Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112
Results 221 to 228 of 228

Thread: Terror attack in Denmark

  1. #221

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    So we shouldn't have even tried? It's better to just accept tyranny? I don't buy it.
    You propose a war against China and North Korea too?. It is easy for you to play politics with other peoples lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Iraq was a safe haven for Islamic extremists. America only failed in the region because, just like in Vietnam, our congress didn't have the stomach to carry out the mission to the end. Leaving Iraq was a mistake, though the administration will never admit it.
    Delusional. No it wasn't, but it certainly is now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    The police. There were still rebels who resisted. Shoving all of the French into one category is plain racist and ignorant.
    Despite the valiant efforts of some, they still surrendered rather too early and both governments were content to round up Jews and send them to their deaths.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    The Holocaust was a tragedy, no one but idiot Holocaust deniers will argue that. What I will argue is that Hitler's regime did not represent all Europeans, hence the resistance to the Nazis!
    And yet several European governments deported Jews into Nazi hands. I would only let off Mussolini.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    It's not my fault that you cannot understand how to defend yourself.
    You don't get off that lightly, you beleive in the right to kill do you not? Defend is a euphemism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Yes, ISIS is horrible and should be exterminated. The government isn't oppressing me fully, because, lo and behold, I still have gun rights, despite the best efforts of people like you. The government does oppress us all every day with unconstitutional laws that overstep it's bounds, such as Obamacare, so called "progressive" tax rates(I fail to see the progress in communism), and more and more gun restrictions.
    Because it much be really oppresive to have access to a doctor if sick or injured. Compared with the injustices seen in Zimbabwe, Northern Nigeria or North Korea, I think the term "get a life" has to be deployed here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    You think the men in suits are going to follow the law because it's the right thing to do? No! The government is full of corrupt people. The armament of citizens gives those men pause every time they think of taking away something from the public, because they know that this country is built on a tradition of armed resistance against overbearing government!
    Like David Koresh, or a Libyan tribal warband? The US is supposed to be a developed country.
    Last edited by Aikanár; March 07, 2015 at 02:56 AM. Reason: insulting others
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  2. #222
    ShockBlast's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    European Union , Romania , Constanta
    Posts
    4,496

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Iraq was a safe haven for Islamic extremists. America only failed in the region because, just like in Vietnam, our congress didn't have the stomach to carry out the mission to the end. Leaving Iraq was a mistake, though the administration will never admit it.
    No it was not.Iraq was ruled by a secular dictator.

    There shouldn`t have been a second invasion of Iraq to begin with.

  3. #223
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Iraq was a safe haven for Islamic extremists. America only failed in the region because, just like in Vietnam, our congress didn't have the stomach to carry out the mission to the end. Leaving Iraq was a mistake, though the administration will never admit it.
    For starters, if Saddam - a ruthless dictator - was still in power over Iraq, a rebel group like ISIS would have been nipped in the bud faster than a helpless Kurd choked to death on hydrogen cyanide in Saddam's genocidal Halabja chemical attack of 1988. Saddam was one of the cruelest dictators of all time, which isn't a good thing, but it also ensures that groups like ISIS would have been summarily executed and their entire tribes wiped out just for fun. Besides, ISIS are fellow Sunnis; they would have never risen up against Saddam in the first place.

    While it is true that ISIS would have had no chance to take over northern Iraq had the US and coalition military still been present to fight off their insurgency, that wasn't the goal of the United States in the first place, to garrison Iraq as an overseas colony for eternity (or something akin to South Korea today). As a fiscal conservative, you should be concerned about stuff like tax-payer's money, $6 trillion of which was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mind you, I think the War in Afghanistan was more than justified, considering how the Taliban sheltered al-Qaeda during 9/11, the terrorist network responsible for the attack.

    Occupying Iraq forever to make sure the Shia and Sunni didn't kill each other makes no sense. News flash: they're going to keep killing each other regardless of us clumsily attempting to play referee.

    The Holocaust was a tragedy, no one but idiot Holocaust deniers will argue that. What I will argue is that Hitler's regime did not represent all Europeans, hence the resistance to the Nazis!
    That's a fair point, and includes Germans of the era too who were brave enough to shelter Jews when such a thing was a death sentence for treason against the state.

    It's not my fault that you cannot understand how to defend yourself.
    I'm with you on this. Obviously there's a difference from feeling secure in your own home from the threat of home invaders that could be a potential danger to your loved ones, versus a lust for just walking outside and randomly shooting strangers in the face because you're a sociopath. I think lots of people have the desire to own firearms for the instinctive impulse of protecting their family first and foremost. Of course, there are plenty who just want to own guns because it's cool to shoot stuff at a firing range, but oftentimes these two impulses are wed in the same individual.

