European Who Loves America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And really, what percentage of the American people do you think would actually fight if they were “invaded by a foreign power, or were taken over internally by a tyrannical government”? America has a lot of guns, that’s for sure, and a lot of highly competent people owning them. However, these competent and athletic gun owners are in the overwhelming minority when compared to the broad swath of fatass dumbasses who would behave like the very sheep you say Canadians would turn into.

[/quote]

Wow.

I think you and I come from 2 different countries.[/quote]

Oh really?

Little thought experiment for you. Take the population of the United States, and subtract from it the police (local, county, state and federal) and military (active, reserve and National Guard), and consider ONLY the civilians of military age (let us say sixteen and above). Of this group, consider only the ones who are in shape (some other shape than “round”, that is), politically aware, adequately armed and sufficiently proficient with their chosen weapons platform.

Now that you have imagined how many of your countrymen could fight, imagine how many would actively fight against an invading enemy army, or fight against the armed forces of their own government. Now imagine this group as a percentage of the aforementioned adult civilian population.

Is this percentage you have imagined a number greater than or less than fifty? Less than twenty? Ten?

There is your well-regulated militia, my friend. God help it.

43

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And really, what percentage of the American people do you think would actually fight if they were “invaded by a foreign power, or were taken over internally by a tyrannical government”? America has a lot of guns, that’s for sure, and a lot of highly competent people owning them. However, these competent and athletic gun owners are in the overwhelming minority when compared to the broad swath of fatass dumbasses who would behave like the very sheep you say Canadians would turn into.

[/quote]

Wow.

I think you and I come from 2 different countries.[/quote]

Oh really?

Little thought experiment for you. Take the population of the United States, and subtract from it the police (local, county, state and federal) and military (active, reserve and National Guard), and consider ONLY the civilians of military age (let us say sixteen and above). Of this group, consider only the ones who are in shape (some other shape than “round”, that is), politically aware, adequately armed and sufficiently proficient with their chosen weapons platform.

Now that you have imagined how many of your countrymen could fight, imagine how many would actively fight against an invading enemy army, or fight against the armed forces of their own government. Now imagine this group as a percentage of the aforementioned adult civilian population.

Is this percentage you have imagined a number greater than or less than fifty? Less than twenty? Ten?

There is your well-regulated militia, my friend. God help it.[/quote]

Your statement was about how many would fight.

Since when is “a well-regulated militia” the only way to fight?

I’m sure you know more about the numbers than I do, but how many gang members do we have in the US? How many ex-cons? How many immigrants, refugees and first U.S. generation born? How many hunters.

If you think these folks are going to just bend over, you’re wrong.

Speaking for my own experience, I come from a former steel town loaded with immigrants and their ancestors. I can tell you that there is plenty of fight left in that town.[/quote]

Uh huh. Before we can talk about who WOULD fight, we have to consider who COULD fight. There are certainly lots of hunters and gun owners, but there are also a horrendous lot of people who have never held a weapon in their lives, and would collapse in a vomiting heap if they had to sprint for half a kilometre carrying a loaded rifle and a rucksack across any kind of uneven terrain. And that’s even with nobody shooting at them.

These gang members and ex-cons of whom you speak: in the event of an internal takeover by a tyrannical government and resulting civil war, how many do you suppose would actually fight, and how many would take advantage of the situation and rape, loot and pillage? How many people would collaborate with an enemy (foreign or domestic) to save their families, or to get some kind of preferential treatment, especially if the creature comforts they were used to were unavailable?

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of folks with gumption left in the country. I’m just saying that I am of the opinion that the majority is soft, fat, weak and afraid. Especially now, after over a decade of conditioning courtesy of Homeland Security, the US Patriot Act, and TSA.

44

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, Yamato-Damashii, one would think that a guy who selects for himself a username meaning “the spirit of Japan” would have at least a passing interest in, you know, living in Japan.

