NN = Net Neutrality
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NN = Net Neutrality
Why do you need to train soliders at the age of 7 if you can teach them to fire a gun in a matter of hours? There's not need to train soldiers from the age of 7, because they deal with guns, bombs, technology etc. The age of when this starts has nothing to do with how militant we are. How militant we are has everything to do with how much our actual military engages in warfare.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Dude, if you think the experience under the Vietnam draft was comparable to the experience a Spartan male went through starting at age 7, you might just lack the awareness to even have an intelligent opinion on this topic.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Stop being so dumb Natural. Just stop. First off, we have in fact had drafts, more than one as a matter of fact. It also led to
'brutal' military service. Second off, we nuked two entire cities and killed 100's of thousands in a matter of minutes, and even more in a matter of decades through radiation effects.
We have military positioning throughout the entire world. Our technology as you speak of, has the potential to wipeout life on earth. Because of that, we don't have to take over, we just simply say our piece and eventually get what we want. Not to mention we simply don't have the numbers to cover all these countries and 'takeover', so we do it with our technology instead.
Stop being so dumb. Stop worshipping the Government. Start thinking for yourself. Do you know how many casualties came from the Iraq war? How about the the Vietnam war? Did you agree with those wars Natural? What were the reasonings behind those wars?
Try and at least challenge me.
You and your ilk ran away from me once I revealed my credentials in the NN thread. Perhaps you can do better here. So far, it's not looking good.
When people use phrases like "The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world" one normally takes that in stride and realizes that's just hyperbolic rhetoric used for effect. But I had a sneaky suspicion you and strumm really believed your own BS. Thanks for having the grace to play along and expose yourselves.
Oh, and LOL at your NN comment.
It was a good thread. People made remarks about my credentials, I gave them, and then ...........nothing.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
NN = Net Neutrality
If half your population is conscripted into the military for years from an early age, you are by all accounts a more militant society than one where less than 1% of your population serves voluntarily. This really should be a super simple point. That it isn't for you is mildly entertaining. I'm not going to teach you world history, but its clear you could use a brush up if you think the US has been in more wars than any nation in history. You're way down the rabbit hole, chasing that stoned bunny from Utah no doubt.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Why do you need to train soliders at the age of 7 if you can teach them to fire a gun in a matter of hours? There's not need to train soldiers from the age of 7, because they deal with guns, bombs, technology etc. The age of when this starts has nothing to do with how militant we are. How militant we are has everything to do with how much our actual military engages in warfare.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Dude, if you think the experience under the Vietnam draft was comparable to the experience a Spartan male went through starting at age 7, you might just lack the awareness to even have an intelligent opinion on this topic.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Stop being so dumb Natural. Just stop. First off, we have in fact had drafts, more than one as a matter of fact. It also led to
'brutal' military service. Second off, we nuked two entire cities and killed 100's of thousands in a matter of minutes, and even more in a matter of decades through radiation effects.
We have military positioning throughout the entire world. Our technology as you speak of, has the potential to wipeout life on earth. Because of that, we don't have to take over, we just simply say our piece and eventually get what we want. Not to mention we simply don't have the numbers to cover all these countries and 'takeover', so we do it with our technology instead.
Stop being so dumb. Stop worshipping the Government. Start thinking for yourself. Do you know how many casualties came from the Iraq war? How about the the Vietnam war? Did you agree with those wars Natural? What were the reasonings behind those wars?
Try and at least challenge me.
You and your ilk ran away from me once I revealed my credentials in the NN thread. Perhaps you can do better here. So far, it's not looking good.
When people use phrases like "The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world" one normally takes that in stride and realizes that's just hyperbolic rhetoric used for effect. But I had a sneaky suspicion you and strumm really believed your own BS. Thanks for having the grace to play along and expose yourselves.
Oh, and LOL at your NN comment.
MILITANT: combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational.
Just because we supposedly do this in 'peaceful' and humane manners, does not take away from the fact that we have brought brutal deaths to millions in this world. You believe the rhetoric, I believe the body counts and destruction we have caused.
Are you to say that we support pushing our political causes in other countries without using violence? Name one country that has reached out as far as we have. How do we NOT the moniker "most militant country in the HISTORY of the world." Who's been invovled in as many wars as we have and been able to have as much control as we have?
