Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 9/1/2001 4:11:55 PM EST
Well since I have the misfortune of attempting to post to a thread generated by Mr. Einsatz-pooper, I guess I will have to start my own. I know in the past there was a Einsatztrooper on this board but he seemed to be abusive compared to the person who started the Draft thread here earlier. For those joining late: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=48436[/url] Anyway...where we left off:
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 4:12:40 PM EST
Before I respond to you Larry I want you to know that I have nothing against you or anyone else from GA, but with the way you have chosen to ignore what I had originally written and go off the deep end I feel I am justified in my response.
Originally Posted By LARRYG: You are calling someone a Socialist?
View Quote
Yes, but not just any socialist, a National Socialist...for those of you that graduated from the Georgia public school systems it also means Nazi.
Statements about not involving you or your family in 'imperialism' sounds like socialistic comments to me, COMRADE.
View Quote
It would to a simp Larry, but I doubt that is you unless you think that a country that throw's its weight around the world like a 400 lb gorilla is ok because our initials are USA? Look carefully and you will see my references to the USSR/Russia. I guess that doesn't make me a good comrade does it?
In one paragraph you complain about not being allowed to own firearms, then in the very paragraph you say that you are against use of force. Can you say CONTRADICTION?
View Quote
No but I can say "reading comprehension?" I said nothing against using force in defense, just "Initiation" (that means to start Larry) of force. There is a huge difference in case you were not aware. You are starting to peg the simp-o-meter.
You claim this to be YOUR country, yet you express an extreme dislike for the thought of serving that country. Can you say HYPOCRITE? And just how would you correct the country? Not have a military? How long would we last then?
View Quote
You got me dead to rights Larry, I love my country but I don't want to be a mercenary confiscating firearms from people in countries far far away, who coincidentally never declared war upon us. I guess I am the hypocrite then. You are also right about not having a LARGE standing army to tuck us in at night. If it were not for those brave Rangers and Delta operators firing into crowds of civilians in Mogadishu we would have certainly had to sue warlord "Aideed" or whatever his name was for peace, after loosing all of Georgia to his likely invasion. We didn't have much of a standing army in 1812 and we beat the mightiest of nations (that was the British "Empire" Larry) who tried to extend its "imperial" tentacles around us again. No one also likes to admit that the Afghanis and Chechnians seem to do quite well against an enemy far more heavily armed. It sounds like you have no faith in yourself and your community to defend itself in the model that G. Washington and T. Jefferson would have wanted. That must really suck.
How do you like being called names in the manner of your opening paragraph about National Socialists?
View Quote
I had no idea you would be such a defender of such CSL Nazis but anyway I would venture to say I would like it as much as the next person. But since you continue to highlight your serious shortcomings when it comes to reading something and understanding it I will bring this to your attention:
Originally Posted By retrodog: you self-absorbed bung hole.
View Quote
What this means Larry is that I did not "Initiate" (again this means to start) the mud slinging. I actually think I have been showing quite a bit of restraint considering I was the one originally assaulted by the less than friendly vocabulary. rDAm
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 7:31:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 8:04:46 PM EST
Invictus. I would like to ask you to further elaborate on the Chechen / Russian war. You called the Russians Imperialists. Why? I was under the assumption that Russia was democratic.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 11:40:32 AM EST
Before I even begin I would like to apologize in advance for the length of this post.
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Dude, are you aware that Sweden HAS a draft? Good luck moving there.
View Quote
Yes I am painfully aware of that. And they say slavery is gone in this world. Just to let anyone else know Brazil also has "mandatory" service to the state. I honestly don't know about Canada but I wouldn't be surprised if they did too. Some reasoning for choosing Sweden as a destination to avoid "unnecessary foreign entanglements" would be; 1) It seemed to work just fine for S. Stalone during the SE Asia wargames circa 1964-73. 2) Even if Swedes "drafted" anyone, I don't see their silly asses in the streets of Mogadishu, or in Macedonia, royally pissing off the locals. Being the globo-cops is a good way to end up dead without "protecting" our country.
What are you talking about "defending someone else". What I'm talking about is that a standing army would be needed to support an effective DEFENSE of a country, and a draft would be a good way to maintain that. You did bring up a good point of Afghanistan, but keep in mind that: (1) They weren't able to repel the Soviets by force, only annoy them enough to finally make them decide to leave after many years of constant guerilla war - a very high price to pay. A nation should be able to forcibly repel an attack, not just bog down an occupying enemy and eventually make them leave out of frustration and boredom. (2) Just like the US never had the political will to win Viet Nam, neither did the USSR have the will to win Afghanistan. If they moved some of their heavy divisions from east germany, the story would have been very different, and I believe they could have bitchslapped the Afghans back into the stone age (which admittedly, is not very far, these days). (3) Always a good rule to live by - don' fuck with the Afghans! [:D] If the British Empire couldn't handle them in the 1800's, nobody else can either.
View Quote
to be continued...
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 11:42:09 AM EST
...continued Let me start by addressing your last point first. You sir are absolutely correct about not f'ing w/Afghanis, not a smart thing to do. Now for the rest of your argument; A large standing army would be wholly unnecessary if the constitution and the design of the founders were followed faithfully. With all able bodied males 17-45 armed with the most up to date weapons technology available training with it on their own time there would not be a country in the world, to include the largest (China) that would dream of invading the USA. If my logic is at fault then why wasn't Switzerland invaded during the reign of Adolf Hitler? Surely he lusted after the high precision industries and the world renowned gold reserves. The problem was Switzerland had a small standing army and a HUGE "militia". Even though the Germans vastly outnumbered the Swiss they new they wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. That's why Hitler targeted the Czechs, Poles, and the Russians, they were defended by conscripts. Your point about the Afghans/Chechnians would not readily apply to the USA. You are comparing countries with populations so much smaller than the aggressor force, in this case Russia, the mere fact they have lasted more than 6 months is bordering on a miracle. Let alone the fact actually repelled them after many years fighting. With our population at ~280 million and not to mention our technology and manufacturing base, attempting to invade the USA would be sheer folly, provided we followed the militia model of the founding fathers. We would be a far cry from outnumbered and near stone age (but tougher than the rocky ground they defended) Afghani's. Just to let you know I do think as did the founders that having a strong non-occupational military force (like the Navy and since the 20th century, Air Force) is a good idea. Standing armies tend to get into mischief or are used by those who do not take constitutional oaths seriously, as pawns to further their own agendas and ambitions. rDAm
Top Top