Author Topic: CHANGE you can believe in  (Read 18146 times)

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87032
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #90 on: September 25, 2008, 06:55:55 pm »
somebody needs to threadjack this thing already :|

I can, if you want.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #91 on: September 25, 2008, 06:57:04 pm »
I can too.  Punner, activate.   

j/k 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Jasper

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 67367
  • Pull-Start Enema Wasteland
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #92 on: September 25, 2008, 06:57:59 pm »
He does have a better idea, Felix--Feudalism.

HOT DAMN, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104926
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #93 on: September 25, 2008, 07:01:40 pm »
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount.  None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.

you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.

I disagree.

American military needs could be met by expanding the Navy and elements of the army (Special forces, training, flexible infantry) and shitcanning a ton of crap that is never gonna be used (heavy amour, various fixed defence systems etc) simply because Canada and Mexico are never gonna invade, and no-one else can get close enough without nukes or terrorism, which are two entirely different ballparks.


Quote
I mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.

Uh-huh.

Any evidence for this? I mean, aside from a tiresome slam on Europe (par for the course in these discussions) or are you just blowing assertions out of your arse here?

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #94 on: September 25, 2008, 07:04:52 pm »
I was waiting for you to get in here Cain...not that I felt you had to, just wanted your take is all.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87032
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #95 on: September 25, 2008, 07:05:22 pm »
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.


Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #96 on: September 25, 2008, 07:05:30 pm »
He does have a better idea, Felix--Feudalism.

HOT DAMN, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!

wade, show the gentlemen to his cell, please.  Follow the Canuckistani, Felix.  He'll show you "the way."

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #97 on: September 25, 2008, 07:06:06 pm »
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.



:(  I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.

tyrannosaurus vex

  • a gas giant of idiots
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 26482
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #98 on: September 25, 2008, 07:07:21 pm »
somebody needs to threadjack this thing already :|

I can, if you want.

actually let's give it another couple pages or so.


True democracy is a shitty system. Representative Republicanism is better, at least in theory it prevents the retarded masses from voting themselves into a bad position. Of course, the people who do get elected end up being bad anyway, since power corrupts. So the question should not be how to restrict the rights of people to determine the direction of the country, but how to force the people who are elected into power from wielding that power irresponsibly -- which can't actually be meaningfully accomplished, but what we have can and should be improved.

Honestly, I think it's amazing that our present Constitution, which was written and enacted before the Industrial Revolution has weathered as much as it has. But I also think that, realistically, if we are to maintain the same spirit of liberty that was at hinted at by that document, we need to rewrite it completely. It has been around too long, and the nature of Western civilization has changed too much, for it to last much longer. If it is allowed to simply continue on its path to obsolescence without a deliberate attempt to supplant it with something that has teeth, it will be replaced by an ever more encroaching government.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87032
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #99 on: September 25, 2008, 07:08:18 pm »
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.



:(  I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.

Nothing.  A threadjack request was made, but is now recinded.


Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on.  Counter insurgency?  Bigger bombs?  Infantry, or airpower?

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104926
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #100 on: September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 pm »
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics.  But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.

tyrannosaurus vex

  • a gas giant of idiots
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 26482
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #101 on: September 25, 2008, 07:10:25 pm »
Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on.  Counter insurgency?  Bigger bombs?  Infantry, or airpower?

I'd suggest they focus on special forces and propaganda above all else. Except they do need bigger bombs, because there's no such thing as a bomb that's too big.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #102 on: September 25, 2008, 07:11:38 pm »
 
Quote from: Cain
 This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics.  But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.

 :sadbanana:

Vene

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 26393
  • Screaming Primate
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #103 on: September 25, 2008, 07:15:11 pm »
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics.  But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights.  I just don't have the background for too much of it.  For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104926
    • View Profile
Re: CHANGE you can believe in
« Reply #104 on: September 25, 2008, 07:15:32 pm »
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.



:(  I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.

Nothing.  A threadjack request was made, but is now recinded.


Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on.  Counter insurgency?  Bigger bombs?  Infantry, or airpower?

Counter-insurgency.

Better protected, more prevalent naval forces.

Special forces.

Air force bombers

Nukes.

Intelligence.


That would reaffirm US power as an offshore balancer, working in concert with friendly local forces to remove peer competitors, while reducing overheads, military presence (which can have negative political connotations in some locations) and the temptations of unilateral adventurism.

Of course, not every situation would have a position where the USA would have friendly local allies, but that is why I said the focus is on the above, not that the entire military should be gutted.  The offshore balancer role will put both China and Russia on the defensive when dealing with local US allies, while freeing forces to react to current events, instead of currently being held hostage to them by other commitments (such as with the events in Georgia, where US troops were in Iraq and thus could pose no potential threat).