This is a new world, and how this is accomplished is complicated and often difficult to comprehend. It's not my fault you don't get it.
If you think pointing out that me and Strumm understand the truth of these things is a bad thing, well then I'm sorry for you.
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
If half your population is conscripted into the military for years from an early age, you are by all accounts a more militant society than one where less than 1% of your population serves voluntarily. This really should be a super simple point. That it isn't for you is mildly entertaining. I'm not going to teach you world history, but its clear you could use a brush up if you think the US has been in more wars than any nation in history. You're way down the rabbit hole, chasing that stoned bunny from Utah no doubt.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Why do you need to train soliders at the age of 7 if you can teach them to fire a gun in a matter of hours? There's not need to train soldiers from the age of 7, because they deal with guns, bombs, technology etc. The age of when this starts has nothing to do with how militant we are. How militant we are has everything to do with how much our actual military engages in warfare.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Dude, if you think the experience under the Vietnam draft was comparable to the experience a Spartan male went through starting at age 7, you might just lack the awareness to even have an intelligent opinion on this topic.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Stop being so dumb Natural. Just stop. First off, we have in fact had drafts, more than one as a matter of fact. It also led to
'brutal' military service. Second off, we nuked two entire cities and killed 100's of thousands in a matter of minutes, and even more in a matter of decades through radiation effects.
We have military positioning throughout the entire world. Our technology as you speak of, has the potential to wipeout life on earth. Because of that, we don't have to take over, we just simply say our piece and eventually get what we want. Not to mention we simply don't have the numbers to cover all these countries and 'takeover', so we do it with our technology instead.
Stop being so dumb. Stop worshipping the Government. Start thinking for yourself. Do you know how many casualties came from the Iraq war? How about the the Vietnam war? Did you agree with those wars Natural? What were the reasonings behind those wars?
Try and at least challenge me.
You and your ilk ran away from me once I revealed my credentials in the NN thread. Perhaps you can do better here. So far, it's not looking good.
When people use phrases like "The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world" one normally takes that in stride and realizes that's just hyperbolic rhetoric used for effect. But I had a sneaky suspicion you and strumm really believed your own BS. Thanks for having the grace to play along and expose yourselves.
Oh, and LOL at your NN comment.
MILITANT: combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational.
Just because we supposedly do this in 'peaceful' and humane manners, does not take away from the fact that we have brought brutal deaths to millions in this world. You believe the rhetoric, I believe the body counts and destruction we have caused.
Are you to say that we support pushing our political causes in other countries without using violence? Name one country that has reached out as far as we have. How do we NOT the moniker "most militant country in the HISTORY of the world." Who's been invovled in as many wars as we have and been able to have as much control as we have?
This is a new world, and how this is accomplished is complicated and often difficult to comprehend. It's not my fault you don't get it.
If you think pointing out that me and Strumm understand the truth of these things is a bad thing, well then I'm sorry for you.
Again, if you don't know anything about history, stop arguing about it. You make yourself look like a fool by comparing Sparta to Switzerland. Sparta was far more "violent with their military[/I]" than we are. They expended a far greater portion of their efforts waging war than we do. They were in a state of war far more often than we are.Originally posted by strummingram:
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.
I think Aegon's measurement of total destruction, body counts, civilian deaths, destruction of property and usable resources, etc. is accurate and proves that it's not even close. It is true that the total "number of wars" America has been in is fewer than, say, England, or France, but America is only 240 years old, where they are more than ten times that in existence. I am glad to see you can take the same stance as your alleged R opposition and defend the violence and destruction at the hands of this Demopublican war machine. When it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand. I would imagine that is why you're defending it since you are a pawn in the game.
Okay, for you, we'll say it's "The most violent in the last 200 years." Happy now? It's certainly the most violent and warlike right now and the trajectory has been rising since it was created. I'm aware that human beings from every corner of the earth have the ability to covet others' land and resources and influence, but American war policy has created a precedent that VERY FEW in history have ever even come close to matching. But, I will reiterate, when it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Again, if you don't know anything about history, stop arguing about it. You make yourself look like a fool by comparing Sparta to Switzerland. Sparta was far more "violent with their military[/I]" than we are. They expended a far greater portion of their efforts waging war than we do. They were in a state of war far more often than we are.Originally posted by strummingram:
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.