    Personally I don't own a gun or feel the need for one (living in northern Ireland, even with its sordid history between Protestants and Catholics, isn't much of a threat for an American like me, so long as I don't go walking in the wrong neighborhoods of Belfast). However, I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to own a firearm.

    Yes, ISIS is horrible and should be exterminated. The government isn't oppressing me fully, because, lo and behold, I still have gun rights, despite the best efforts of people like you. The government does oppress us all every day with unconstitutional laws that overstep it's bounds, such as Obamacare, so called "progressive" tax rates(I fail to see the progress in communism), and more and more gun restrictions.
    LOL! Now you lost me. Increasing the graduated income tax rate for annual salary earners of $100,000 and more by a few percentage points above how they were taxed under George W. Bush is not tantamount to transforming the United States economy into a Soviet-style, communist, federally-planned economy. Obama hasn't taken over private companies like Koch Industries, Dell, Cox Enterprises, Toys 'R' Us, etc. and appointed government bureaucrats to run their businesses. The day he does that I suppose I'll grab an AR-15 and join you, but that day will never come. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Also, this obsession with Obamacare (Affordable Care Act), starting with the hysterical "death panels" nonsense and on and on. Also take into account Mitt Romney, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts who instituted the same health care plan in that state, and why he isn't railed against for supposedly trying to take away everyone's freedoms just like Obama? Quite frankly I don't particularly agree with the mandate that people HAVE to buy insurance (that's a bit much), but they at least still do so from private companies in competition with one another instead of from insidious monopolies like how some existed before Obamacare. In its defense, this mandate mirrors some other government policies like people HAVING to buy car insurance when they own a car.

    As for some people losing their original doctor and Obama botching that by saying "you can keep your doctor," yeah, that's obviously the fault of the bill and the Obama team. That was a minor glitch, though, and really only applicable to a small segment of those who bought into the co-op program.

    You think the men in suits are going to follow the law because it's the right thing to do? No! The government is full of corrupt people. The armament of citizens gives those men pause every time they think of taking away something from the public, because they know that this country is built on a tradition of armed resistance against overbearing government!
    Hah! You suddenly reminded me of that Cliven Bundy standoff. In that case the cops really did back off, although to be honest Bundy was grazing on land that wasn't his own (a minor offense that could have been solved with a court summons in the mail, and certainly didn't require such an armed standoff, but there you have it in the police state that is America).

    If not the American Revolutionary War against the British, you also reminded me of the Battle of Fort Sumter in South Carolina, 1861.

    Honestly, though, the US government doesn't want open rebellion on its hands, certainly nothing like the Confederacy. However, private ownership of a shotgun or two wouldn't dissuade the US government (should it ever become a tyranny) from drone striking rebels into oblivion from the air. Your theory about private ownership of firearms is all fine and dandy if applied to an age when everyone just had flintlock muskets, plus some 18th-century field artillery. The government these days could be more than just a little more sophisticated in eradicating us if they wanted to do so.

  4. #224
    Brihentin13's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Inside the TV.
    Posts
    1,600

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    For starters, if Saddam - a ruthless dictator - was still in power over Iraq, a rebel group like ISIS would have been nipped in the bud faster than a helpless Kurd choked to death on hydrogen cyanide in Saddam's genocidal Halabja chemical attack of 1988. Saddam was one of the cruelest dictators of all time, which isn't a good thing, but it also ensures that groups like ISIS would have been summarily executed and their entire tribes wiped out just for fun. Besides, ISIS are fellow Sunnis; they would have never risen up against Saddam in the first place.

