If we cut defense spending we can go back to carpet bombing/blitzkrieg style warfare instead of developing and using new technologies such as the Advanced Tactical Laser which is predicted to virtually eliminate all collateral damage.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

gg liberals. good thing you guys don't run washington

2/1/2006 3:07:38 PM

0< 0<

2/1/2006 3:20:45 PM

whats wrong with carpet bombing?

2/1/2006 3:26:24 PM

While bombastic, its not very fantastic, Mr. Lover Lover.

God I hate your fucking screen name.

2/1/2006 3:34:20 PM

think scooby doo

not rap

2/1/2006 3:49:21 PM

(f ;..; )f

omg ducks, the troll's gonna' get you!



[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2006 3:50:47 PM

This thread makes a valid point and its pretty easy to understand why the liberals would prefer not to think about it.

2/1/2006 3:59:46 PM

o< o< o< 0<

2/1/2006 4:00:41 PM

The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

- Bill Hicks

2/1/2006 4:03:12 PM

you're too obvious with your trolling

2/1/2006 4:03:48 PM

btw, I styled this thread after SandSanta's "There is no global warming" thread

message_topic.aspx?topic=383662

2/1/2006 4:04:18 PM

Who said carpet bombing is bad?

That shit breaks the will of the people. Fastest way to win a war.

2/1/2006 4:04:48 PM

The vast majority of defense spending doesn't go to research projects like this one.

How about we cut some non-research defense spending and reallocate it to research grants? Would you "conservatives" support that? That would complement Bush's talk about education in science a lot, wouldn't it?

2/1/2006 4:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Who said carpet bombing is bad? That shit breaks the will of the people. Fastest way to win a war."

Tell that to Winston Churchill

2/1/2006 4:05:34 PM

Quote :

"Tell that to Winston Churchill"

Tell that to the residents of Dresden and Tokyo and oh lets see.. where oh where did I put that list of cities burned to the ground by bombing at the end of WWII... it's around here somewhere..

2/1/2006 4:08:27 PM

Quote :

"you're too obvious with your trolling"

2/1/2006 4:13:47 PM

Quote :

"How about we cut some non-research defense spending and reallocate it to research grants?"

Like if we took all of the money allocated for body armor and gave it away as research grants?

Would you "liberals" support that?

2/1/2006 4:17:26 PM

can we get some mind control with them lazers?

that way we could reprogram radical islamic thought

2/1/2006 4:37:31 PM

Quote :

"you're too obvious with your trolling"

2/1/2006 5:52:59 PM

I'm all for the carpet bombing...but we should use something like this to destroy what we need to first.

You know, then we can carpet bomb afterwards. Just wanna make sure we get the target first.

2/1/2006 7:14:07 PM

calling me a troll doesn't diminish my point

2/1/2006 8:13:52 PM

Quote :

"If we cut defense spending we can go back to carpet bombing/blitzkrieg style warfare instead of developing and using new technologies such as the Advanced Tactical Laser which is predicted to virtually eliminate all collateral damage."

Logical Fallacies 101

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.

The third choice, among others - cut defense spending and just don't attack or provoke anybody. Let the gov't get rid of 90+% of the DOD, give back my involuntarily donated money, and mind our own business and borders.

Let's see, it's working for Switzerland. When was the last time Osama went after them?

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : d]

2/1/2006 8:16:42 PM

logical fallacy: switzerland isn't the world's sole superpower

2/1/2006 8:19:09 PM

And why is it impossible for the world's only superpower to have peace if they just stay in their borders and mind their own business?

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 8:22 PM. Reason : s]

2/1/2006 8:22:31 PM

Quote :

"Let's see, it's working for Switzerland."

actually, what works for switzerland is being a gimongous banking center for the world. you don't fuck with someone who has your money

Quote :

"The third choice, among others - cut defense spending and just don't attack or provoke anybody. Let the gov't get rid of 90+% of the DOD, give back my involuntarily donated money, and mind our own business and borders."

yes, massively downsizing your military is great! except when an aggressive enemy comes at you full speed and overruns your borders because you don't have any military might...
then there's the little problem of ignoring the diplomatic uses of a strong military...

2/1/2006 8:27:59 PM

Quote :

"that way we could reprogram radical islamic thought"

shit, I can reprogram minds with a run of the mill 5.56mm round!

THAT'S fiscal conservatism.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 8:30 PM. Reason : format c://]

2/1/2006 8:29:33 PM

First, you would have to show that there are people with a motivation to attack Switzerland, but simply don't because they don't want to lose their Swiss bank accounts. I'd love to see an example of this.

So, on what basis would Osama want to attack them, anyway? He's said it before - if you're not involving yourself in Muslim affairs, you're simply going to be left alone.

2/1/2006 8:34:12 PM

Quote :

"yes, massively downsizing your military is great! except when an aggressive enemy comes at you full speed and overruns your borders because you don't have any military might..."

The whole point is that you nobody will attack you, unprovoked. Even the Nazis left Switzerland alone.

