[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
H,
I don’t want more ponies.[/quote]
I believe that I just think at times in this thread your arguments haven’t always followed that line. Or at times it seems as if you’ve argued for more ponies and less paying for ponies.
I think we want a lot of the same things but disagree on the details. Happens often in politics. My views are constantly evolving though, what I believe today is different from what I believed even two years ago in many aspects.
I don’t understand how the idea of a militia is still relevant today given how advanced our military is, and how dangerous weapons are.
For us to seriously match potency of the U.S. military as civilians we need to start by allowing civilians to purchase whatever weapons they want, then the most important thing would be the logistics of it all, which is where it all falls apart… Don’t even need to get into how much it would cost civilians to keep up with our own governments military spending, which they charge us for, which we serve in.
I don’t want anything to do with fighting our own military as a civilian, or fighting our own civilians as a military man in general. The people I might fight against have been the whacko’s who have tried to create their own militias which have been mostly racist organizations affiliated with the KKK or Nazi Party and batshit crazy Church groups. That’s the scary thing about this particular path…
I get that the Constitution supports having a militia, but that really equates to having two militaries, one gov one civilian. We can’t afford it, and honestly I don’t trust our civilians with the sort of firepower our military has. What would Fred Phelps do with a nuke?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how the idea of a militia is still relevant today given how advanced our military is, and how dangerous weapons are.
[/quote]
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
Aside from the fact I’d really not like to turn this into another gun thread when it is an intelligence gathering/constitutionality/news thread. Tangentially related subjects, but I’d rather not travel that road too heavily.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how the idea of a militia is still relevant today given how advanced our military is, and how dangerous weapons are.
[/quote]
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
Aside from the fact I’d really not like to turn this into another gun thread when it is an intelligence gathering/constitutionality/news thread. Tangentially related subjects, but I’d rather not travel that road too heavily.[/quote]
Excellent point on Afghanistan and quite pertinent. Though their current advantage now comes from not knowing who your enemy is.
Side note: I absolutely love the movies and the books. I think of them both everytime I see your name. I have probably read the books 10 times each. Every year or two I go back and re-read them. Big fan I take it?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers, with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry-- since about 1839.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how the idea of a militia is still relevant today given how advanced our military is, and how dangerous weapons are.
[/quote]
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
Aside from the fact I’d really not like to turn this into another gun thread when it is an intelligence gathering/constitutionality/news thread. Tangentially related subjects, but I’d rather not travel that road too heavily.[/quote]
Excellent point on Afghanistan and quite pertinent. Though their current advantage now comes from not knowing who your enemy is.
Side note: I absolutely love the movies and the books. I think of them both everytime I see your name. I have probably read the books 10 times each. Every year or two I go back and re-read them. Big fan I take it? [/quote]
Quite! Glad somebody else likes them as much as I do. I read the trilogy for the first time in 7th grade, and I’ve managed to read them at least once a year ever since. They’re like old friends.
I chose the screen name because he is one of my favorite heroes. Alone, in the background, doing the dirty hard work that needs to be done without thanks or even acknowledgement that he exists except by fat old bartenders that think he’s suspicious. Relentless, tireless, but honorable.
Until, you know, it’s time to take a good old fashioned ass whooping to the “Dark Side of the Force”. Like spending an entire evening locked in a battle of hypnotic wills with the devil himself.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[/quote]
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry since about 1839. [/quote]
Truth! Although I think the advent of jet fighters, bombing raids was more what Sev was talking about in terms of force disparity, so I just let it go at the guided missile era
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how the idea of a militia is still relevant today given how advanced our military is, and how dangerous weapons are.
[/quote]
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
Aside from the fact I’d really not like to turn this into another gun thread when it is an intelligence gathering/constitutionality/news thread. Tangentially related subjects, but I’d rather not travel that road too heavily.[/quote]
Excellent point on Afghanistan and quite pertinent. Though their current advantage now comes from not knowing who your enemy is.
Side note: I absolutely love the movies and the books. I think of them both everytime I see your name. I have probably read the books 10 times each. Every year or two I go back and re-read them. Big fan I take it? [/quote]
Quite! Glad somebody else likes them as much as I do. I read the trilogy for the first time in 7th grade, and I’ve managed to read them at least once a year ever since. They’re like old friends.
I chose the screen name because he is one of my favorite heroes. Alone, in the background, doing the dirty hard work that needs to be done without thanks or even acknowledgement that he exists except by fat old bartenders that think he’s suspicious. Relentless, tireless, but honorable.
Until, you know, it’s time to take a good old fashioned ass whooping to the “Dark Side of the Force”. Like spending an entire evening locked in a battle of hypnotic wills with the devil himself.[/quote]
Sweet. I don’t know how old I was when I first read the trilogy but it was also 6th or 7th grade. Was hoping you didn’t just say I played a video game and liked the name or something 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers, with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry-- since about 1839. [/quote]
That’s only because nobody is nuking them and killing everyone in the country. Everybody knows wars are fought to control land, not people, right? If Americans were to rely on ourselves as protection from foreign threats, China would just bomb our land until everybody was dead, then step in and claim the land. Yep. Rulers are all about making things more comfortable for the citizens of their nation(by allowing them to spread themselves over a larger land area), they’re not at all concerned with controlling more people.
*The above applies only to strange brown and yellow people on other pieces of land. America fights its wars because it’s altruistic. Gaining more power over its citizenry each time it gets involved in a new foreign problem has nothing to with our leaders’ love of war.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers, with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry-- since about 1839. [/quote]
That’s only because nobody is nuking them and killing everyone in the country. Everybody knows wars are fought to control land, not people, right? If Americans were to rely on ourselves as protection from foreign threats, China would just bomb our land until everybody was dead, then step in and claim the land. Yep. Rulers are all about making things more comfortable for the citizens of their nation(by allowing them to spread themselves over a larger land area), they’re not at all concerned with controlling more people.[/quote]
What you just wrote either a) if true, represents exactly why you think a State is necessary (in order to do what “Americans relying on themselves” can’t succeed in), which is contrary to your anarchical views or b) if false represents a complete ignorance of international political action. China would not glass the US–as limp wristed and corrupt as the UN is, most other countries know that they need the US in functioning capacity. China might do many things, but not glass the US.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers, with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry-- since about 1839. [/quote]
That’s only because nobody is nuking them and killing everyone in the country. Everybody knows wars are fought to control land, not people, right? If Americans were to rely on ourselves as protection from foreign threats, China would just bomb our land until everybody was dead, then step in and claim the land. Yep. Rulers are all about making things more comfortable for the citizens of their nation(by allowing them to spread themselves over a larger land area), they’re not at all concerned with controlling more people.[/quote]
What you just wrote either a) if true, represents exactly why you think a State is necessary (in order to do what “Americans relying on themselves” can’t succeed in), which is contrary to your anarchical views or b) if false represents a complete ignorance of international political action. China would not glass the US–as limp wristed and corrupt as the UN is, most other countries know that they need the US in functioning capacity. China might do many things, but not glass the US.[/quote]
I just saw this response…surely you didn’t take my post seriously, did you?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Then you should probably look at Afghanistan’s example throughout the last 40 years.
[/quote]
Just the last forty?
Hell, the Afghans have been kicking the asses of their imperial invaders and occupiers, with inferior numbers and outdated weaponry-- since about 1839. [/quote]
That’s only because nobody is nuking them and killing everyone in the country. Everybody knows wars are fought to control land, not people, right? If Americans were to rely on ourselves as protection from foreign threats, China would just bomb our land until everybody was dead, then step in and claim the land. Yep. Rulers are all about making things more comfortable for the citizens of their nation(by allowing them to spread themselves over a larger land area), they’re not at all concerned with controlling more people.[/quote]
What you just wrote either a) if true, represents exactly why you think a State is necessary (in order to do what “Americans relying on themselves” can’t succeed in), which is contrary to your anarchical views or b) if false represents a complete ignorance of international political action. China would not glass the US–as limp wristed and corrupt as the UN is, most other countries know that they need the US in functioning capacity. China might do many things, but not glass the US.[/quote]
I just saw this response…surely you didn’t take my post seriously, did you?
[/quote]
There is a possibility I took the “china would bomb the US” sentence seriously out of your sarcasm…