    While it is true that ISIS would have had no chance to take over northern Iraq had the US and coalition military still been present to fight off their insurgency, that wasn't the goal of the United States in the first place, to garrison Iraq as an overseas colony for eternity (or something akin to South Korea today).
    Your points are good, and I appreciate you debating me with some class instead of insults. Now, I did not say that we should garrison Iraq forever, but leaving when we did was certainly a mistake, as it left a power vacuum for ISIS to occupy. The Iraqi government was weak and corrupt, and the military surrendered or fled in droves, leaving behind all of this nice tech that we'd given the Iraqis forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    As a fiscal conservative, you should be concerned about stuff like tax-payer's money, $6 trillion of which was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mind you, I think the War in Afghanistan was more than justified, considering how the Taliban sheltered al-Qaeda during 9/11, the terrorist network responsible for the attack.
    Oh, of course I don't like the money being spent, but I'd rather the money go towards the cause of liberty than another welfare state kind of program. I think it's money well spent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Occupying Iraq forever to make sure the Shia and Sunni didn't kill each other makes no sense. News flash: they're going to keep killing each other regardless of us clumsily attempting to play referee.
    That is a fair point, but what else can we do? Just sitting back and watching terrorist pop out of that explosive environment(see what I did there?) doesn't seem to be a better solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    That's a fair point, and includes Germans of the era too who were brave enough to shelter Jews when such a thing was a death sentence for treason against the state.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I'm with you on this. Obviously there's a difference from feeling secure in your own home from the threat of home invaders that could be a potential danger to your loved ones, versus a lust for just walking outside and randomly shooting strangers in the face because you're a sociopath. I think lots of people have the desire to own firearms for the instinctive impulse of protecting their family first and foremost. Of course, there are plenty who just want to own guns because it's cool to shoot stuff at a firing range, but oftentimes these two impulses are wed in the same individual.

    Personally I don't own a gun or feel the need for one (living in northern Ireland, even with its sordid history between Protestants and Catholics, isn't much of a threat for an American like me, so long as I don't go walking in the wrong neighborhoods of Belfast). However, I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to own a firearm.
    Thank you for recognizing me as rational and not a murderous viking berserker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    LOL! Now you lost me. Increasing the graduated income tax rate for annual salary earners of $100,000 and more by a few percentage points above how they were taxed under George W. Bush is not tantamount to transforming the United States economy into a Soviet-style, communist, federally-planned economy. Obama hasn't taken over private companies like Koch Industries, Dell, Cox Enterprises, Toys 'R' Us, etc. and appointed government bureaucrats to run their businesses. The day he does that I suppose I'll grab an AR-15 and join you, but that day will never come. Sorry to disappoint you.
    Income tax should not exist at all, as it destroys the idea of private property. Think you own your house? Try to not pay taxes on it. I also despise the idea of punishing success through graduated tax rates. "I have overcome life's challenges and become successful, so now I should take care of everyone else?" I'm pretty hardcore on those ideals of limited governance. I don't want a "great society" where everyone is taken care of, I want a government that protects us from foreign aggression and the occasional roaming pyschopath, then leaves us the hell alone.

    I prefer the idea of a higher sales tax rate. That way, everybody pays into the system, even visitors and illegal immigrants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Also, this obsession with Obamacare (Affordable Care Act), starting with the hysterical "death panels" nonsense and on and on. Also take into account Mitt Romney, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts who instituted the same health care plan in that state, and why he isn't railed against for supposedly trying to take away everyone's freedoms just like Obama? Quite frankly I don't particularly agree with the mandate that people HAVE to buy insurance (that's a bit much), but they at least still do so from private companies in competition with one another instead of from insidious monopolies like how some existed before Obamacare. In its defense, this mandate mirrors some other government policies like people HAVING to buy car insurance when they own a car.
    I never said I liked Romney. I'm a Ron Paul kind of guy. Granted, Ron Paul would likely disagree with me on foreign policy, but he's still a better fit than Romney for me. I despise the ideals of the current Democratic party here in the states, but that doesn't mean I'm very fond of Republicans. I find the GOP to be lacking in the spine department, but I that could take up a whole 'nother thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    As for some people losing their original doctor and Obama botching that by saying "you can keep your doctor," yeah, that's obviously the fault of the bill and the Obama team. That was a minor glitch, though, and really only applicable to a small segment of those who bought into the co-op program.
    Flat out lying is never a good thing, but I suppose Obama isn't the only liar in Washington. I refer you to the point you made above about being forced to buy insurance through the program. My healthcare isn't Uncle Sam's business, nor do I like the idea of paying for anyone else's through my higher rates(yes, they have gone up for me as well as for every member of my family). As I said before, it isn't the government's business, nor is my car insurance, when you get down to it. Hell, I oppose seatbelt laws for that matter. If people want to be dumbasses and fly out of car windows, let them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Hah! You suddenly reminded me of that Cliven Bundy standoff. In that case the cops really did back off, although to be honest Bundy was grazing on land that wasn't his own (a minor offense that could have been solved with a court summons in the mail, and certainly didn't require such an armed standoff, but there you have it in the police state that is America).
    This was a victory for our rights and a big middle finger to the authoritarian leaning segments of our government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    If not the American Revolutionary War against the British, you also reminded me of the Battle of Fort Sumter in South Carolina, 1861.

