Nevada......Is A Pit of SIN!

[Illuminatus Primus]

*shakes head*

I am not pleased either. Personally I largely, but not wholely support Republican ideas on security and defense and fiscal matters. I'm a fiscal conservative and see the world as still a dog-eat-dog place and the UN at the end of the day amounts to little more then a political playground.

However, I am strongly against Republican opinions on morality and the like. The old bullshit on "good ol' family values."

Socially....well socialized medicine isn't going to work here and the best alternative would be a system of medical support benefits provided by government to people within a tax bracket, and tightly control prices by insurers. Same with social security, just a general benefit for seniors and overhaul is massively needed.

The U.S. Federal Government, more then anything, needs massive overhaul in tax spending a more oversight in this matter as well as effective investigation. I've heard stats of nearly 25% of tax dollars are lost due to fraud, "pork," and simply stupid spending.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree with Sheppard on his example. Utter corruption due to political bullshit, especially on the part of the media itself with respect to the police is astounding. Riots, mobs, and harmful protests should be crushed utterly.

[Illuminatus Primus]

$3 Billion. That's how much the US gave to Osama and his cohorts to fight Russia. So it's hardly relevent when it comes to Second Admendment agruements.

Oh come on. Like the U.S. was supposed to sit on its hands throughout the Cold War? They wanted help, we agreed to provide it. Most of his funds are out of his own multi-million dollar pocket. To single out Bin Laden and have the stupid opinion that the U.S. should have known better, is to neglect the fact everyone there is an Islamic extremist. And this is neglecting the fact that their armaments still came from the Soviet bloc primarly anyway (Soviet tanks, Kalashnikovs). With the exception of the bullshit with Isreal, the Islamic extremist additude is to be expected in a modern world where they're inferior to the West despite the fact that the Quran tells them they should be the greatest. They're losing the culture war and seeing American symbols on their soil as an inevitable consequence of their backwardness and capitalism. I'm not suprised there's a bubble-over of fanatics that struck at the U.S., but the idea that we should've ignored the Afghanis and become isolationist during the Cold War as the Communists gleefully plundered because of the possibility of blowback down the line is absurd. They attacked, we obtain the right to counterattack and take preventive measures to disable further attack capabilities. One doesn't make concessions to their enemy during a war.

[Peregrin Toker]

That reminds me of the Korean shop owners using AR-15s and AK-47s and
Beretta Semi-automatic pistols with 15 round magazines to defend their
stores and liveliehoods against rampaging mobs, while the Cops sat
back several hundred yards, protecting the news crews who filmed the
entire thing.

In turn, that reminds me of how remarkably ignorant the polish authorities were of the Anti-Semitic movement rising in Poland in the late 1930s, probably simultaneously with the Nazi movement...

(source: MAUS: A Survivor's Tale by Art Spiegelman, page 37 if I recall correctly)

[C.S.Strowbridge]

$3 Billion. That's how much the US gave to Osama and his cohorts to fight Russia. So it's hardly relevent when it comes to Second Admendment agruements.

Oh come on. Like the U.S. was supposed to sit on its hands throughout the Cold War?

There's another option. They could have given a damn about the people of Afghanistan. Sent in their own military instead of giving money to Islamic fundies. Stuck around after Russia left to help rebuild the nation. Etc.

They wanted help, we agreed to provide it. Most of his funds are out of his own multi-million dollar pocket.

$3 Billion vs. Multi-millionaire. Right. Most came from his personal assets.

Plus is was the State that trained him.

To single out Bin Laden and have the stupid opinion that the U.S. should have known better, is to neglect the fact everyone there is an Islamic extremist.

Not true, there are modorates there. But they didn't care who the money went to, as long as they killed russians. Once that was done they abandonned the country and left it in the hands of people that destroyed it.

And this is neglecting the fact that their armaments still came from the Soviet bloc primarly anyway (Soviet tanks, Kalashnikovs). With the exception of the bullshit with Isreal, the Islamic extremist additude is to be expected in a modern world where they're inferior to the West despite the fact that the Quran tells them they should be the greatest.

Without the training, their feelings about America are meaningless.

but the idea that we should've ignored the Afghanis and become isolationist during the Cold War as the Communists gleefully plundered because of the possibility of blowback down the line is absurd.

See above.

[MKSheppard]

There's another option. They could have given a damn about the people of Afghanistan. Sent in their own military instead of giving money to Islamic fundies.

