What insurgents?

You mean Iraq Civilians who are defending themselves from the American Democracy?


If ANYTHING, WE are the insurgents. WE are the ones that inviaded their country, WE are the ones that annexed their country from them, WE are the ones that put the democracy in place


WE, are the insurgents.





Let me ask you this.



What if someone invaided the United States? Would you sit back and let them try to control you, establish a "democracy" (more like a puppet-government for the cheep exportation of Oil), take out our "Federal Government", and establish their own form of government within your own country?


Wouldn't THEY be called insurgents?



Oh, wait no. They'd be called Freedom Fighters for the "War On Terror"





It really makes me sad how many American's think we're sooooooo good while the rest of the world is evil.

I know, I was making the case that there are no military threats to our country, next time check context.

No military threat too us?


Maybe back in the 60s....

Ever heard of a Chinese Communist-Capitalist country?


The Chinese could obliverate us in a day if they really, really wanted to. How isn't that a threat?

But they don't. That's the whole point of 'peace' today.

Hehe. I like how you quote peace.


And you're right...



But the Chinese have ten people to our one, so yeah.

I consider them a threat

You are so ill informed it is not even funny. The equipment gap between the united states military and everyone else is pretty huge, not to mention the fact that it is not in china's best interest to attack the united states, it would mean a total collapse of their economy, we are there biggest trading partner.

Just because someone is more advanced, doesn't mean they will always win.

We may have a "technical government" but if we're overwhelmed by large amounts of people, our techonolgy doesn't mean shit.


America isn't as badass as you think it is.

On the battlefield, technology can make a huge difference, it is only useless when facing an invisible enemy(small groups and individuals working independently). Not to mention you completely ignore the economic aspect of war. Just logistically speaking, how do you invade a country of 300 million from across an ocean in which you have neither naval nor air superiority?

I completely ignore the economic aspect of war?


That's why I'm constantly bitching about how Bush is evil, and needs to be shot or impeached?


Damn you need to quit fabricating shit. No wonder PwnPirate and that Gun guy have trouble 'debating' against you, you fabricate shit and twist everything around.


Oh no! Ad Hominem Abusive, my bad.

Its called proporgada kell.

It's the same thing that i have been talking about for a long time.

A person is an inteligent being, able to make decisions all by them selfs. People as a group are sheep. In times of tragatyor stress, everyone is looking for an answer. Some people get thier answer from religion, others from the government. End of story. People (and yes, this includes me and you kell) are stupid sheep..... go team

Well if we're sheep together, then its all good

<3

Guys, you're viewing this problem as US vs. China, but I believe that is wrong.

I think we all know that everything in the world follows a sinusiod, and war is unavoidable. For war to begin, a lot of political and economic conditions must be met. I think now, the 'atmosphere' in the world is not suitable for such a conflict. By the time the conditions for war will be met, lots of things will change: China will get more warheads, new politica alliances will be formed, ect... China and the US will not go to war without any allies. Don't count the number of troops China has, don't measure how superiors the US war machine is to Chinas war machine; look at everything in a system - it's a global conflict, and you're comparing only 2 its participants, as if there will be no other powerful countries involved. As if Russia, Germany, France, Israel, UK, Italy, Spain, Japan (and others I forgot to mention) mean nothing.

I'm quite sure that if such a war does begin, the outcome will be obvious after about 15-30 minutes of war, if you know what I mean...

OK, back on topic.

Uh, no. I'm viewing this as: There are threats to the United States.


Antisleep said there isn't, so I simply used China as an example to prove my point.

My point being, that there are threats to the United States.

Antisleeps point being, that we are so technologically advanced that we have no threats.

Which is a logical fallacy, and is wrong.


I didn't want to use this as an example, but it works:


Ewoks Vs. The Empire



The Ewoks PWNT The Empire, and The Empire was much more superiour in technology than the Ewoks.


Sure, its just a movie, but the possibility exists.


Fuck, look at where we are now.

"Fighting an invisible enemy"


If we're the most technologically advanced as you claim we are (which more then likely we are), we would be able to "see" these "invisible enemies".


And how many of our soldiers have died, compared to their 'soldiers'?


A shit ton more.

Oh, guess you better count their civilian casualties since our government is making claims that most to all Iraq civilians are insurgents, and the retards of this country follow the United States government lies.

I am not talking about us. I am talking about your hypothetical war of china invading us. Do not make shit up, then accuse me of it. The economics involved with china attacking the united states would have ABSOLTELY NOTHING to do with Bush and Iraq. You are the one that brought up China as a potential military threat, and I explained why it was impossible(in no small part due to their economy). Then you bring up Iraq? Where did that come from?


For the record, when I use the word insurgent, I am referring only to their guerrilla nature, and combat tactics, not to which side has the just cause.

The bottom line is that this country has more than enough to defend it's borders, we do not need to be spending more than the rest of the planet combined on our military.

Are you talking about the invasion of Iraq or the occupation? Any military threat to the US would follow the invasion model, so lets look at that:

Since the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had a standing army of around 300K-400K troops. The US led coalition had around 300K people including naval support and logistics. There were far fewer actual combat troops.

US led coalition casualties: 173
Iraqi combatant fatalities: 5,000 to 11,000

I do not know any reliable civilian fatality count.

But you must understand that 1 chinese soldier is equivalent (when fighting in formation) to 1 NATO soldier. (lets try North American Though)

Comparing weaponry:

CHINESE: Slightly Modified Russian AK-47 with bayonette
NATO: Standard Colt.45 w/ Battle Riffle (say an M4A1)

Comparing Training:

Most chinese soldiers are (or were) conscripts either from the Viet war or newly trained, badly motivated people.
A NATO soldier is not forced into combat, but if he/she so happens to want to join the millitary, they go through months of training just to become privates. It takes much more time and effort to be promoted.

Comparing Economical Growth:

Being in Canada, I can effectively say that the US economy is dying reall fast. I mean, with our dollar soaring to just under 1.03 of your dollar, and seeing as how almost everybody is shiping business over to china, the US will lose growth, and will not develop as fast as they did.


Chinese war machines are modified versions of standard or old Russian weaponry equipment. Also, if China declares war on the US, Canada will intercept, along with many NATO countries. So basically it would look like this:

China+Russia+Communist Crap
VS
US+NATO Allies and some democratic states (states being countries)

BUt if you think about it, wars are bennifical! WW2 lead to the development of rockets, WW1, the begining of advanced aviation, Vietnam and Korea, nuclear weaponry, Hiroshima... OMG... then came the helium bomb... wow...


Now back on topic, GOVERNMENT


Anarchy: BAD, no leadership (think of this as hippy land)
Communism: BAD, I KILL COMMUNISTS, Im pro-capital (in some sense)
Democracy: -(meh)- Democracy has its weaknesses, like minority governments and Stephen Harper
Republic: -eh...- Ruling through a senate sounds nice, but corruption... eww
Monarchy: BADABAD, do you want some jackass ruling your ass and getting shot for disobeying a rule like "No Farting"

Mixture Governments: THERE WE GO!!!

Now, in theory, communism works, however in logistal data presented to us, and the people of communist states, it does not work.

Capitalism (Democracy) works very well, but there is a sign of weakness. Minority governments consistantly occure, and nothing can be done just because one party leader says to his members "DONT VOTE FOR THAT OTHER GUY'S PLAN!!! WE WANT OUT!!!" and they listen.

Fusing the straight forwardness of communism with the laws and mutal respects of capitalism is a start to a successful form of government. However, there is still a problem to be adressed: Corruption. In both forms of government there is corruption. So how do we stop this without violating the "NEW LAWS"? In theory we cant, in life we can



My theoritcal government -by an 11 year old... LOLVi3t-XWUT (lolz)

-> means elect

People -> Party Members
People -> President (SEPARTE VOTE)
President selects a group of elected members to represent as ministers and "secondary push leaders"
People -> Lead Minister which will not be on any party, but a neutral selection.


The president will select a group of highly quallified and experienced judges to serve in the "Supreme Court" Those judges will select another, much larger group of judges to serve in the "High Court" Those, in turn will elect more judges for the "National Court of Law" and again into the Provincal/State/County Court and again into a residential or municipal court

The president will also have "observational" powers over every ministry compared to the "I act, you follow law"
Members of government found unsuiteable to the people can be over-ruled by people if at least 70% of the population beleives there is a problem. From there, the president must act, and question that member of government as to why he/she should retain their position. If the president wishes to eject the member, the descision is final. If the president does not eject the member, a vote will be taken from within the government building. If enough "national members" (say another 70%) wish to eject that member, then the member will be ejected.