    Honestly, though, the US government doesn't want open rebellion on its hands, certainly nothing like the Confederacy. However, private ownership of a shotgun or two wouldn't dissuade the US government (should it ever become a tyranny) from drone striking rebels into oblivion from the air. Your theory about private ownership of firearms is all fine and dandy if applied to an age when everyone just had flintlock muskets, plus some 18th-century field artillery. The government these days could be more than just a little more sophisticated in eradicating us if they wanted to do so.
    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be willing to fight if our rights are threatened. The Nazis wiped out dissent rather well, but it didn't stop some brave people.

    Honestly, it should never come to that, but the simple inconvenience of an armed populace has been helpful in the past(recall the Imperial Japanese unwillingness to commit to trying to invade the continental U.S.). I'm not saying that gun rights completely prevented Japan from attacking in such a way(there were other considerations, like the actual military response), but just having it factor into things creates some level of deterrence.

    Besides, look at Iraq. As recent history has demonstrated, low-tech insurrections can still be a major pain to deal with. Unlike Iraq, where most of the weapons were old Soviet gear and ducktape, an American rebellion would benefit from things like air-conditioning, the internet, and Home Depot, along with the ability to maybe strike from along the notoriously insecure Mexican border. Such a revolution would not have to actually win and take D.C., but just make themselves a horrendous nuisance to the powers that be. Being such a potential pain in the ass is deterrence to tyrants, at least somewhat. There will certainly be no lazy dictators arising in the States.

    Besides9again), you know that some rednecks up in the Tennessee hills are just waiting to take their revenge on the Union and get their slaves back. They wouldn't even care about the politics of rebellion, they'd just want to wave rebel flags and shout angrily at Billy Yank.

    Free Kekistan

  5. #225
    TASS07's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    TASSmania
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    And the thread just keeps going

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Your points are good, and I appreciate you debating me with some class instead of insults. Now, I did not say that we should garrison Iraq forever, but leaving when we did was certainly a mistake, as it left a power vacuum for ISIS to occupy. The Iraqi government was weak and corrupt, and the military surrendered or fled in droves, leaving behind all of this nice tech that we'd given the Iraqis forces.
    Yes, leaving Iraq in the state it was left was probably un-wise and helped prepare the ground for the IS. So did the rise of Shia politicians to power. But firstly that doesn't justify the invasion in the first place. And it doesn't mean that things could have gone any better if US troops had stayed longer. I'm usually arguing that the withdrawal at that point was a mistake, but I am not sure how longer-term stability could have been assured either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Oh, of course I don't like the money being spent, but I'd rather the money go towards the cause of liberty than another welfare state kind of program. I think it's money well spent.
    You've already conceeded how Iraq eventually ended in disaster, how was it money well spent?
    An Empire under the Sun - A HOI3 AAR
    Follow the fight of 3 generals to become a world power
    Updated with Chapter 2 (3/3/15 UTC)

  6. #226
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by TASS07 View Post
    Yes, leaving Iraq in the state it was left was probably un-wise and helped prepare the ground for the IS. So did the rise of Shia politicians to power. But firstly that doesn't justify the invasion in the first place. And it doesn't mean that things could have gone any better if US troops had stayed longer. I'm usually arguing that the withdrawal at that point was a mistake, but I am not sure how longer-term stability could have been assured either.
    A while ago people laughed at Biden for suggesting Iraq should be partitioned into three states, a Shia South, Sunni North, and Kurdish northeast, or at the very least given a federal system where these regions had large amounts of autonomy from Baghdad. No one listened or cared for that solution. Nouri al-Maliki was a terrible partisan when it came to religious politics. He completely alienated the Sunnis to the detriment of Iraq's national security and was overthrown for good reason (even Obama nudging him to resign).