There will be no "aggressive enemy coming full speed and overruning your borders" in that case.

And even if there is some lunatic who just wants to attack you for no reason.....the second amendment is all the military might we need. "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Hirohito, WWII.

Ultimately, the second amendment, not our military, makes a successful invasion/occupation of America impossible. A well-armed populace who hates their occupiers is unconquerable.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 8:39 PM. Reason : a]

2/1/2006 8:38:09 PM

wasn't the Swiss banking industry pretty much in business with Nazi Germany?

and the fact that Nazi Germany put them as a lower strategic priority doesn't really mean that they wouldn't have invaded them.

i mean, the Russians and the British both thought they had a deal with Germany, too.








plus, the 2nd Amendment would only do so much to fend off a modern, well-equipped military

and it's tough to strike a balance between being a prosperous superpower and being isolationist.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 8:50 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/1/2006 8:48:54 PM

Quote :

"yes, massively downsizing your military is great! except when an aggressive enemy comes at you full speed and overruns your borders because you don't have any military might... then there's the little problem of ignoring the diplomatic uses of a strong military... "

No one is saying to castrate the military so much that we can't defend the borders.

Not to mention that neither of our neighbors are militarily unstable. Currently, the chances of either Canada or Mexico invading are extremely low.

Afghanistan didn't take too much to fall, and the military presence in Iraq was an extra curricular activity.

2/1/2006 8:54:02 PM

how about we reallocated some of our defense spending and give it to us who are trying to keep the ships we have up and running


we need money for LCM costs

Life cycle management for those who aren't in the know

2/1/2006 9:02:30 PM

Quote :

"plus, the 2nd Amendment would only do so much to fend off a modern, well-equipped military"

We have a "modern, well-equipped military." In Iraq, the populace is extremely poorly-armed, with strict regulations on firearms ownership..... and the total insurgency is less than 1-2% of the population......and we STILL can't occupy effectively, and establish a new government.

The 2nd Amendment is PLENTY. With nearly universal arms ownership, and near universal hatred of an occupier, anyone attempting to occupy even an America with no military would have no chance in hell.

2/1/2006 9:04:16 PM

Quote :

"First, you would have to show that there are people with a motivation to attack Switzerland, but simply don't because they don't want to lose their Swiss bank accounts. I'd love to see an example of this."

no i don't. you are the one saying that osama doesn't want to attack switzerland. forgive me, but I'm fairly certain the burden is on YOU to prove that.

Quote :

"wasn't the Swiss banking industry pretty much in business with Nazi Germany?"

i believe we have a winner...

in fact, its safe to say that switzerland didn't just hang behind her borders and not meddle with anyone. They specifically left their borders, they just did so in a different manner.

Quote :

"the second amendment is all the military might we need."

remind me again how many submachine guns you have stored up in your basement. you are going to need a hell of a lot more to fend of an invasion than grandpa's shotgun...

Quote :

"No one is saying to castrate the military so much that we can't defend the borders."

I believe the phrase was "cut the DOD's funds by 90%." that sounds like castration to me.

Quote :

"Currently, the chances of either Canada or Mexico invading are extremely low."

yes, because countries only invade via land, and we have no borders with water or air, do we?

Quote :

"Afghanistan didn't take too much to fall, and the military presence in Iraq was an extra curricular activity."

yeah, just ask the russians how hard afghanistan was...

Quote :

"The 2nd Amendment is PLENTY. With nearly universal arms ownership, and near universal hatred of an occupier, anyone attempting to occupy even an America with no military would have no chance in hell."

now i know you are drunk

2/1/2006 9:15:10 PM

SAVE MONEY

DROP QUOTE BOMBS

2/1/2006 9:19:52 PM

what we need to do is cut whatever funding is going towards quote bombs

2/1/2006 9:20:03 PM

i say privatize it and fight back with invisible hands OF DOOM

2/1/2006 10:03:51 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Currently, the chances of either Canada or Mexico invading are extremely low." yes, because countries only invade via land, and we have no borders with water or air, do we? "

Haha... do you live in fear every day of us being invaded by sea or air?

Historically, a big ocean is one thing that helps keep a country safe (and despite our impressive air machines now, it's still one thing that keeps us isolated). Until someone invents a cheap anti-gravity engine (and even then, but that somewhat diminishes the barrier), an air or sea invasion is going to be impractical for all but the countries that spend ridiculous amounts arming the military.

2/1/2006 10:16:53 PM

^yes, we have some natural barriers to being invaded...the sea, the relative geographic isolation, and the expanse of land that we cover...but that only goes so far against a capable enemy.

Quote :

"We have a "modern, well-equipped military." In Iraq, the populace is extremely poorly-armed, with strict regulations on firearms ownership..... and the total insurgency is less than 1-2% of the population......and we STILL can't occupy effectively, and establish a new government."

dude

if we just wanted to dominate the hell out of iraq, it wouldn't be hard at all. i mean, it wouldn't even be a struggle. what we're doing in iraq isn't even remotely comparable to fending off invasion and domination by a determined and capable foe.


now

if ALL we wanted to do was keep ourselves from being overrun, then sure, we could cut our DoD budget by a LOT...but not 90%, and certainly not to zero.

