publiusvarus wrote:
Pussyfooting around with the hopes we don't upset the locals is no way to fight a military campaign.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is why you don't ban automatic weapons
This is why you don't ban automatic weaponsFollow
Ignoring the locals worked well for the British.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
publiusvarus wrote:
What? I'm saying pulling troops out in defeat sends a sign to other potential enemies that the US are just a bunch of p*ssies. Don't think that really benefits our military. I'm also saying we need to go all in if we can hope to achieve some measure of success. Pussyfooting around with the hopes we don't upset the locals is no way to fight a military campaign.
Because Vietnam was such an astounding victory. You guys have a reputation to maintain.
Edited, Jul 16th 2009 3:54pm by zepoodle
publiusvarus wrote:
Vietnam is a perfect example of the US not going all in and why we need to now.
What part of deploying half a million men isn't "going all in?"
zepoodle wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Vietnam is a perfect example of the US not going all in and why we need to now.
What part of deploying half a million men isn't "going all in?"
What part of murdering millions of civilians isn't going all in?
Edited, Jul 16th 2009 5:24pm by Kavekk
In comparison using an automatic weapon/assualt rifle on the crowd of 50 African-Americans is "going all in", so "going all in" in Vietnam would have been deploying every soldier/ship/tank/plane/spear/dog/brick/rock and then nuking them back to the stone-age.
publiusvarus wrote:
You mean the civilians wearing the black pajamas that strapped grenades to their children and sent them into american camps? Or how about the civilians that supported the communists struggle against democracy?
But... you don't like democracy? Isn't democracy just a mob rule when 51% owns the other 49%? In that case, isn't it democracy to have an armed force take over a country if most of the country is for it? I seem to recall you saying such a few hours ago.
Quote:
H*ll that was Kennedys war anyway.
Uh. Sure. In the same way that Invading Iraq was Reagan's war, because that's when we started looking at it militarily and killing leaders there. It was mostly Johnson's war (who was still a Democrat, so feel free to blast him on that).
publiusvarus wrote:
Everyone knows Vietnam was Kennedys war
Fuck, you mean the conservatives haven't had a say in anything since that far back because the mean mean liberals are keeping them down??
What a total waste of time that party is.
It's just getting better and better. Nukes, killing civilians, the lot. 
publiusvarus wrote:
The part where you understand what the 17th parallel is and why we didn't nuke Hanoi.
Why didn't we nuke Hanoi, varus? Tell me that. If the solution to every problem is overwhelming military force, why didn't we nuke the fuck out of the entire country?
I'll give you your answer. Overwhelming military force isn't the solution. It didn't work for the US in Vietnam. It didn't work with the Soviets in Afghanistan. It won't work today in Iraq. The more you kick a fallen enemy, the more they hate you when they eventually get back up.
Edited, Jul 16th 2009 7:42pm by zepoodle
publiusvarus wrote:
poodle,
Wrong if you kick a fallen enemy until they're dead with their head smashed in they don't get back up.
Quote:
The more you kick a fallen enemy, the more they hate you when they eventually get back up.
Wrong if you kick a fallen enemy until they're dead with their head smashed in they don't get back up.
Instead their friends and children do, and all their neighbors see what a jerk you are and get pissy, and all of YOUR neighbors see what a jerk you are and get pissy. Then everyone is pissed at you. That's assuming you kill the guy. If you not, they're majorly pissed at you as well.
Sounds pretty much like what happened with the US.
publiusvarus wrote:
poodle,
Wrong if you kick a fallen enemy until they're dead with their head smashed in they don't get back up.
Quote:
The more you kick a fallen enemy, the more they hate you when they eventually get back up.
Wrong if you kick a fallen enemy until they're dead with their head smashed in they don't get back up.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
publiusvarus wrote:
bsphil,
They may hate you but they'll also fear you. That fear will keep them in line.
Quote:
To drag on this tired metaphor, everyone else around that you didn't kick is going to hate you too.
They may hate you but they'll also fear you. That fear will keep them in line.
Either way, DEMOCRACY!
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
publiusvarus wrote:
Wrong if you kick a fallen enemy until they're dead with their head smashed in they don't get back up.
So you're saying we should have glassed them. That's what you're saying, right? We should have just nuked Vietnam until it was white hot, yeah? Total subjugation of a country that we had virtually nothing invested in previously, just to spite the Russians.
You and Colonel Kurtz would get along fine.
publiusvarus wrote:
They may hate you but they'll also fear you. That fear will keep them in line.
Rule by fear is the best way to spread democracy, right?
Look, that didn't work for the Athenians and the Delian League. They got their asses handed to them once their member states realised that they weren't going to get a vote. You know who finally unified Greece? The Romans. Know how they did it? They withdrew from Greece and said "You're all free nations!" and all the Greeks wanted to become Roman so bad they became Roman voluntarily in a few decades.