    Quite frankly I'd like to see the Orthodox Christian Assyrians carve out their own country in the north, their ethnic homeland, so long as they're not stepping on the Kurds' toes in doing so. It will be the new Assyrian Empire, only this time they'll worship the Big Guy (God) and Jesus instead of pagan gods like Ashur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brihentin13 View Post
    Your points are good, and I appreciate you debating me with some class instead of insults. Now, I did not say that we should garrison Iraq forever, but leaving when we did was certainly a mistake, as it left a power vacuum for ISIS to occupy. The Iraqi government was weak and corrupt, and the military surrendered or fled in droves, leaving behind all of this nice tech that we'd given the Iraqis forces.
    Again, this is all very true, as true as the eventual fate of southern Vietnam when the US gradually pulled out under Nixon and Ford (as pressured by Congress). Just like Nixon and Ford, Obama had to deal with an electorate that was completely exhausted and fed up with nearly a decade of war (from 2003 to 2011, over eight years by the time it ended). In fact, it had already been a decade of war if you consider Afghanistan, which we invaded right after 9/11. There was simply no more political will stateside for this conflict. To be honest, in the years between 2011 and 2014, the US public was lulled into thinking the problems with nation-building were largely fixed and Iraq could finally fend for itself under Nouri al-Maliki's government. Even the situation in the largely factionally-splintered Afghanistan loosely ruled by Kabul these days is looking merrier than it did several years ago. Obama, much like everyone else in 2013, scoffed at the idea of the small splinter group calling itself ISIL gaining any ground beyond superficial gains.

    Quite frankly the flight of the Iraqi army from the northern half of their country in June and July 2014 caught everyone off guard, whereas the US public in the early 1970s was more or less well aware that North Vietnam remained a considerable threat to South Vietnam's existence. This was the same Iraqi army that we had so heavily trained and expended so many millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours in doing so. It wasn't so much the average grunt's fault as it was their pathetic commanders who turned tail at the smallest threat (relative handful of ISIL fighters). Their commanding officers were collectively like a chicken who voluntarily cut its own head off and started running wild because a chihuahua puppy was chasing after it and barking. The soldiers, many of them Shiites, knew they were deep within traditionally Sunni territory, so they didn't feel a large need to stick around once the panic set in.

    Oh, of course I don't like the money being spent, but I'd rather the money go towards the cause of liberty than another welfare state kind of program. I think it's money well spent.
    This is where you and I differ to an extent, but that's a discussion for another thread.

    Thank you for recognizing me as rational and not a murderous viking berserker.
    You exhibited no signs of being those, so there was no need to attribute to you any labels or pigeonholed categories.

    Income tax should not exist at all, as it destroys the idea of private property. Think you own your house? Try to not pay taxes on it. I also despise the idea of punishing success through graduated tax rates. "I have overcome life's challenges and become successful, so now I should take care of everyone else?" I'm pretty hardcore on those ideals of limited governance. I don't want a "great society" where everyone is taken care of, I want a government that protects us from foreign aggression and the occasional roaming pyschopath, then leaves us the hell alone.

    I prefer the idea of a higher sales tax rate. That way, everybody pays into the system, even visitors and illegal immigrants.
    This is an interesting idea, truly. I don't think there's political will in Washington to overhaul the tax system, but you're right, income tax does kind of stink. Whereas people don't have to buy certain things if they don't want to, while higher sales taxes could be levied on products that are considered ostentatious luxury items or for more general goods at a far lower rate to accommodate poor and middle class wallets.

    Still, taxes pay for stuff like roads, highways, sewage and waste management, power supply, hospitals, schools, teachers' salaries, professional fire departments (not the volunteer ones), etc. Unless we are willing to privatize all of those things, and accept the risks involved in privatizing all of them, then unfortunately taxes are the only way to provide such services to the public to maintain health, security, and collective prosperity.

    To be honest, I would like to see police struck off that list (i.e. privatize instead of having police departments as publicly funded). That would mean a return to the ole neighborhood constables that everyone in their community could trust and even have a beer with after his shift was over. When a serial killer is on the loose, though, you need professional investigators, homicide detectives, and a forensics lab team, of course. Even if the average patrolmen were replaced by private constables, there's no going back from having the more sophisticated members of law enforcement, I believe.

    I never said I liked Romney. I'm a Ron Paul kind of guy. Granted, Ron Paul would likely disagree with me on foreign policy, but he's still a better fit than Romney for me. I despise the ideals of the current Democratic party here in the states, but that doesn't mean I'm very fond of Republicans. I find the GOP to be lacking in the spine department, but I that could take up a whole 'nother thread
    Indeed, let's not derail this one.

    Flat out lying is never a good thing, but I suppose Obama isn't the only liar in Washington. I refer you to the point you made above about being forced to buy insurance through the program. My healthcare isn't Uncle Sam's business, nor do I like the idea of paying for anyone else's through my higher rates(yes, they have gone up for me as well as for every member of my family). As I said before, it isn't the government's business, nor is my car insurance, when you get down to it. Hell, I oppose seatbelt laws for that matter. If people want to be dumbasses and fly out of car windows, let them.
    Well then you would love a certain country called Kyrgyzstan, where I served as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching English for two years. It was almost standard that cars didn't feature seat belts for the back seats. Cops could still fine you a petty amount for not wearing a seat belt in the front seat, but most people just put them on when they saw a cop nearby, and usually took them off soon after. Most times cops didn't give a crap. Welcome to the Second World (some would argue Third World, since large parts of Kyrgyzstan are poor and poverty-stricken as hell).

    This was a victory for our rights and a big middle finger to the authoritarian leaning segments of our government.
    To be honest I just thought it was funny; some -kicking rancher standing up to the cops. It's something out of a John Wayne flick. At least someone's standing up to those cops...and not getting shot at the same time. That's a rarity.

    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be willing to fight if our rights are threatened. The Nazis wiped out dissent rather well, but it didn't stop some brave people.

    Honestly, it should never come to that, but the simple inconvenience of an armed populace has been helpful in the past(recall the Imperial Japanese unwillingness to commit to trying to invade the continental U.S.). I'm not saying that gun rights completely prevented Japan from attacking in such a way(there were other considerations, like the actual military response), but just having it factor into things creates some level of deterrence.

    Besides, look at Iraq. As recent history has demonstrated, low-tech insurrections can still be a major pain to deal with. Unlike Iraq, where most of the weapons were old Soviet gear and ducktape, an American rebellion would benefit from things like air-conditioning, the internet, and Home Depot, along with the ability to maybe strike from along the notoriously insecure Mexican border. Such a revolution would not have to actually win and take D.C., but just make themselves a horrendous nuisance to the powers that be. Being such a potential pain in the ass is deterrence to tyrants, at least somewhat. There will certainly be no lazy dictators arising in the States.

    Besides9again), you know that some rednecks up in the Tennessee hills are just waiting to take their revenge on the Union and get their slaves back. They wouldn't even care about the politics of rebellion, they'd just want to wave rebel flags and shout angrily at Billy Yank.
    You're right, of course the American people should fight back when and if a tyranny is created. Let's hope that's never the case. You're also right, however, that we're far better equipped than poor folk in places like Iraq. An insurrection in the United States would be a nightmare for Washington, even though it commands the most powerful and well-funded military in the entire world. The US is just too large and prosperous and filled with guns wielded by hicks (as you allude) for a quick military action to crush a widespread rebellion all at once. One disastrous thing would occur soon after a hypothetical insurrection starts, though, and that would be huge amounts of US military personnel being pulled out of the world stage to come back to the US to impose martial law and domestic order. You can bet good money, even your mom's jewelry that countries that dislike us, like North Korea and Russia, would immediately take advantage of the vacuum left by the former world police who just departed. NATO's capability would become seriously hindered overnight. I would also assume that many servicemen, Americans like you and I, would hesitate to put a bullet into a fellow American, especially if the government is exhibiting crazy and despotic tendencies, disregarding rule of law, etc.

  7. #227
    TASS07's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    TASSmania
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    A while ago people laughed at Biden for suggesting Iraq should be partitioned into three states, a Shia South, Sunni North, and Kurdish northeast, or at the very least given a federal system where these regions had large amounts of autonomy from Baghdad. No one listened or cared for that solution. Nouri al-Maliki was a terrible partisan when it came to religious politics. He completely alienated the Sunnis to the detriment of Iraq's national security and was overthrown for good reason (even Obama nudging him to resign).
    While I don't think that partitions would resolve much here (Exact border lines would be hard to find, pre-programming further dispute, look at how well it worked in india, just to give one reason), I don't think federalisation would hurt much, so long as it preserves functional countries. Here a similar danger is looming though, as federalisation can turn into a cold standoff between the federal parties. It's usually working best where it's applied in a hybrid system of political federalism combined with political movements/parties that include the entire country (Germany, US etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Quite frankly I'd like to see the Orthodox Christian Assyrians carve out their own country in the north, their ethnic homeland, so long as they're not stepping on the Kurds' toes in doing so. It will be the new Assyrian Empire, only this time they'll worship the Big Guy (God) and Jesus instead of pagan gods like Ashur.
    Oh lord, not another religiuosly motivated territory...
    An Empire under the Sun - A HOI3 AAR
    Follow the fight of 3 generals to become a world power
    Updated with Chapter 2 (3/3/15 UTC)

  8. #228
    Brihentin13's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Inside the TV.
    Posts
    1,600

    Default Re: Terror attack in Denmark

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    A while ago people laughed at Biden for suggesting Iraq should be partitioned into three states, a Shia South, Sunni North, and Kurdish northeast, or at the very least given a federal system where these regions had large amounts of autonomy from Baghdad. No one listened or cared for that solution. Nouri al-Maliki was a terrible partisan when it came to religious politics. He completely alienated the Sunnis to the detriment of Iraq's national security and was overthrown for good reason (even Obama nudging him to resign).