2/1/2006 11:04:02 PM

the "laser" from my "death star"

2/2/2006 1:18:41 AM

yes, lets just stop doing whatever it is we're doing that's pissing the world off.

buncha pansies.

2/2/2006 1:28:20 AM

Quote :

"remind me again how many submachine guns you have stored up in your basement. you are going to need a hell of a lot more to fend of an invasion than grandpa's shotgun..."

My rifle, shotguns, and handguns may not be much on my own. But 200 million firearms is not something to be snickered at. And for what it's worth, I do think we should all be allowed to purchase and carry whatever weapons we desire. So if my view of how America should act in this came true, then yes, I probably would have submachine guns in my basement.

And again, I will point out that everyone here is presuming to make a more realistic judgment about how well one could invade America than a man who was in a position to attempt just that. Admiral Hirohito, as I've already quoted, viewed the average armed American citizen, rather than our military, as the insurmountable obstacle to invasion. Erase our entire military, and he still would not have attempted such foolishness. It would have been suicide.

This is also a major factor in the Nazi decision to refuse to invade Switzerland. It was full of expert marksmen, with a capable rifleman in every home (no exceptions)....unlike France and others, which had begun disarming their own people well before the war and made for easy targets.

2/2/2006 5:02:50 AM

Quote :

"While bombastic, its not very fantastic, Mr. Lover Lover. God I hate your fucking screen name."

haha

ok let me clear some things up

number 1, the earth is definitely getting warmer, and 2, i dont have a problem with testing new weapons, but we shouldnt use the fuck up in iraq as a testing ground for new weapons when we shouldnt have went in there on the first place

2/2/2006 5:27:20 AM

i think you meant admiral yamamoto

2/2/2006 9:24:54 AM

Quote :

"calling me a troll doesn't diminish my point"

You're right. Your point does a fairly good job of diminishing itself.

OMF CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING = RETURNING TO 1940S ERA WEAPONRY!!1

2/2/2006 12:54:13 PM

good job taking issue with the hyperbole instead of the point.

2/2/2006 1:09:16 PM

Quote :

"This is also a major factor in the Nazi decision to refuse to invade Switzerland. It was full of expert marksmen, with a capable rifleman in every home (no exceptions)....unlike France and others, which had begun disarming their own people well before the war and made for easy targets."

The Nazi's would have loved to invade Switzerland. However, the strategy of the Swiss was to fortify all of the mountains along their borders to such a point that it would inflict horrible casualties on the Germans had they chosen to invade. Tremendous underground tunnel systems from that era still exist throughout the Swiss alps. While they surely would have fallen had the germans wanted it badly enough, their defenses were enough of a deterent to keep them safe during the war. It had nothing to do with Nazi bank accounts in Swiss banks.

It was the same strategy that the German navy used in response to the British during WWI.

2/2/2006 1:18:22 PM

Ok, your point is still retarded. Re-allocating portions of the current defense budget can meet the exact same objective without having to cut anything.

2/2/2006 5:12:30 PM

Quote :

"And again, I will point out that everyone here is presuming to make a more realistic judgment about how well one could invade America than a man who was in a position to attempt just that. Admiral Hirohito, as I've already quoted, viewed the average armed American citizen, rather than our military, as the insurmountable obstacle to invasion. Erase our entire military, and he still would not have attempted such foolishness. It would have been suicide. "

as someone else said before, yamamoto
and you are right, attacking the US then would have been suicide, but not now. when all you have to do is call in an air strike and level a building with a "sniper" in it, there's really no match. Send a battalion of M1A1's against a civilian populace and they will run like bitches. Counteract this with the fact that as civilians we have NO defense against tanks, airplanes, etc as compared to the civilian defensive capabilites in the 1940s, and I think you can see the clear difference.

2/3/2006 8:45:00 PM

indeed. it was yamamoto, slight brain fart there.

I'm not suggesting that we could repel invasion from a well-equipped army simply via universal civilian arms. But it is an insurmountable obstacle to invasion. This is not contradictory, because a necessary part of invasion is occupation. You don't just invade and leave. Any invasion plans must include occupation plans. If occupation is deemed impossible, the invasion will never be attempted.

Universally armed people will never be occupied/subjugated successfully. And the constant lesson from guerrilla warfare: the guerrillas win.

2/4/2006 5:13:42 AM

ok well after reading the first post of this thread, honestly the first thing i thought:

if excoriator is mad that we are going back to "carpet bombing/blitzkrieg" style instead of using new technology, then why dont we just build new technology for the "carpet bombing/blitzkrieg" style.

i mean wouldnt that be the logical thing to do?

2/4/2006 8:56:18 AM