Edited, Jul 16th 2009 11:53pm by zepoodle
zepoodle wrote:
Look, that didn't work for the Athenians and the Delian League. They got their asses handed to them once their member states realised that they weren't going to get a vote.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. You're confusing the internal nature of a nations form of government (Democracy for example), with the external use of power against foreign enemies. They are completely unrelated. How the government and the people relate to each other really has no bearing on how foreign policy is implemented. The objectives of foreign policy? Sure. But the methods? I'm not sure how they're related at all...
Quote:
You know who finally unified Greece?
Phillip II of Macedonia? Just a wild guess...
Quote:
The Romans. Know how they did it? They withdrew from Greece and said "You're all free nations!" and all the Greeks wanted to become Roman so bad they became Roman voluntarily in a few decades.
No. They stepped right into the power vacuum created by Phillip's son Alexander when he died, and gradually over the course of a couple of centuries managed to take control of Greek colonies in Italia, then defeat Greek armies sent to take them back, then eventually moved into Greece itself. Greece had become a people who thought of themselves as independent city states unified and ruled by some other foreignish ruler for about 3 centuries before they "surrendered" to Rome. It literally had almost zero impact on the average Greek citizen of the day. They were never attacked. The folks up north who'd been nominally running things on their behalf for a couple centuries surrendered and agreed to be ruled in turn by Rome...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I don't get what this argument is even about.
Obama is *increasing* troop force in Afghanistan. To, you know, look for bin Laden.
He's pulling out of *Iraq*. Because, you know, bin Laden isn't there.â™
Obama is *increasing* troop force in Afghanistan. To, you know, look for bin Laden.
He's pulling out of *Iraq*. Because, you know, bin Laden isn't there.â™
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
God damn it, gbaji, I'm talking to varus. Neither one of us was being serious.
I don't get it with you. Either you have no idea what trolling is, or you're the best troll who has ever lived.
Edited, Jul 18th 2009 5:31am by zepoodle
I don't get it with you. Either you have no idea what trolling is, or you're the best troll who has ever lived.
Edited, Jul 18th 2009 5:31am by zepoodle
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
Also, I'm sure at least one person in the mob had a pistol. Had the family defended themselves with a firearm, there would be dead black and white people. That's a risk I'd take, as opposed to just standing there and getting beat to death. Just because nobody died this time, doesn't mean you curl up in a ball and get the crap kicked out of you.
Are you aware of how how ridiculous and arrogant you sound?
"I value my own bodily health more than my, my wife's, and children's lives. I'm going to 'defend' them and myself by getting them killed, whereas doing nothing at all will result in them living." Even without taking the lives of the of into account at all, if you're operating under the assumption that resisting will get the victims killed, and not resisting will not get them killed, then it's idiotic to resist.
If of course you believe that you can legitimately defend your family and prevent both your and their deaths, then that's a different story, but that's a highly different reason than the pure machismo of some fight or die ideal.
It wasn't my intention to come across as arrogant. What I mean is, if myself and my family are in a situation where we're being mobbed by a large group of people, us not defending ourselves to the best of our abilities (I have a CCW permit, and carry) would be stupid. Sure, we could just be as defensive as possible while facing overwhelming numbers, and might come out of it alive. Of course, we could just as easily not come out of it alive. I would wager the odds of surviving a mob of 50 (I think that's the {probably exaggerated} number the OP used) people would be better if shots were fired in defense than if you just rolled with the punches, so to speak. For me, and my family, in this situation, it would be a gross failure to my family on my part not to use all means of defense at my disposal.
Mob mentality is a freaky thing. Riots never seem to break up until there are peace officers shooting pepper balls and bean bags at the offenders. Several people get hit, are laying on the ground writhing in pain, and the rest of the crowd tends to disperse rather quickly.
Of course, virus goes to the extreme and tries to use this incident to make an automatic weapon a civilian personal defense weapon, which is lame.
Would this thread have been so controversial if he had just attempted to use it as an advocate for legal possession of concealed handguns?
Edit: Spelling and stuffs.
Edited, Jul 20th 2009 2:32am by DsComputer
Quote:
You mean the civilians wearing the black pajamas that strapped grenades to their children and sent them into american camps? Or how about the civilians that supported the communists struggle against democracy?
H*ll that was Kennedys war anyway. But if you want to talk about winning a war, whether the war is just or not, you don't handicap your troops the way the liberals, hippies, did ours during vietnam.
H*ll that was Kennedys war anyway. But if you want to talk about winning a war, whether the war is just or not, you don't handicap your troops the way the liberals, hippies, did ours during vietnam.
I was talking about the civilians that were trying to get by when an American bomber destroyed their food crop and contaminated the area for generations to come.
publiusvarus wrote:
bsphil,
They may hate you but they'll also fear you. That fear will keep them in line.
Quote:
To drag on this tired metaphor, everyone else around that you didn't kick is going to hate you too.
They may hate you but they'll also fear you. That fear will keep them in line.
Good one, Stalin!
Apparently, they are questioning Obama's citizenship. Apparently, half of him is a bit of cloth, which brings up all sorts of constitutional questions. We need to talk about this textile menace:
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Recent Visitors: 547
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (547)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is why you don't ban automatic weapons
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC