Gun Bearer Has Pointed Discussion With Police Officer

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Deanimator

<snip>

Never confuse a lack of will with a lack of means.

A man with a machinegun which he refuses to use will always be subjugated by a man with a pool cue who's willing to use it.

Sig-worthy.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

That's basically mercantilist thinking.

or realistic thinking...

Our imperialistic (your word!) foreign policy raised the price of oil.

who do you think discovered oil in the middle east? who set up the drilling operations, etc.?

there wouldn't be any oil coming out of the middle east at all if not for our (and britain's) imperial foreign policies. further, oil capacity in other parts of the world would not have been developed to the extent they have been because the market would not have developed to the extent it did.

and, without the oil market developing the way it did, our economy would not likely have been nearly as dynamic as it has been.

of course, it is possible that some alternative would have been developed...maybe we would even have "mr. fusion" by now (not actually likely), but it is impossible to really say.

Especially during the Carter years, when American dependence on foreign oil increased many-fold.

and the standard of living in this country began to really skyrocket.

now, whether our relatively ridiculous level of material comfort justifies our foreign policy or is worth our dependence on foreign oil is certainly quite debatable, but we seriously would not enjoy the material comforts we enjoy today without the global oil market developing the way it has...unless some other equally cheap, available, and convenient form of energy were developed in its place.

Not technically: a civil war is a war over control of the central government. In the war between the states, sovereign states exercised their right of secession. But if "civil war" excuses what Lincoln did, then it also excuses Saddam: an organized assassination attempt by the kurds is an honest-to-God act of civil war.

ok, call our "civil war" whatever you want. and saddam has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

the issue is: would the american people tolerate the government launching a missile strike against an american town? i say the answer, outside of a "civil war" (or whatever you want to call it), is "no".

If New Jersey (in my hypothetical) attempted to assassinate Bush, (1) he would accuse them of starting a civil war, and (2) he wouldn't hesitate to attack them.

the whole state attempted to assassinate him? that's pretty much civil war.

the american people would not, however, tolerate a missile strike on trenton just because a few people who happened to be from trenton tried to assassinate bush.

Right--that's underway right now. Posse comitatus is history.

i don't disagree. but i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No, we don't. You're thinking like a mercantilist again. The cronies don't "get cheap oil and pass the savings on to us" or some such free-market slogan.

and you are not understanding the dynamics of the international oil market or the role of cheap oil in our economy again.

They get vast taxpayer subsidies that come out of our hide, and then they get government protectionism and other policies which allows them to take it out of our hides again when they sell us the gas. We get screwed going and coming.

yep. and we should get rid of all that.

but the fact remains that the only reason there is any cheap oil to be had is a direct result of imperialistic british and american foreign policy supported by the british and american armies (as i somewhat outlined above).

and the fact also remains that without cheap oil, our economy would not be so vibrant and would not have produced such a high standard of living for us.

remember, the point of this discussion is whether or not to get rid of the army...not whether or not to stamp out corruption in our government.

we can certainly get rid of the corruption and be better off. but, if we did not have a standing army, oil would be more expensive and in limited supply...and that would have a detrimental effect on our economy and, thus, our standard of living.

It's sounding to me like you're falling for the idea that government somehow promotes economic activity, by supplying cheap gas or whatever.

it sounds to me like you do not understand the origins of the oil market and think that it would have developed without imperialistic british and american foreign policies. it would not have...at least not nearly to the extent it has.

regarding nuclear energy...that isn't really relevant since:

1. mr. fusion is not going to happen anytime soon if ever (the technological hurdles are somewhere close to the realm of practically impossible to overcome); and

2. we don't use foreign oil for power generation. nuclear power plants are certainly a viable alternative to our current most popular method of power generation (though nuclear power is not without its share of problems), but we use domestic coal and natural gas for power generation, not foreign oil.

The pie would be bigger without them, and they wouldn't be stealing half.

the pie would be smaller without western discovery and development of oil reserves in other parts of the world (particularly the middle east)...and that would not have happened if we did not have an imperialistic foreign policy...and we could not have such a policy without a standing army.

anyway, we have gotten just a wee bit off track of the original thread.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

or realistic thinking...