I think Aegon's measurement of total destruction, body counts, civilian deaths, destruction of property and usable resources, etc. is accurate and proves that it's not even close. It is true that the total "number of wars" America has been in is fewer than, say, England, or France, but America is only 240 years old, where they are more than ten times that in existence. I am glad to see you can take the same stance as your alleged R opposition and defend the violence and destruction at the hands of this Demopublican war machine. When it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand. I would imagine that is why you're defending it since you are a pawn in the game.
Demonstrably, America is not the most militant nation in the history of the world, That doesn't mean we aren't too militant for my taste or yours. That doesn't even mean you can't speak colorfully when you describe our excesses. But you should know when you are speaking that way its not literally true.
Happier, I'm not sure we really outpace the post WWII USSR however. We are the alpha dog on the planet at the moment. All alphas throughout history are going to top your list as the most militant of their respective times. But as an alpha, a case could be made that we handle that power much more benignly than others have throughout history. A little perspective is all I'm offering you.Originally posted by strummingram:
Okay, for you, we'll say it's "The most violent in the last 200 years." Happy now? It's certainly the most violent and warlike right now and the trajectory has been rising since it was created. I'm aware that human beings from every corner of the earth have the ability to covet others' land and resources and influence, but American war policy has created a precedent that VERY FEW in history have ever even come close to matching. But, I will reiterate, when it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Again, if you don't know anything about history, stop arguing about it. You make yourself look like a fool by comparing Sparta to Switzerland. Sparta was far more "violent with their military[/I]" than we are. They expended a far greater portion of their efforts waging war than we do. They were in a state of war far more often than we are.Originally posted by strummingram:
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.
I think Aegon's measurement of total destruction, body counts, civilian deaths, destruction of property and usable resources, etc. is accurate and proves that it's not even close. It is true that the total "number of wars" America has been in is fewer than, say, England, or France, but America is only 240 years old, where they are more than ten times that in existence. I am glad to see you can take the same stance as your alleged R opposition and defend the violence and destruction at the hands of this Demopublican war machine. When it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand. I would imagine that is why you're defending it since you are a pawn in the game.
Demonstrably, America is not the most militant nation in the history of the world, That doesn't mean we aren't too militant for my taste or yours. That doesn't even mean you can't speak colorfully when you describe our excesses. But you should know when you are speaking that way its not literally true.
Yes we are the most militant in history. Your use of the word militant is of the noun definition, rather than the adjective definition. The Spartans and their military 'success' isn't even in the same ball park as us. Quit favoring them just because they were buff and wear togas. You've see 300 one too many times haven't you?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Again, if you don't know anything about history, stop arguing about it. You make yourself look like a fool by comparing Sparta to Switzerland. Sparta was far more "violent with their military[/I]" than we are. They expended a far greater portion of their efforts waging war than we do. They were in a state of war far more often than we are.Originally posted by strummingram:
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.
I think Aegon's measurement of total destruction, body counts, civilian deaths, destruction of property and usable resources, etc. is accurate and proves that it's not even close. It is true that the total "number of wars" America has been in is fewer than, say, England, or France, but America is only 240 years old, where they are more than ten times that in existence. I am glad to see you can take the same stance as your alleged R opposition and defend the violence and destruction at the hands of this Demopublican war machine. When it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand. I would imagine that is why you're defending it since you are a pawn in the game.
Demonstrably, America is not the most militant nation in the history of the world, That doesn't mean we aren't too militant for my taste or yours. That doesn't even mean you can't speak colorfully when you describe our excesses. But you should know when you are speaking that way its not literally true.