How about it? Not such a bad place, once you get used to it.

It’s not AMERICA, of course, but very few places are.

[/quote]

Haha good spot. I chose it after my favourite fighter Enson Inoue.

45

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

America is great because the founders understood that none of the rights guaranteed in the first amendment would mean anything without the second amendment.

[/quote]

Excellent point that I think many people (not progressives, of course, and probably not most Europeans) “get.”

I don’t really understand that claim, you can look at the national budget and see where our healthcare costs come from, it is from taxes, VAT etc. If you mean to say America funds western military ability that is true, but to be fair that is in the United states geo-political favour. It isn’t charity.
I don’t think America should be responsible for militarisation and equipping other nations. I do think Universal Healthcare via Thomas Paine’s plan to fund it through income tax etc would be a far better way to spend U.s citizens money than empire building and hegemony maintenance.

[/quote]

Of course, health care costs come from taxes. But now go figure what taxes Europeans would be paying if they were funding a defense budget that did not include direct and indirect American subsidies.

While you’re at it go figure where you and your European neighbors would be now without the Marshall Plan.[/quote]

What does the U.S currently give to Britain that it does not pay for?
As for the marshall plan yeah that is good, but lets not forget America stayed out of both world wars and loaned to the allies at insane interest which basically built modern American economic might and left the U.S ten steps ahead of everyone else.

I love America but I don’t love American chauvinists just like I don’t like British people being rude or grossly nationalistic.

[/quote]

Britain currently has plans to reduce it’s army to fifty thousand personnel. That number is so small that the British Army is either going to have to reduce standards for the SAS or disband the unit entirely.

The Royal navy is a joke. They built two CATOBAR capable aircraft carriers that would have roughly been comparable to the US Forrestal class, the downgraded them to helicopter carriers with limited capabilities.

The country is no longer capable of projection of force and is wide open to attack. With the exception of Poland which is upgrading it’s military in response to Russian belligerence the rest of the European countries have given up on maintaining their military’s. They all figure they can let the “fucking Yanks” foot the bill.

I’ve had to deal with anti American, British chauvinism my whole life, including from my own family. So you aren’t telling me anything new. The British as a people have lost their way.[/quote]

46

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Well, a very good argument could’ve been made that we NEVER should’ve entered WWI. Remember Wilson PROMISED that would be the case. But alas, Wilson, taking his cues from Teddy Roosevelt that the US should start flexing its muscle worldwide reneged on his campaign promise and set the stage for…WWII.
[/quote]

I agree.

And as to that… how different the world would be right now if the Germans had just captured Paris in 1914, instead of chasing after the retreating French army shortly before the battle of the Marne.

Alexander Von Kluck and T. E. Lawrence: the two men responsible for much of the world’s problems in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.[/quote]

Let me just clarify, I don’t think America should of entered world war one for sure and i am still unsure they should of entered world war two. No slaying of foreign monsters etc. But to sit out, loan to all sides and then join in at the end isn’t exactly morally consistent.

Saying that I understand without the materials and loans to Britain Germany could well of won. That does not mean the actions of the U.S government at the time are beyond reproach.

48

A few corrections:
The US did not enter WWII to save Europe. That claim is obtuse. The US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, leading to Germany and Italy declaring war on the US. The domestic sentiment against intervention in WWII was strong until Pearl Harbor. There was no altruistic drive to save Europe.

The US has “subsidised” European military structures because it was thought to be beneficial to the US. The suggestion that they’re just helping out their weaker neighbours is silly. Whether this has actually benefited the US is debatable; what is clear is that it was a move in the dangerous game played across the globe for geo-political influence by the USA and the USSR.