    Quite frankly I'd like to see the Orthodox Christian Assyrians carve out their own country in the north, their ethnic homeland, so long as they're not stepping on the Kurds' toes in doing so. It will be the new Assyrian Empire, only this time they'll worship the Big Guy (God) and Jesus instead of pagan gods like Ashur.
    Bring back Assyria, then rename the other part of Iraq centered around Baghdad as "Babylon." Rename Iran back to Persia. Then, have Greece become world power again. Italy suddenly becomes super important again, and we here in America sit back and watch as the ancient world comes back to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Again, this is all very true, as true as the eventual fate of southern Vietnam when the US gradually pulled out under Nixon and Ford (as pressured by Congress). Just like Nixon and Ford, Obama had to deal with an electorate that was completely exhausted and fed up with nearly a decade of war (from 2003 to 2011, over eight years by the time it ended). In fact, it had already been a decade of war if you consider Afghanistan, which we invaded right after 9/11. There was simply no more political will stateside for this conflict. To be honest, in the years between 2011 and 2014, the US public was lulled into thinking the problems with nation-building were largely fixed and Iraq could finally fend for itself under Nouri al-Maliki's government. Even the situation in the largely factionally-splintered Afghanistan loosely ruled by Kabul these days is looking merrier than it did several years ago. Obama, much like everyone else in 2013, scoffed at the idea of the small splinter group calling itself ISIL gaining any ground beyond superficial gains.
    I view Vietnam as another American mistake, but not in the way that most people do. Many people have compared Iraq to the same "quagmire" kind of war as Vietnam turned out to be, but I view both wars as times when pulling out was the wrong thing to do. When we pulled out of Vietnam, sure enough, the South soon fell to the North, and the communists won. Every soldier who died and every tax dollar that was spent ended up being wasted for nothing. I know it's not the best way to debate(via hearsay), but I have to say that I know a guy who lived in Vietnam as a child. He lived in the South, and his family lost everything when America left and the communists took over. He went from being in a well-to-do family(his dad owned a plastic bag factory) to sitting in line for hours for a single bowl of rice to feed his folks. He eventually bribed the right people with U.S. dollars that he'd hidden, buried in the yard, and fled with his family. Ten years of bouncing around refugee camps later, he came to the States and started a new life. I fear the same thing has happened in Iraq. We left too soon, and now the bad guys have won, leaving a bunch of innocents to flee, be oppressed, or get murdered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Quite frankly the flight of the Iraqi army from the northern half of their country in June and July 2014 caught everyone off guard, whereas the US public in the early 1970s was more or less well aware that North Vietnam remained a considerable threat to South Vietnam's existence. This was the same Iraqi army that we had so heavily trained and expended so many millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours in doing so. It wasn't so much the average grunt's fault as it was their pathetic commanders who turned tail at the smallest threat (relative handful of ISIL fighters). Their commanding officers were collectively like a chicken who voluntarily cut its own head off and started running wild because a chihuahua puppy was chasing after it and barking. The soldiers, many of them Shiites, knew they were deep within traditionally Sunni territory, so they didn't feel a large need to stick around once the panic set in.
    i just hope that this incident gets people to stop bashing the French for being cowards. World War 2 was a long time ago, and the proactive French stance on ISIS thus far has redeemed them greatly in my eyes. Maybe the jokes will soon be about Iraqi tanks having two reverse pedals. Whether the fault lies with grunts or the brass, someone messed up big time and just let ISIS go wherever they wanted and take whatever they wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    This is where you and I differ to an extent, but that's a discussion for another thread.
    Really, I think our whole conversation is better suited for another thread. Weren't we supposed to be talking about Denmark or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    You exhibited no signs of being those, so there was no need to attribute to you any labels or pigeonholed categories.
    Some people have been implying a number of insults towards me in their posts in this thread and others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    This is an interesting idea, truly. I don't think there's political will in Washington to overhaul the tax system, but you're right, income tax does kind of stink. Whereas people don't have to buy certain things if they don't want to, while higher sales taxes could be levied on products that are considered ostentatious luxury items or for more general goods at a far lower rate to accommodate poor and middle class wallets.
    Exactly. There's this line in this country that gets thrown around quite a bit of "Making the rich pay their fair share". Honestly, said line reeks of Marxism to me, but I will still address it. Usually, people who espouse such a thing have a pretty poor idea of what constitutes "rich", and tend to just raise taxes across the board to pay for whatever broken social program they want that particular week. Replacing the income tax with a higher sales tax make EVERYONE, rich or poor, pay their fair share, without having to get into any ridiculous politicking about "class warfare" or what have you. Placing an even higher sales tax on certain luxury items(like yachts) enables the rich to pay more back into the system once without having a constant tax on their property hanging over their head. People will actually OWN their private property again. I doubt this will actually happen, but I can dream. I actually want to get into politics myself one day, so vote for Brihentin .