Nope. Mercantilism is fundamentally a fallacy. It's superficially plausible, which is why it never seems to die.

and the standard of living in this country began to really skyrocket.

To the extent we really became wealthier, it was in spite of Carter's runaway inflation, not because of it. Some of the wealth was also illusory, though--like the bubble wealth of the last couple decades. The sharp decline in living standard that we're about to experience isn't actually a decline in real wealth; it's just the ripping away of a facade.

now, whether our relatively ridiculous level of material comfort

Trust me, we're on the brink of a serious depression. You won't be talking about our ridiculous level of comfort for much longer. We enjoyed our recent excesses by consuming our wealth, and we're about to find out how much poorer that consumption has left us.

ok, call our "civil war" whatever you want. and saddam has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

His legal defense was compelling: he was stamping out resistance just like every government always does. if they let him keep talking, people might realize that that's what government IS.

the issue is: would the american people tolerate the government launching a missile strike against an american town? i say the answer, outside of a "civil war" (or whatever you want to call it), is "no".

They didn't use a missile in Waco, but I'm afraid your confidence is clearly misplaced. Americans can be turned against South Bend, IN, as easily as they're being turned against Tehran right now.

i don't disagree. but i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Eventually people will realize there's no baby. It's all dirty water.

the pie would be smaller without western discovery and development of oil reserves in other parts of the world (particularly the middle east)...

That's not true, plain and simple. Anything worth having will be found by humans, who will then use it in trade. Government doesn't make things like that possible; they're already not only possible but inevitable. All government does is increase the cost in infinitely varied ways, starting with claiming the resource as its own to distribute, spending our blood and treasure to defend that claim, and stealing a cut off the top.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by Deanimator

You don't understand your own point.

Never confuse a lack of will with a lack of means.

A man with a machinegun which he refuses to use will always be subjugated by a man with a pool cue who's willing to use it.

You're trying to be subtle about doing just what I said not to: you're trying to say that we could totally subdue Afghanistan and turn it into a secular, peaceful, pro-western democracy, except that we're prevented by gutless politicians tying the military's hand. You said it much smoother than it's usually said, but it's still bullshit.

Pretend for the moment that you have infinite money, infinite resources, infinite manpower, and absolute freedom to do anything you can conceive of in Afghanistan. With those infinite resources at your disposal, how do you propose to turn Afghanistan into a pro-western democracy? If you think it through honestly, you will realize that you can't even with infinite resources and infinite will. This isn't a problem of will.

Pretend further that we're not talking about Afghanistan; pretend we're talking about a single man. Your task is to make him your friend against his will. You have a perfectly free hand, and infinite resources. You can use all the force that God Himself could muster. So, how will you go about making this man your friend?

Now multiply that by 32 million. Maybe you'll get it through your head that this isn't a matter of bringing enough force to bear.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

They didn't use a missile in Waco

they also did not attack *waco* at all. (and a lot of people actually were quite upset about what happened there.)

at any rate, it's been an interesting discussion, but we are going all over the place, and i have to go vote before the polls close, so i am bowing out.

[Deanimator]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

You're trying to be subtle about doing just what I said not to: you're trying to say that we could totally subdue Afghanistan and turn it into a secular, peaceful, pro-western democracy, except that we're prevented by gutless politicians tying the military's hand. You said it much smoother than it's usually said, but it's still bullshit.

You don't understand political power, how its obtained or how it's maintained. You don't understand the use of force.

I suggest you read "Stalin's Secret War" by Tolstoy, "In the Time of Stalin" by Antonov-Ovseenko, "Stalin and the Kirov Murder" by Conquest, and "Stalin" by DeJonge.

You simply don't understand.

[Pa. Patriot]

The standing armies discussion has drifted completely away from the topic. Let's tie it back in or take it to another thread, eh?

[4XLT]

thank you grilla!!!!!

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

100,000,000 men with an M1A and a supply of .308 is more than adequate to repel any imaginable invasion that doesn't include those creatures from Aliens. That's why those smart old dead white dudes invented a rule that government may not restrain any free man's right to keep and bear arms.

Which 100,000 men? You, maybe? Do you have, like, 99,999 'top condition', fiercely trained, battle-tested clones your taking with you? Did we suddenly enter the Star Wars universe?

If you're talking about ordinary civilians, whose gonna coordinate them? Heck, we can barely get people to line up without a hassle at the walmart checkout registers! Do you really think that the only thing to a modern military force (one like America's, for instance) is that they are just 'a bunch a guys with rifles'?

I mean, seriously, dude... If you don't understand how a professional, well equipped and trained modern military works by now - I can't help you.

Originally Posted by Adam-12

I don't quite get how you're going from "no standing army" to "isolated in every way." Free trade is conducted by regular people, not soldiers.

That's where 100,000,000 men with M1As and a supply of .308 get out of bed, shoot twice and go home.

There's something dishonest about the term "isolationist" here. It's not your fault; the term wasn't your idea. But by that word you're saying that free trade in goods, services and ideas is "isolation" and a "screw 'em" mentality. The only way to NOT be isolated and to show our love for our fellow man is to shoot and bomb the shit out of them. Tens of thousands of Iraqis with no ties to terror would love it if we'd go for some of that "isolation" stuff--except they're already dead.

Then there is 'politics'.

International Relations sometimes means more than simple "economic trade".

Look, when you're hanging out with your buddy do you say: "Look, man... I love you an' all... but if you get jumped or sme'en... I mean, you know I got your back an' all... but, first, I have to go home and tell my wife... and all my other friends... and, you know, hit the gym for a couple of weekends... before I can come back and help you out in that fight. You understand, right?"

Personally, a "buddy" like that drops to the bottom of my "buddy" list.

I hope I'm wrong, but it almost seems almost as though, 'between the lines', you are pulling a John Kerry here and saying that American troops tend to do nothing but run around raping and pillaging.

Originally Posted by Adam-12

See above. It's a strange sort of philanthropy that feels good about itself only when it's made a bad situation incredibly worse, slaughtered thousands upon thousands, and fucked up the lives of the rest beyond repair.

And I know you can't be saying that American 'military involvement' in Iraq is responsible for "tens of thousands" of innocent Iraqi lives... so I must be reading what you wrote wrongly.

Heck, even CNN and John Stewart don't claim American soldiers have killed "tens of thousands" of Iraqis.

Originally Posted by Adam-12

It's a bit like saying that I'm a "reclusive" neighbor because I have cookouts, borrow a cup of sugar, and help you rake your leaves. The only way for me to start being an involved, caring neighbor is if I come over there with a shotgun, kill your dog and rape your wife.

That just about sums up your idea, from how I understand it.

Send a bunch of average men, with no interest in 'tactics' or 'following orders' or... well pretty, much anything having to do with why they are there, hand them a rifle and set them loose in a foreign land.

That is your solution, right?

Originally Posted by Adam-12

Those things are issues, yes. It's one of the biggest reasons that government must be stopped: it can't be trusted with those kinds of destructive implements. But you're assuming that the only way to protect ourselves against such attacks is to empower our own strongman, give him that kind of awesome power over us, and then pray to him to keep us safe. Since we actually know human nature first-hand, it's kind of hard to believe we could be that stupid. At least when our forefathers prayed to the storm gods for protection, they didn't already know for absolute certain that the storm gods were untrustworthy bastards.

We already know the cure is worse than the disease. There are better ways to deal with these types of threats.

As Ive said (ad nauseum) I emphatically agree that there are serious problems with out government. These issues certainly need to be worked out.

However, disbanding our military is just about the stupidest, sophomoric, moronic idea as a solution to the problems with our government.

I agree we certainly need a 'change in leadership' (to say the very least - as a 'place to start', anyway) - heck, we haven't seen a government I'm at all happy with since 1987 (probably before you were born, or close to it), and even then it was far from "perfect".

We have the greatest country ever conceived of. The biggest problem are the people who keep trying to "improve" on the original ideas - on this point, we probably agree.

However, if you are convinced that there is simply no need for America to have a "professional military" - especially with the way the world is today - then either you and I have completely different information regarding what is happening (in the world) or, in my humble opinion, you are incredibly naive.

Either way, I don't see the point in trying to reason with you any further. Either way, we "live in two different worlds".
.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

The standing armies discussion has drifted completely away from the topic. Let's tie it back in or take it to another thread, eh?

Sorry... as I said, I'm done.
.