The European elitism and the US exceptionalism are two sides of the same coin: the divisive and destructive ‘us against them’ that guides decisions even among those who should know better. Europeans rightly look down on America, the world’s wealthiest country where normal people with jobs can barely afford healthcare, the poor number in the tens of millions, and nearly 1 percent of the population are incarcerated; Americans have reason to deride the labour laws which keep inept Europeans in their jobs, and the fact that a Brit can be convicted for making a tasteless Twitter joke. Is it really that hard to admit these flaws? Is slinging mud and trading untruths really making everyone feel better?

Since we’re choosing sides here: having considered the imperfections these societies have, I must say that Europe’s flaws are much easier to bear than America’s, and are less likely to impact everyday life negatively. From assault rifles in Walmart to corporate ownership of the legislature, from insane healthcare costs to creationist laws and lawmakers - while everyone was busy crying “Murica fuck yeah!”, the country has gone to hell, and will never become the shining beacon its citizens once thought it was.

49

[quote]ddinante wrote:

Since we’re choosing sides here: having considered the imperfections these societies have, I must say that Europe’s flaws are much easier to bear than America’s, and are less likely to impact everyday life negatively. From assault rifles in Walmart to corporate ownership of the legislature, from insane healthcare costs to creationist laws and lawmakers - while everyone was busy crying “Murica fuck yeah!”, the country has gone to hell, and will never become the shining beacon its citizens once thought it was.[/quote]

Correction: should read “still imagine it to be”.

50

[quote]ddinante wrote:
Since we’re choosing sides here: having considered the imperfections these societies have, I must say that Europe’s flaws are much easier to bear than America’s, and are less likely to impact everyday life negatively. From assault rifles in Walmart to corporate ownership of the legislature, from insane healthcare costs to creationist laws and lawmakers - while everyone was busy crying “Murica fuck yeah!”, the country has gone to hell, and will never become the shining beacon its citizens once thought it was.[/quote]

Since, as you say, we’re choosing sides here, I’ll offer a different perspective. You’ve identified a few political issues in the U.S. Whatever an “assault rifle” is, there are solid constitutional, historical, logical, and moral arguments made by gun rights advocates. As for money in politics and creationists in Congress, I’m not a big fan of either – but are these really harder to bear than Europe’s flaws? Are they really more likely to negatively affect everyday life?

Not for me. I look for many things in people, but first and foremost I look for a clear heart and calloused hands. If my neighbors exercise moral probity and a good work ethic, my neighbors are good neighbors, and my town is a good town. We all know that Americans work longer and harder than most people in Western Europe. We also all know – or should all know – that Americans are consistently found to be less racist and antisemitic (and that the divide seems to be growing, not shrinking).

I spent a good chunk of my life living in Continental Europe. I adore it, and I return as often as I can. But I’ve also seen European racism, antisemitism, and entitlement…and these things are more pernicious than an American lawmaker who’s confused about the origin of his species.

Edited.

51

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Unless you absolutely cannot survive without owning a military assault rifle [/quote]

You can’t own one built post 1986 in the states either.

52

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Military assault rifles and battle rifles are legal, provided they are not fully automatic, .[/quote]

Then they aren’t assault or battle rifles.

55

[quote]ddinante wrote:
A few corrections:
The US did not enter WWII to save Europe. That claim is obtuse. [/quote]

Good thing no one made that claim.

[quote]

The US has “subsidised” European military structures because it was thought to be beneficial to the US. The suggestion that they’re just helping out their weaker neighbours is silly.[/quote]

Good thing no one suggested that.

100% false.

American poor are the 1% of the rest of the fucking globe. Please with this talking point nonsense. Jesus

You seem to enjoy the whole “slinging untruths” thing.

100% false. If you can show me one single instance of an NFA item being sold at a WalMart I’ll eat a fucking hat.

Secondarily, if you can even show a single instance of an open carry of a class 3 item in a WalMart I’ll be surprised.

But keep on with the “people are speaking untruths” horse shit as you pile on, ignorant of actual definitions of words.

The lefty’s favorite talking point. Please show the documents of this “ownership”.