Of course you're not. You're an American first and a human being second. I try not to identify myself as part of the "we" like you do, especially in this sense. I would never allow myself to be sent 10,000 miles away to shoot-up another person's home because some sold-out politician has to keep a promise to some munitions mogul that paid for his election. That's another reason I discourage voting for R's and D's. When it comes to war, they are the same party. I don't want the deaths of innocent people on my conscience.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Happier, I'm not sure we really outpace the post WWII USSR however. We are the alpha dog on the planet at the moment. All alphas throughout history are going to top your list as the most militant of their respective times. But as an alpha, a case could be made that we handle that power much more benignly than others have throughout history. A little perspective is all I'm offering you.Originally posted by strummingram:
Okay, for you, we'll say it's "The most violent in the last 200 years." Happy now? It's certainly the most violent and warlike right now and the trajectory has been rising since it was created. I'm aware that human beings from every corner of the earth have the ability to covet others' land and resources and influence, but American war policy has created a precedent that VERY FEW in history have ever even come close to matching. But, I will reiterate, when it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Again, if you don't know anything about history, stop arguing about it. You make yourself look like a fool by comparing Sparta to Switzerland. Sparta was far more "violent with their military[/I]" than we are. They expended a far greater portion of their efforts waging war than we do. They were in a state of war far more often than we are.Originally posted by strummingram:
I'm not sure you're understanding the argument here. Militant and violent (or USING that military) is not always the same. I guess I should have used the term more violent with their military. Or, more simply Warlike. The USA is the most Warlike country in the history of the world. Conscription doesn't equal warlike either. The country of Switzerland comes to mind. They were neutral in both World Wars. They have had mandatory conscription for a very long time. I don't think I would put the Swiss in the top 20 as "Most Warlike Countries" at all.
I think Aegon's measurement of total destruction, body counts, civilian deaths, destruction of property and usable resources, etc. is accurate and proves that it's not even close. It is true that the total "number of wars" America has been in is fewer than, say, England, or France, but America is only 240 years old, where they are more than ten times that in existence. I am glad to see you can take the same stance as your alleged R opposition and defend the violence and destruction at the hands of this Demopublican war machine. When it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand. I would imagine that is why you're defending it since you are a pawn in the game.
Demonstrably, America is not the most militant nation in the history of the world, That doesn't mean we aren't too militant for my taste or yours. That doesn't even mean you can't speak colorfully when you describe our excesses. But you should know when you are speaking that way its not literally true.
Militant:combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methodsOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
Happier, I'm not sure we really outpace the post WWII USSR however. We are the alpha dog on the planet at the moment. All alphas throughout history are going to top your list as the most militant of their respective times. But as an alpha, a case could be made that we handle that power much more benignly than others have throughout history. A little perspective is all I'm offering you.Okay, for you, we'll say it's "The most violent in the last 200 years." Happy now? It's certainly the most violent and warlike right now and the trajectory has been rising since it was created. I'm aware that human beings from every corner of the earth have the ability to covet others' land and resources and influence, but American war policy has created a precedent that VERY FEW in history have ever even come close to matching. But, I will reiterate, when it comes to war, the left and right go hand-in-hand.
You think yourself some great emancipated humanist while you single out America as the worst nation in history? Thats an interesting position you carved out. Tell us more.Originally posted by strummingram:
Of course you're not. You're an American first and a human being second. I try not to identify myself as part of the "we" like you do, especially in this sense. I would never allow myself to be sent 10,000 miles away to shoot-up another person's home because some sold-out politician has to keep a promise to some munitions mogul that paid for his election. That's another reason I discourage voting for R's and D's. When it comes to war, they are the same party. I don't want the deaths of innocent people on my conscience.
Notice how many different areas around the world it involves. Naturals problem, besides not being as intelligent as he thinks he is, is that he doesn't really understand how warfare in the modern world works.Originally posted by strummingram:
Wow! That link even surprised me!Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Where did I say "worst nation in history?" See, you're making things up... again. I am an emancipated human. Not human-ist. Keep your politically-correct-borne terminology out of it.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
You think yourself some great emancipated humanist while you single out America as the worst nation in history? Thats an interesting position you carved out. Tell us more.Originally posted by strummingram:
Of course you're not. You're an American first and a human being second. I try not to identify myself as part of the "we" like you do, especially in this sense. I would never allow myself to be sent 10,000 miles away to shoot-up another person's home because some sold-out politician has to keep a promise to some munitions mogul that paid for his election. That's another reason I discourage voting for R's and D's. When it comes to war, they are the same party. I don't want the deaths of innocent people on my conscience.
So you don't understand history or language. Militancy is about support for forceful violent solutions to problems. What you conflate with that is military power which is not that same at all. We all agree the US military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. I hope you're really great at math.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Yes we are the most militant in history. Your use of the word militant is of the noun definition, rather than the adjective definition. The Spartans and their military 'success' isn't even in the same ball park as us. Quit favoring them just because they were buff and wear togas. You've see 300 one too many times haven't you?
You're the type of person that when he walks by something he puts his own description to it. Just because you are an isolationist in your mind, doesn't mean that your thoughts are the only thoughts there is.
The facts are this. We have waged war, with a thousand times more force than the Spartans could have ever dreamed. We simply have technology and superior firepower on our side. We don't have to have everybody in soldier gear, because the soldiers and weapons we have combined can do the kind of damage that can level cities. Which we have done, on numerous occassions.
Look at the adjective defintion(tell me we don't fit it to a T), and quit trying to apply the noun definition for your argument.
Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Civil War
WW1
WW2
Korean War
Vietnam
Gulf War
Iraq War
Afgahnistan War
and I left a lot out.
Now keep in mind where our military presence is around the world, what we have done with it where we are, and tell me if the Spartans with all those little togas you love, even came close to being as militant as a country as we have been.
Militant is a terms which describes how you have used violence and aggressiveness to get what you want both politically and socially. Have we not changed the face of politics and social conditions due to our warfare? Have you not been paying attention to this history you're so well versed in?
Page one, try to keep track of your own crazy please.Originally posted by strummingram:
Where did I say "worst nation in history?" See, you're making things up... again. I am an emancipated human. Not human-ist. Keep your politically-correct-borne terminology out of it.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
You think yourself some great emancipated humanist while you single out America as the worst nation in history? Thats an interesting position you carved out. Tell us more.Originally posted by strummingram:
Of course you're not. You're an American first and a human being second. I try not to identify myself as part of the "we" like you do, especially in this sense. I would never allow myself to be sent 10,000 miles away to shoot-up another person's home because some sold-out politician has to keep a promise to some munitions mogul that paid for his election. That's another reason I discourage voting for R's and D's. When it comes to war, they are the same party. I don't want the deaths of innocent people on my conscience.
Best and Worst is subjective, it depends on context. I know you're very challenged in a contextual sense already. America has some incredible offerings and some very incredible points in it's history, but I'm not even sure I would credit those things to "America." America is an abstract as well. It's similar to when people sometimes refer to "home." It's like when people say "I'm fighting for my country." Your country? Really? The mountains, streams, rivers, valleys, forests and wildlife told you to go kill human beings? No, it was a handful of other human beings who were in charge of your government that forced you and other blindly-obedient peasants to go and take the resource from the control the other handful has over that bunch. In a more primal/tribal sense, many moons ago, the imminent threat was more direct. In the last say, thousand years? Not so much.
When tribalism and nationalism and religions and political partisanship are involved, you get more corpses than you get free thinkers.
[/QUOTE] That translates as "worst" in your comprehension? Fine. Best and Worst is subjective. Hey, the USA is the best at piling up dead bodies!Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Page one, try to keep track of your own crazy please.Originally posted by strummingram:
Where did I say "worst nation in history?" See, you're making things up... again. I am an emancipated human. Not human-ist. Keep your politically-correct-borne terminology out of it.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
You think yourself some great emancipated humanist while you single out America as the worst nation in history? Thats an interesting position you carved out. Tell us more.Originally posted by strummingram:
Of course you're not. You're an American first and a human being second. I try not to identify myself as part of the "we" like you do, especially in this sense. I would never allow myself to be sent 10,000 miles away to shoot-up another person's home because some sold-out politician has to keep a promise to some munitions mogul that paid for his election. That's another reason I discourage voting for R's and D's. When it comes to war, they are the same party. I don't want the deaths of innocent people on my conscience.
Best and Worst is subjective, it depends on context. I know you're very challenged in a contextual sense already. America has some incredible offerings and some very incredible points in it's history, but I'm not even sure I would credit those things to "America." America is an abstract as well. It's similar to when people sometimes refer to "home." It's like when people say "I'm fighting for my country." Your country? Really? The mountains, streams, rivers, valleys, forests and wildlife told you to go kill human beings? No, it was a handful of other human beings who were in charge of your government that forced you and other blindly-obedient peasants to go and take the resource from the control the other handful has over that bunch. In a more primal/tribal sense, many moons ago, the imminent threat was more direct. In the last say, thousand years? Not so much.
When tribalism and nationalism and religions and political partisanship are involved, you get more corpses than you get free thinkers.
Originally posted by strummingram:
Define "militant", please. The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world- is the USA. Iran has a fairly peaceful military past. They don't have military bases all over the world.
Israel is the 51st State. All of these military bases are what amounts to occupation. Maybe not as direct as you are willing to concede since you politically approve of all of them.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
So you don't understand history or language. Militancy is about support for forceful violent solutions to problems. What you conflate with that is military power which is not that same at all. We all agree the US military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. I hope you're really great at math.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Yes we are the most militant in history. Your use of the word militant is of the noun definition, rather than the adjective definition. The Spartans and their military 'success' isn't even in the same ball park as us. Quit favoring them just because they were buff and wear togas. You've see 300 one too many times haven't you?
You're the type of person that when he walks by something he puts his own description to it. Just because you are an isolationist in your mind, doesn't mean that your thoughts are the only thoughts there is.
The facts are this. We have waged war, with a thousand times more force than the Spartans could have ever dreamed. We simply have technology and superior firepower on our side. We don't have to have everybody in soldier gear, because the soldiers and weapons we have combined can do the kind of damage that can level cities. Which we have done, on numerous occassions.
Look at the adjective defintion(tell me we don't fit it to a T), and quit trying to apply the noun definition for your argument.
Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Civil War
WW1
WW2
Korean War
Vietnam
Gulf War
Iraq War
Afgahnistan War
and I left a lot out.
Now keep in mind where our military presence is around the world, what we have done with it where we are, and tell me if the Spartans with all those little togas you love, even came close to being as militant as a country as we have been.
Militant is a terms which describes how you have used violence and aggressiveness to get what you want both politically and socially. Have we not changed the face of politics and social conditions due to our warfare? Have you not been paying attention to this history you're so well versed in?
I'm not arguing America isn't militant, we are and too much for my taste. I'm just providing a bit of perspective that we aren't the most militant society the world has ever produced. Today, right now Israel is more militant in wanting to invade Iran than America who is diplomatically seeking agreement to not go to war. If America was Rome, we would simply make Iran the 51st state.
You never get my positions right, you should stop assuming so much. I'm just picking on you because you believe your own hyperbole. Breath deep and get some perspective and we don't actually disagree much on this topic at all.Originally posted by strummingram:
Israel is the 51st State. All of these military bases are what amounts to occupation. Maybe not as direct as you are willing to concede since you politically approve of all of them.
There is nothing truthful typed here. Iran has no one but themselves invaded at the moment. On the other hand though, they have a few neighbors around them now that aren't exactly anti-militant.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
So you don't understand history or language. Militancy is about support for forceful violent solutions to problems. What you conflate with that is military power which is not that same at all. We all agree the US military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. I hope you're really great at math.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Yes we are the most militant in history. Your use of the word militant is of the noun definition, rather than the adjective definition. The Spartans and their military 'success' isn't even in the same ball park as us. Quit favoring them just because they were buff and wear togas. You've see 300 one too many times haven't you?
You're the type of person that when he walks by something he puts his own description to it. Just because you are an isolationist in your mind, doesn't mean that your thoughts are the only thoughts there is.
The facts are this. We have waged war, with a thousand times more force than the Spartans could have ever dreamed. We simply have technology and superior firepower on our side. We don't have to have everybody in soldier gear, because the soldiers and weapons we have combined can do the kind of damage that can level cities. Which we have done, on numerous occassions.
Look at the adjective defintion(tell me we don't fit it to a T), and quit trying to apply the noun definition for your argument.
Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Civil War
WW1
WW2
Korean War
Vietnam
Gulf War
Iraq War
Afgahnistan War
and I left a lot out.
Now keep in mind where our military presence is around the world, what we have done with it where we are, and tell me if the Spartans with all those little togas you love, even came close to being as militant as a country as we have been.
Militant is a terms which describes how you have used violence and aggressiveness to get what you want both politically and socially. Have we not changed the face of politics and social conditions due to our warfare? Have you not been paying attention to this history you're so well versed in?
I'm not arguing America isn't militant, we are and too much for my taste. I'm just providing a bit of perspective that we aren't the most militant society the world has ever produced. Today, right now Israel is more militant in wanting to invade Iran than America who is diplomatically seeking agreement to not go to war. If America was Rome, we would simply make Iran the 51st state.
Maybe you aren't very good at stating your positions. I see the candidates and policies you support here, so I don't think I'm assuming much, unless you're not really supporting them.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
You never get my positions right, you should stop assuming so much. I'm just picking on you because you believe your own hyperbole. Breath deep and get some perspective and we don't actually disagree much on this topic at all.Originally posted by strummingram:
Israel is the 51st State. All of these military bases are what amounts to occupation. Maybe not as direct as you are willing to concede since you politically approve of all of them.
And yet we are negotiating rather than invading. Thats a pretty strong blow to your "worst in history" meme. Note, I didn't say we aren't militant at all. I'm just picking on you for believing Strumm's bumper sticker talking points.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There is nothing truthful typed here. Iran has no one but themselves invaded at the moment. On the other hand though, they have a few neighbors around them now that aren't exactly anti-militant.
If you simply argue with what I wright, you could avoid being wrong so often. I realize that may not be a high priority for you however.Originally posted by strummingram:
Maybe you aren't very good at stating your positions. I see the candidates and policies you support here, so I don't think I'm assuming much, unless you're not really supporting them.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
You never get my positions right, you should stop assuming so much. I'm just picking on you because you believe your own hyperbole. Breath deep and get some perspective and we don't actually disagree much on this topic at all.Originally posted by strummingram:
Israel is the 51st State. All of these military bases are what amounts to occupation. Maybe not as direct as you are willing to concede since you politically approve of all of them.
Yes, we have our military bases surrounding them, because we are simply negotiating with them. Notice that we did in fact invade the countries we are now surrouding them with.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
And yet we are negotiating rather than invading. Thats a pretty strong blow to your "worst in history" meme. Note, I didn't say we aren't militant at all. I'm just picking on you for believing Strumm's bumper sticker talking points.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There is nothing truthful typed here. Iran has no one but themselves invaded at the moment. On the other hand though, they have a few neighbors around them now that aren't exactly anti-militant.
Reading comprehension, how does it work?
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
And yet we are negotiating rather than invading. Thats a pretty strong blow to your "worst in history" meme. Note, I didn't say we aren't militant at all. I'm just picking on you for believing Strumm's bumper sticker talking points.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There is nothing truthful typed here. Iran has no one but themselves invaded at the moment. On the other hand though, they have a few neighbors around them now that aren't exactly anti-militant.
Reading comprehension, how does it work?
A week or two ago many were upset that Iran was playing defensive war game against a USA attack carrier. We do these things all the time. And anyone who thinks Iran is going to have a highly successful attack on the USA is dreaming.
I like that we are negotiating with Iran. I see no reason not to and it is an alternative to war I like.
Actually not unlike Israel, Iran is surrounded by enemies. I would like to see some cold water poured on the militarism between our two countries. I see no need for sabre rattling as economic sanctions are far more effective in todays world. We have plenty of military options if they should become required so I am not worried about Iran in that regard. And if Israel would take a breath they would know that we are pretty much going to stand beside them no matter how much we negotiate. But Bibi is a hot heat with a big mouth.
Natural is exhibiting the partisan mind. While Natural might oppose the overall amount of American military intervention and occupation, he's not willing to hand-in his jersey in the left vs. right political pawn game. He's convinced himself that his side, his country, or whatever it is he associates himself with, is being diplomatic and morally-sound. Whatever it takes to arrive at that summation, he'll do it. You're conversing with the left half of the left/right game. Foreign policy is something they typically have ti ultimately agree on because their theoretical "country" is involved. That's their tribe, their team, in that context. If it were a right half representative you were talking with, they would insist on the same tactic, but would use different references to justify it. "It has to be done to preserve stability in the middle east and help our only ally in the region- Israel." Or some such bullsh*t their TV tells them. Regardless, the result is more military intervention, more death, more occupation, and more hatred from indigenous people, and a higher likelihood for revenge tactics like terrorism.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Yes, we have our military bases surrounding them, because we are simply negotiating with them. Notice that we did in fact invade the countries we are now surrouding them with.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
And yet we are negotiating rather than invading. Thats a pretty strong blow to your "worst in history" meme. Note, I didn't say we aren't militant at all. I'm just picking on you for believing Strumm's bumper sticker talking points.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There is nothing truthful typed here. Iran has no one but themselves invaded at the moment. On the other hand though, they have a few neighbors around them now that aren't exactly anti-militant.
Reading comprehension, how does it work?
I'm glad you asked the reading comprehension question. My answer to that, is not how you've been attempting to do it.
Life must be so simple in your little world...liberal this and socialist that. Here's the thing...liberal means free, which I happen to cherish. The military, which you idolize, is the largest socialistic program in the U.S. It's the tool of tyrants and it enslaves.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Don't worry Strum and Nat.
I am sure the golden age of Liberalism will return some day and you will once again be allowed to openly spit on soldiers in airports.
A classic. And can be read in 30 minutes on-line for free. Attractive for my sound-bite brethren on HROT. Attached is the on-line book.Originally posted by strummingram:
Props to Nat Algren for the dance card of US War involvement!
Everyone, read General Smedley Butler's book:
War Is A Racket
86...No one knows. It is in negotiations. Regardless of what Boehner or Bibi or FOX News says, No one knows. Ofcourse, running around yelling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" makes for great TV. Not factual in any way but it keeps the natives in line.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
......developing nuclear weapons?
If so, how?
Forget about the politics of Netanyahu's speech.
What is the substance of the deal?
This is good stuff here Nat. You'll notice though that when you post stuff like this on here, people will ignore it. They will see it, not comment on it, and go about their typical arguing.Originally posted by Nat Algren:
A classic. And can be read in 30 minutes on-line for free. Attractive for my sound-bite brethren on HROT. Attached is the on-line book.Originally posted by strummingram:
Props to Nat Algren for the dance card of US War involvement!
Everyone, read General Smedley Butler's book:
War Is A Racket
Here's one of his quotes.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
This post was edited on 3/4 5:48 PM by Nat Algren
It is good stuff, its just not on point to the historical comparison argument we were having so there isn't much for me to say on the matter. I already told you I feel the US is too militant which is all Nat's info proves. We are in agreement on that much.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
This is good stuff here Nat. You'll notice though that when you post stuff like this on here, people will ignore it. They will see it, not comment on it, and go about their typical arguing.Originally posted by Nat Algren:
A classic. And can be read in 30 minutes on-line for free. Attractive for my sound-bite brethren on HROT. Attached is the on-line book.Originally posted by strummingram:
Props to Nat Algren for the dance card of US War involvement!
Everyone, read General Smedley Butler's book:
War Is A Racket
Here's one of his quotes.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
This post was edited on 3/4 5:48 PM by Nat Algren
Simply because of the fact that it doesn't go with the story they've been reading for years now. Again though, this is some good stuff here. Kudos.
Why is it okay for Israel to own over 200 nukes? They are the ones who are the aggressors. It is Israel who created Hezbollah. They need a bogeyman.Originally posted by Mattski:
Until hrot I didn't believe people really believed things like this or that there were folks dumb enough to equate Americans owning firearms to a militant Islamic country owning nukes. Very enlightening to say the least.Originally posted by strummingram:
Perfect analogy, Nat. They think they know who will or will not use them. So far, only one country has ever used them- the USA.Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Not surprised you feel that way.Originally posted by Arbitr8:
Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Funny thing about neocons. They claim they adore the 2nd amendment because it is their right to sell-defense. On a grander scale, they mustn't let their lessors be armed or they'll have trouble getting them to submit.
Poor analogy, Americans adore the 2nd Amendment for Americans, ragheads not so much.
The reason they don't want Iran to have a nuke is because, once a country gets a nuke, then that country is no longer on the list for invasion and/or occupation by the US military.
Posted from Rivals Mobile