As for military, it will be ruled by 5 top people:

The High General (4 Star) of the Main Army
The Fleet Admiral of the Navy
The Airborne Partol General of the Airforce
The Commander of the Civil Militia
The Leader of the Weaponry Development and Storage Arsenal

From there on, they will elect other branches of leaders and soldiers from Colonels to Recruits

The government will also have obeservational power over the military of that country, no direct action can be made without concensus from the top 5. From there on in, once a war is declared, the civil populace will have no action against the decision. Soldiers refusing to fight for whatever reason will be sent to the High Court for further dispatches. (this is protect the plans from hippies) To further this, every member from a party begining from the provincial level will vote to decide if a war should be made. If a minimum of 80% of the votes agree with the war pact, it is ON!!! Anything less will be dismissed, but locked into a permanent file folder enstating the plans.

TO PREVENT CORRUPTION AND RETARDS: well, you voted for them so you da weetad!

Now, to prevent unfair elections, each person will get a ticketed ballot which is read under a ballot scanner (sorta like how your library card is checked) Once the ticket is scanner, the ticket holder will be checked off in the country's "Electoral Database" as an incentive to vote, those who dont vote are punished with a 10% "Non-Voters Charge" off their total income in 1 year.
To prevent the use of "unfair checking", the polling station will keep a record of the voters as well.

Thats it for now... Ill edit constantly

But you must understand that 1 chinese soldier is equivalent (when fighting in formation) to 1 NATO soldier. (lets try North American Though)

Comparing weaponry:

CHINESE: Slightly Modified Russian AK-47 with bayonette
NATO: Standard Colt.45 w/ Battle Riffle (say an M4A1)

Comparing Training:

Most chinese soldiers are (or were) conscripts either from the Viet war or newly trained, badly motivated people.
A NATO soldier is not forced into combat, but if he/she so happens to want to join the millitary, they go through months of training just to become privates. It takes much more time and effort to be promoted.

Comparing Economical Growth:

Being in Canada, I can effectively say that the US economy is dying reall fast. I mean, with our dollar soaring to just under 1.03 of your dollar, and seeing as how almost everybody is shiping business over to china, the US will lose growth, and will not develop as fast as they did.


Chinese war machines are modified versions of standard or old Russian weaponry equipment. Also, if China declares war on the US, Canada will intercept, along with many NATO countries. So basically it would look like this:

China+Russia+Communist Crap
VS
US+NATO Allies and some democratic states (states being countries)

BUt if you think about it, wars are bennifical! WW2 lead to the development of rockets, WW1, the begining of advanced aviation, Vietnam and Korea, nuclear weaponry, Hiroshima... OMG... then came the helium bomb... wow...


Now back on topic, GOVERNMENT


Anarchy: BAD, no leadership (think of this as hippy land)
Communism: BAD, I KILL COMMUNISTS, Im pro-capital (in some sense)
Democracy: -(meh)- Democracy has its weaknesses, like minority governments and Stephen Harper
Republic: -eh...- Ruling through a senate sounds nice, but corruption... eww
Monarchy: BADABAD, do you want some jackass ruling your ass and getting shot for disobeying a rule like "No Farting"

Mixture Governments: THERE WE GO!!!

Now, in theory, communism works, however in logistal data presented to us, and the people of communist states, it does not work.

Capitalism (Democracy) works very well, but there is a sign of weakness. Minority governments consistantly occure, and nothing can be done just because one party leader says to his members "DONT VOTE FOR THAT OTHER GUY'S PLAN!!! WE WANT OUT!!!" and they listen.

Fusing the straight forwardness of communism with the laws and mutal respects of capitalism is a start to a successful form of government. However, there is still a problem to be adressed: Corruption. In both forms of government there is corruption. So how do we stop this without violating the "NEW LAWS"? In theory we cant, in life we can



My theoritcal government -by an 11 year old... LOLVi3t-XWUT (lolz)

-> means elect

People -> Party Members
People -> President (SEPARTE VOTE)
President selects a group of elected members to represent as ministers and "secondary push leaders"
People -> Lead Minister which will not be on any party, but a neutral selection.


The president will select a group of highly quallified and experienced judges to serve in the "Supreme Court" Those judges will select another, much larger group of judges to serve in the "High Court" Those, in turn will elect more judges for the "National Court of Law" and again into the Provincal/State/County Court and again into a residential or municipal court

The president will also have "observational" powers over every ministry compared to the "I act, you follow law"
Members of government found unsuiteable to the people can be over-ruled by people if at least 70% of the population beleives there is a problem. From there, the president must act, and question that member of government as to why he/she should retain their position. If the president wishes to eject the member, the descision is final. If the president does not eject the member, a vote will be taken from within the government building. If enough "national members" (say another 70%) wish to eject that member, then the member will be ejected.

As for military, it will be ruled by 5 top people:

The High General (4 Star) of the Main Army
The Fleet Admiral of the Navy
The Airborne Partol General of the Airforce
The Commander of the Civil Militia
The Leader of the Weaponry Development and Storage Arsenal

From there on, they will elect other branches of leaders and soldiers from Colonels to Recruits

The government will also have obeservational power over the military of that country, no direct action can be made without concensus from the top 5. From there on in, once a war is declared, the civil populace will have no action against the decision. Soldiers refusing to fight for whatever reason will be sent to the High Court for further dispatches. (this is protect the plans from hippies) To further this, every member from a party begining from the provincial level will vote to decide if a war should be made. If a minimum of 80% of the votes agree with the war pact, it is ON!!! Anything less will be dismissed, but locked into a permanent file folder enstating the plans.

TO PREVENT CORRUPTION AND RETARDS: well, you voted for them so you da weetad!

Now, to prevent unfair elections, each person will get a ticketed ballot which is read under a ballot scanner (sorta like how your library card is checked) Once the ticket is scanner, the ticket holder will be checked off in the country's "Electoral Database" as an incentive to vote, those who dont vote are punished with a 10% "Non-Voters Charge" off their total income in 1 year.
To prevent the use of "unfair checking", the polling station will keep a record of the voters as well.

Thats it for now... Ill edit constantly

wrong thread

Oi?

I was modifying a post, and pasted from my text editor into wrong tab

Until we get a looney in the White House who abuses The Patriot Act and The Military Commisions Act.


Don't make shit up and acuse you of it? I don't have to: Here is the direct link to your post: Your post

So how have I "made shit up and acused you of it" when you even claimed that there are no military threats to our country?

I simply created a hypothetical situation to point out that your claims of no military threat are not plausible. There are always threats. Everywhere. In every aspect of every day life. To claim that there are no military threats to our country is very ludicrious.


What allies does the United States have?

I'm pretty sure we lost Britian's (The United Kingdom) support, and that was one of our main allies in this "War on Terror"!

That's one super-power who doesn't like us much anymore.

How many others are there that don't like us much anymore? I could go on.

So if China did in fact want to attack the United States, they'd have EVERY country that supports Terrorism and Communism on their side.


Who would we have? The United States and Britian?


Some "allies"...


I brought up Iraq?

Sorry, but it seems like you're the one fabricating words. I simply mentioned how Bush is evil (because you said I ignore the "aspects of economy") and needed to be shot.

Unless you're talking about this:
And if that's the case, I was only replying to your discussion about insurgents. The whole retort I devised talked about insurgents, not about Bush and Iraq, so I don't see why you're claiming that I'm fabricating things, I've just been replying to your retorts.

Yes, I brought up China. Because they ARE a threat, regardless of "their economical situation"

Do you think we give a damn about how much money we spend everyday in the "War on Terror" that our dictator has pushed us into?

Obviously not. Since we're almost into the Trillions (or have passed it) of spending in the "war".

So with my reasoning, since we spend outragious amounts of money towards Violence and War, other countries would do the same; hence, China could invade us because they are a threat. Small, big, it doesn't matter. Your claims are that there are none, so I simply created a hypothetical situation that possibly could happen, to show you that your claims are falliable.

I brought up Iraq? Where?

Ooooh! You probibly mean that I brought it up because you used the word that identifies the type of individuals we are fighting in Iraq

Maybe you shouldn't use words that aren't the true meaning of the point you're trying to get across to people. Instead, talk about the real meaning of the word you're using, instead of saying a word and creating a scenario that "you were talking about" (more then likely to try to make whoever would retort against you to look like a fool, but whatever)


I'm making shit up?


If replying to your posts is "making shit up" then everyone here does a lot of shit-making.