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Still, taxes pay for stuff like roads, highways, sewage and waste management, power supply, hospitals, schools, teachers' salaries, professional fire departments (not the volunteer ones), etc. Unless we are willing to privatize all of those things, and accept the risks involved in privatizing all of them, then unfortunately taxes are the only way to provide such services to the public to maintain health, security, and collective prosperity.
    Oh, of course. I'm not calling for an utter end to taxes, I just think the system needs reform. Rome's greatest contribution to manking(IMO) was it's expansive road network, which was built with taxes. Infrastructure money has to come from somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    To be honest, I would like to see police struck off that list (i.e. privatize instead of having police departments as publicly funded). That would mean a return to the ole neighborhood constables that everyone in their community could trust and even have a beer with after his shift was over. When a serial killer is on the loose, though, you need professional investigators, homicide detectives, and a forensics lab team, of course. Even if the average patrolmen were replaced by private constables, there's no going back from having the more sophisticated members of law enforcement, I believe.
    I don't know about that. It would essentially make every policeman a "mall cop". Still, in a time where trust in the police department is low, I can see how many people might agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Indeed, let's not derail this one.
    My friend, this train isn't just off the rails, we're crashing through random houses at high speed while the kaboose is on fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    To be honest I just thought it was funny; some -kicking rancher standing up to the cops. It's something out of a John Wayne flick. At least someone's standing up to those cops...and not getting shot at the same time. That's a rarity.
    Indeed. It was kind of funny how such heavily armed people ended up protesting in such a peaceful manner. I still think it was a big win, if only for gun rights, because it showed a large number of gun-right exercising people behaving in a safe, and peaceful manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    You're right, of course the American people should fight back when and if a tyranny is created. Let's hope that's never the case. You're also right, however, that we're far better equipped than poor folk in places like Iraq. An insurrection in the United States would be a nightmare for Washington, even though it commands the most powerful and well-funded military in the entire world. The US is just too large and prosperous and filled with guns wielded by hicks (as you allude) for a quick military action to crush a widespread rebellion all at once. One disastrous thing would occur soon after a hypothetical insurrection starts, though, and that would be huge amounts of US military personnel being pulled out of the world stage to come back to the US to impose martial law and domestic order. You can bet good money, even your mom's jewelry that countries that dislike us, like North Korea and Russia, would immediately take advantage of the vacuum left by the former world police who just departed. NATO's capability would become seriously hindered overnight. I would also assume that many servicemen, Americans like you and I, would hesitate to put a bullet into a fellow American, especially if the government is exhibiting crazy and despotic tendencies, disregarding rule of law, etc.
    Indeed. An armed rebellion in America is an unlikely, absolute worst-case scenario. Just the threat of such an event, however, can give Washington some pause. A true tyranny probably won't happen, just for those reasons. Overtly oppressing us all is just too damn hard.


    Anyway, this has been a good chat, but we have gone super off-track and should probably wrap things up. If any of guys want to keep talking, make a new thread and let me know so we can continue there. I only ventured over these topics when someone started calling me out on unrelated things and I, of course, defended myself on those positions. For now, let's get back to the right subject.

    So, here we are with "Terror Attack in Denmark". As the thread title might have tipped you off, Denmark was the site of a recent terror attack. A prominent Swedish cartoonist was shot at repeatedly while he spoke at a free speech event. The perpetrator was likely an Islamic terrorist who was upset about the mentioned cartoonist's portrayal of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, in a cartoon. What else do we know? Was it a single man? Were there accomplices? Has the bastard been caught? How do the Danish courts deal with such crimes?

    Discuss, if you please.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •