide into atrophy (until human nature
> improves markedly, anyway).
There is a difference between disbanding the military, melting all
our weapons, and rellying on minute men to protect us again and reducing
our military.
> > was only a minor
> > >but quite graphic scenario of what our species is still quite
capable of
> > >doing, on a much vaster scale.
> >
> > We let it go on for 30 years, how much better are we?
>
> But 'we' (you/us/whomever) finally put a stop to it, no? Can't
> change the past, but we can certainly learn from it, and do our
> best to improve those bad situations when possible, now. Are
> you condemning today's people for all the mistakes of the past,
> with no possibility of redemption? Surely you're not that harsh
> and inflexible?
Has there been any redemption? Despite what patriotic beliefs you
may hold, America looks out for itself, and the American government
looks out for its upper-classed. So whatever America does, it's most
likely something that'll be good for the american upper-class.
There is no massive threat to the free world right now that can not
be handled by the combined military force of the free world. With the
current state of the economy, no one wants to see any non-third world
capatalist country fall.
> > The examples are
> > >endless, and sobering. Let our military deterrent wane to nothing?
> >
> > There's a difference between a deterrent and being over sized.
>
> Absolutely. And in my opinion, the US is teetering right on the
> edge of slipping from serious deterrent status, into being unable
> to quickly and forcefully honor its defensive commitments to our
> friends around the world, if they should desperately need help. We'll
> see what the next administration does. I in no way wish for a 'Reagan
> Era' type buildup, that is totally unnecessary, since the fall of the
> Soviet Union. At this point, just keeping the military from deterior-
> ating even more, is the key need.
Why should we have to quickly and forcefully honor defensive
commitments. It's about time a few other countries started to build up
their militaries to even the scales a bit. Why should europeans get free
health care, free weekend spa getaways, and a lot of other benifits of a
monetary surplus and all I get is a huge army. The truth is America
wants to be the biggest in the world, because as the biggest in the
world it can use its military might to control the economic and
political status of nearly any country it chooses, and that control can
be used to bring higher economic returns to American based buisnesses,
which are more than happy that their customers and employees are paying
out money they can't afford to fund a very large and unnessecary army.
After all, if we were on even terms with France or Britan, they may just
step in at some point and say, "You know what, we don't think you should
do that."
You mean like how we were upset when we went to go support the
allied troops in Europe and those ungrateful Germans just opened fire on
us. Oh right, we were giving aid to their opposition.
Sure, the UN botched the whole operation, we
> should never have let those idiotic clowns from the Tower of Babel
> in New York (UN building) give orders to our troops to go capture the
> bloody bastards. So, where shall you and me and the boys go fix up
> next? Chechnya? Tibet? Kashmere? Afghanistan? Chase the Iraqi's
> and Turks and Iranians out of ancient Kurdistan? Hehe, hop on the
boat,
> mate! You'll find out just what a shitty, thankless, and often futile
job
> it is, trying to be an international Mountie, the 'World's Policemen',
> for everybody.
You kind of get the feeling that its maybe because we do more evil
than good around the world? You said you didn't believe we should be in
any country that we weren't wanted in earlier.
Rich G.
leaned forward and whispered:
> The Roman government was the prelude to our existence, but that
>doesn't mean the government didn't fall. It did, the form of government
>of the Romans is long since dead. That would be like saying the Incas
>and the Mayas didn't die, they were transformed and melded into modern
>American countries. If you want more evidence, after the fall of Rome
>most of Europe turned to the feudal system of government. The feudal
>system was a step down from what Rome had already achieved, and it took
>hundreds of years to recover what was lost. If Rome just evolved into
>modern countries it would be logical that the evolution would be in a
>forward direction, not a backwards one.
>
OK, Let me rephrase the Roman culture still seems to be alive. We've
still got their words and customs today. That their government changed
forms is ok with me. That ours will/has changed is also ok with me.
Change for the better is not bad just painful. The Mayans and Incans
DID die. how many of their words/customs are you aware of today? How
many do you use? Their culture is dead dead dead. The Romans is not. I
think for our government to have lasted as long as it has in the same
condition is a good thing...
I am not against change. I'm for doing away with the electoral
college. I'm for doing away with Federal control of local decisions
(That blood-alcohol tolerance law that just passed should be declared
illegal and thrown out.) I'm for making politicians accountable to the
same laws as you and me. I'm for some sort of law that requires the
media to be accountable for what they say/print/publish. I'm for a
mandatory draft of at least 2 years for all citizens... if you really
push me I'd require it for those citizens to have the right to vote,
but I won't say it out loud because people say that's an infringement
of their freedoms, but if they're not willing to fight for their
freedom I don't think they should enjoy them. *shrug* That's just me
though. I'm against the three strikes you're out laws for violent
offenders. I'm against quota laws and discrimination.
For most of what I'm for to happen our government would have to change
drastically. Whether or not it were called a 'collapse' I'm not sure.
But I believe that the culture would survive, and that is more
important to me than a particular government. That's not to say that a
governmental style doesn't affect culture. I think it does. American
culture as we know it could not exist under a communist or socialist
regime... no matter how much we try to make it.
Most days I'm in favor of a governmental collapse as I can't stand a
government/culture that encourages people to think that all problems
can be solved through litigation or government intervention. Would it
be ugly? Yes. Would people die, lots of them? Yes. But you know...
there are days I'm not against that either. No, I'm not advocating the
whole sale slaughter of people who disagree with me. But I'm hopeful
that some of the first to go would be a) lawyers b) the whining
panty-wastes of the sort who do something they KNOW is wrong and then
sue or bitch about it. c) punks that run off at the mouth and then go
hide behind the police and restraining orders etc when they get what
they deserve, a punch in the mouth. Yes... I kinda am for social
darwinism. *shrug* Sue me.
OK, this thing is being taken apart and put in the car in about an
hour so I'd better get moving.
Nobody move until I get back.