Great, What a great way to start World Fucking War III right then and
there Strowey...Afghanistan was just another proxy battleground of the
Cold War, same way the Russians used Korea and Vietnam against
us....many pilots of the MiGs in Korea were Russian....

Not true, there are modorates there. But they didn't care who the money went to, as long as they killed russians. Once that was done they abandonned the country and left it in the hands of people that destroyed it.

Realpolitik, Strowey.....Who cares about a bunch of camel herders? Remember, this was after Vietnam, and we were leery of "nation building"

[C.S.Strowbridge]

There's another option. They could have given a damn about the people of Afghanistan. Sent in their own military instead of giving money to Islamic fundies.

Great, What a great way to start World Fucking War III right then and
there Strowey...Afghanistan was just another proxy battleground of the
Cold War, same way the Russians used Korea and Vietnam against
us....many pilots of the MiGs in Korea were Russian....

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

Not true, there are modorates there. But they didn't care who the money went to, as long as they killed russians. Once that was done they abandonned the country and left it in the hands of people that destroyed it.

Realpolitik, Strowey.....Who cares about a bunch of camel herders?

Right, all that matters is they died under the American flag and not the Russian flag. That's the reason why your hired gun Osama blew up the WTC. Thanks for proving my point.

Remember, suicide, it is an option.

[MKSheppard]

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

The difference is you would have American fighting troops DIRECTLY ENAGING
RUSSIAN TROOPS. Fucking Moron.

Right, all that matters is they died under the American flag and not the Russian flag. That's the reason why your hired gun Osama blew up the WTC. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, Osama was our hired gun during the 80s. It was a shame he had
to go and bite the hand that fed him, but we're going to hunt him down
and wipe him out....

[Sea Skimmer]

Great, What a great way to start World Fucking War III right then and
there Strowey...Afghanistan was just another proxy battleground of the
Cold War, same way the Russians used Korea and Vietnam against
us....many pilots of the MiGs in Korea were Russian....

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

Under the American flag. Perhaps it was because Soviet forces where not involved in either conflict under there own flag that WW3 did not happen, stupid shit.

On the other hand in 1980 Afghanistan had seven Soviet ground divisions in it, along with five hundred tactical aircraft in country or flying from the Union in support. You think American and Soviet forces can fight an army level conflict and not start a wider war? At a time when both sides doctrine called for immediate use of tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict? Right..

Guess your ass decided to take a shit on your brain when you made this post.

[Wicked Pilot]

Yes, this new Nevada law is nothing more than homophobic garbage.



So what's the deal with the gun debate?

[Sea Skimmer]

If the people understand what their rights and principles are, then it will be difficult to get an army to support a dictatorship. It is THAT factor, not the negligible military threat of poorly organized civilians with small-arms fire, which keeps the wolf at bay. The latter is a fantasy, concocted by the kind of people who wear camo on the weekends and idly dream of singlehandedly defending democracy from their backyards.

Please do explain America's existence then.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

The difference is you would have American fighting troops DIRECTLY ENAGING
RUSSIAN TROOPS. Fucking Moron.

And the difference between fighting Russian troops and shooting down Russian pilots is ...

Right, all that matters is they died under the American flag and not the Russian flag. That's the reason why your hired gun Osama blew up the WTC. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, Osama was our hired gun during the 80s. It was a shame he had
to go and bite the hand that fed him, but we're going to hunt him down
and wipe him out....

If you feed a rabid dog and it bites you, it's your own damn fault.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

Under the American flag. Perhaps it was because Soviet forces where not involved in either conflict under there own flag that WW3 did not happen, stupid shit.

SNIP!

Do you really think either side though Korea or Vietnam was a small, independent war and not the Ideological battle between Communism and Capitilism?

The only difference between Afghanistan and the other two is Russia's economy had irreversably collapsed.

That and Russia lost in Afghanistan.

[Sea Skimmer]

And Americans went to both Korea and Vietnam. Neither of those wars started WWIII. Fucking moron.

Under the American flag. Perhaps it was because Soviet forces where not involved in either conflict under there own flag that WW3 did not happen, stupid shit.

SNIP!

Do you really think either side though Korea or Vietnam was a small, independent war and not the Ideological battle between Communism and Capitilism?

The only difference between Afghanistan and the other two is Russia's economy had irreversably collapsed.

That and Russia lost in Afghanistan.

In other words, "I'm too stupid to understand to understand anything more complex. These are the only factors my tiny incorrect mind can comprehend."

When you can't understand the difference between a few hundred-men fighting under a different flag and an army level war under your own, there's really no hope.

Your little comparision is similer to saying the only differance between a cat and dog is scale.

[Patrick Degan]

If the people understand what their rights and principles are, then it will be difficult to get an army to support a dictatorship. It is THAT factor, not the negligible military threat of poorly organized civilians with small-arms fire, which keeps the wolf at bay. The latter is a fantasy, concocted by the kind of people who wear camo on the weekends and idly dream of singlehandedly defending democracy from their backyards.

Please do explain America's existence then.

The Colonial millitia system provided the basis for an organised Continental Army, without which a sustained war would not have been possible. If it had been just a fight between British regulars and individual bands of musket-armed civvies, there would have been no United States of America.

And without French recognition and aid, the Revolutionary War would have ended in defeat for the Americans.

You may find a better analogy with the Civil War and the Confederacy. The Confederate effort at secession depended absolutely upon gaining foreign recognition and aid. But once the British and French decided it wasn't worth the risk of war with the Federal government to intervene, the Confederacy was doomed. And they had a well-organised military apparatus.

No revolution against a tyrannical government can hope to succeed without at least three things in place: a dictatorship which has lost confidence in its ability to rule, foreign recognition of the rebels, and the defection of a significant percentage of the military and security apparatus to the rebels —even if it's nothing more than the troops refusing to leave their barracks. Remember that at the end of the Cold War, the communist dictatorships all fell to mobs of unarmed civilian protestors, and the attempted communist counter-coup against Gorbachev was thwarted by unarmed civilian protestors backed by sympathetic military units refusing to obey orders to fire on civilians.

The real world is more complicated than the fantasies entertained by the National Rifle Association and militia cultists are willing to credit.

[MKSheppard]

The real world is more complicated than the fantasies entertained by the National Rifle Association and militia cultists are willing to credit.

You conviently leave out the bloody crushing of the "Prague Spring"
movement, the crackdown in Hungary, and of course Tiannamen Square.

[Patrick Degan]

The real world is more complicated than the fantasies entertained by the National Rifle Association and militia cultists are willing to credit.

You conviently leave out the bloody crushing of the "Prague Spring"
movement, the crackdown in Hungary, and of course Tiannamen Square.

I left them out because they were not applicable to the examples of required conditions for successful revolution. Indeed, they demonstrate why those attempted uprisings were doomed —the governments were by no means enfeebled, they had the military backing them to the hilt, and the opposition was by no means organised; nor did they have foreign recognition and aid. The opposition could have had hunting rifles and pistols and the outcome would still have been the same.

[Darth Wong]

If the people understand what their rights and principles are, then it will be difficult to get an army to support a dictatorship. It is THAT factor, not the negligible military threat of poorly organized civilians with small-arms fire, which keeps the wolf at bay. The latter is a fantasy, concocted by the kind of people who wear camo on the weekends and idly dream of singlehandedly defending democracy from their backyards.

Please do explain America's existence then.

French aid. Much smaller firepower disparity between between small-arms and heavy military weapons. You of all people should know this already.

[Sea Skimmer]

If the people understand what their rights and principles are, then it will be difficult to get an army to support a dictatorship. It is THAT factor, not the negligible military threat of poorly organized civilians with small-arms fire, which keeps the wolf at bay. The latter is a fantasy, concocted by the kind of people who wear camo on the weekends and idly dream of singlehandedly defending democracy from their backyards.

Please do explain America's existence then.

French aid. Much smaller firepower disparity between between small-arms and heavy military weapons. You of all people should know this already.

French aid only showed up after several America victories and then only had a sgnficant impact on one battle.

The modern American civilian population is far better armed relative to the strength of its army compared to that of the population and British army of the 1770's. Modern small arms also allow for tactics, which do much to neutralize an army's firepower advantage.

There was one action in August 1985, which did much to illustrate this. The Soviets airlifted one airborne company into a pass near the Kajaki dam in eastern Afghanistan. They had Hind-D's tactical air and a battalion of D-20 152mm howitzers firing in support.

The Afghans had a force of approximately 200 men with small arms and land mines, no artillery no missiles. One helicopter takes a section to a mountain peak for over watch struck a mine landing. Several others aborted and landed along with the rest main body onto the objective, which was a low flat hill the Soviets wanted for another firebase.

All hell then broke lose from the surrounding hills and low mountains. Within 9 hours the Soviet company was down to 11 men and another Hind and an a pair of Mi-8 had been brought down. The Afghans acted completely by fire and despite dozens of fighter-bomber missions and countless 152 rounds they suffered a couple dozen losses and retreated under nightfall.

[Sea Skimmer]

The real world is more complicated than the fantasies entertained by the National Rifle Association and militia cultists are willing to credit.

You conviently leave out the bloody crushing of the "Prague Spring"
movement, the crackdown in Hungary, and of course Tiannamen Square.

I left them out because they were not applicable to the examples of required conditions for successful revolution. Indeed, they demonstrate why those attempted uprisings were doomed —the governments were by no means enfeebled, they had the military backing them to the hilt, and the opposition was by no means organised; nor did they have foreign recognition and aid. The opposition could have had hunting rifles and pistols and the outcome would still have been the same.

The 250 destroyed Soviet tanks in Budpest suggest otherwise. Scale those losses to the whole United states and the US Army would decimated, though it doesnt have the forces to deal with armed uprising in more then mabey a dozen or so centers anyway.

Hell look at the forces the Russians need to control Chechnya, compare its size to the United States. You might also take a look at the trainloads of dead that still come out of the single province each week.

[Darth Wong]

The 250 destroyed Soviet tanks in Budpest suggest otherwise. Scale those losses to the whole United states and the US Army would decimated, though it doesnt have the forces to deal with armed uprising in more then mabey a dozen or so centers anyway.

Hell look at the forces the Russians need to control Chechnya, compare its size to the United States. You might also take a look at the trainloads of dead that still come out of the single province each week.

I notice that you are presuming the entirety of the citizenry will rise up and fight. This will not happen unless there is such uniformity of opinion that the military would be on their side anyway. In real fascist takeovers, large blocs of the population invariably side with the fascists, usually in the belief that they will benefit from doing so (or the belief that the fascists will hurt people other than themselves, so it's OK). Obviously, the military cannot put down 250 million rioting people without resorting to WMD. But that is not a realistic scenario.

[Patrick Degan]

The 250 destroyed Soviet tanks in Budpest suggest otherwise.

And just what happened to the Hungarians in 1956? Oh, that's right —they lost.

Scale those losses to the whole United States and the US Army would decimated, though it doesnt have the forces to deal with armed uprising in more then mabey a dozen or so centers anyway.

Or, we assume logically that a mass uprising would not take place because most people would either be unwilling to challenge a government willing to hold onto its power and commanding the loyalty of its army or not perceiving that their government is a dictatorship and not joining the rebels. Unless the obverse happens, you can posit whatever NRA-borne fantasies you like.

Hell look at the forces the Russians need to control Chechnya, compare its size to the United States. You might also take a look at the trainloads of dead that still come out of the single province each week.

And the Chechnians are no nearer to defeating the Russian government than when they started their revolt —which they never even dared to think of in the bad old days when the KGB was still in place.

[Sea Skimmer]

The 250 destroyed Soviet tanks in Budpest suggest otherwise. Scale those losses to the whole United states and the US Army would decimated, though it doesnt have the forces to deal with armed uprising in more then mabey a dozen or so centers anyway.

Hell look at the forces the Russians need to control Chechnya, compare its size to the United States. You might also take a look at the trainloads of dead that still come out of the single province each week.

I notice that you are presuming the entirety of the citizenry will rise up and fight. This will not happen unless there is such uniformity of opinion that the military would be on their side anyway. In real fascist takeovers, large blocs of the population invariably side with the fascists, usually in the belief that they will benefit from doing so (or the belief that the fascists will hurt people other than themselves, so it's OK). Obviously, the military cannot put down 250 million rioting people without resorting to WMD. But that is not a realistic scenario.

The majority of the population did not rise up in 1956, the vast majority hid in there basements while a handful destroyed a division worth of Soviet tanks.

[Darth Wong]

The majority of the population did not rise up in 1956, the vast majority hid in there basements while a handful destroyed a division worth of Soviet tanks.

With small-arms fire, as per the NRA fantasy?

BTW, you forgot to mention that they lost anyway.

[Patrick Degan]

The majority of the population did not rise up in 1956, the vast majority hid in there basements while a handful destroyed a division worth of Soviet tanks.

And you're still ignoring the inconvenient fact that the rebels lost.