Oh, you mean market prices? Not prices artificially tamped down by tax payer subsidy?

lmao… I can’t even.

56

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Military assault rifles and battle rifles are legal, provided they are not fully automatic, .[/quote]

Then they aren’t assault or battle rifles. [/quote]

I will grudgingly concede the point for “assault rifle”, as the concept as approved by Hitler did include select fire capability, but not “battle rifle”. A battle rifle is distinguished from an assault rifle by its cartridge, but it needn’t be capable of automatic–or even semiautomatic–fire.

Mauser 98: Bolt action battle rifle.
Springfield 1905: Bolt action battle rifle
Enfield SMLE: Bolt-action battle rifle
M-1 Garand: Semi-automatic battle rifle
Beretta M-59: Semi-automatic battle rifle
M-14 rifle as currently used: Semi-automatic battle rifle

57

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Military assault rifles and battle rifles are legal, provided they are not fully automatic, .[/quote]

Then they aren’t assault or battle rifles. [/quote]

I will grudgingly concede the point for “assault rifle”, as the concept as approved by Hitler did include select fire capability, but not “battle rifle”. A battle rifle is distinguished from an assault rifle by its cartridge, but it needn’t be capable of automatic–or even semiautomatic–fire.

Mauser 98: Bolt action battle rifle.
Springfield 1905: Bolt action battle rifle
Enfield SMLE: Bolt-action battle rifle
M-1 Garand: Semi-automatic battle rifle
Beretta M-59: Semi-automatic battle rifle
M-14 rifle as currently used: Semi-automatic battle rifle[/quote]

Fine, we’re both a decent chunk correct then.

58

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Just a hunch (and I have excellent hunches if I do say so myself) but I’d bet a boatload of French wine, German beer and British chips that a creationist lawmaker would be one of your very best allies when it comes to protecting individual liberty as compared to the alternatives.
[/quote]

Likely, yes, provided that he isn’t a Rick Santorum type.

I meant only what you would undoubtedly mean if you said that you weren’t a big fan of atheist lawmakers. It doesn’t mean that they are useless or wrong about everything; it’s just, you’d rather the same person not be an atheist. Or so I suspect.

59

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Just a hunch (and I have excellent hunches if I do say so myself) but I’d bet a boatload of French wine, German beer and British chips that a creationist lawmaker would be one of your very best allies when it comes to protecting individual liberty as compared to the alternatives.
[/quote]

Likely, yes, provided that he isn’t a Rick Santorum type.

I meant only what you would undoubtedly mean if you said that you weren’t a big fan of atheist lawmakers. It doesn’t mean that they are useless or wrong about everything; it’s just, you’d rather the same person not be an atheist. Or so I suspect.[/quote]

The opposite of “creationist” is not “atheist”, you know.

Dan Sullivan, US Senator from Alaska, like most Catholics, is not a creationist, but I’d wager he would be a better ally than, say, Senator Harry Reid (a creationist, like most Mormons) in protecting individual liberty.

60

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Just a hunch (and I have excellent hunches if I do say so myself) but I’d bet a boatload of French wine, German beer and British chips that a creationist lawmaker would be one of your very best allies when it comes to protecting individual liberty as compared to the alternatives.
[/quote]

Likely, yes, provided that he isn’t a Rick Santorum type.

I meant only what you would undoubtedly mean if you said that you weren’t a big fan of atheist lawmakers. It doesn’t mean that they are useless or wrong about everything; it’s just, you’d rather the same person not be an atheist. Or so I suspect.[/quote]

The opposite of “creationist” is not “atheist”, you know.

Dan Sullivan, US Senator from Alaska, like most Catholics, is not a creationist, but I’d wager he would be a better ally than, say, Senator Harry Reid (a creationist, like most Mormons) in protecting individual liberty.[/quote]

Great point. I was thinking more along these lines: I think of creationists what Push thinks of atheists. More or less.