Do you believe in progress?

[Pekka]

But few guns would still help for sure.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Pekka
But few guns would still help for sure.

Very short and to the point. What have you done with Pekka?!?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lancer
Progess has brought to governments new means to control populations. If your government needed throwing out a couple of hundred years ago you got your musket and went up against guys with muskets. Today, you might get your hunting rifle and go up against super choppers with infra red and miniguns. Not only that, but today they have satalites, they know you're coming. If you talk on the phone, they know you're planning. Really, I don't have much hope for a modern revolution.

Wasn´t one of the claims of the NRA and other Pro wepon lobbies against stronger gun control laws,
that every american should be able to keep guns at home so that the american citizens might be able to start a revolution, if ever a government comes to power which isn´t wanted by the majority of the population?

Sound like you make a point which refutes these claims, as rifles against modern weapons don´t make a difference

[Lancer]

Stronger gun control laws would be good. However for those citizens whose history is clean weapons should still be available. Just because revolution is more difficult doesn't mean we won't one day have to fight one.

[Blaupanzer]

In the end, evil lies in the hearts of those who justify doing less than acceptable things to their opponents in the name of honor, faith, the war, whatever. In that sense the level of evil remains about the same. The triumph of evil, or good, will never occur. The struggle continues.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
Perhaps people in the US were all duped into fighting in the WWs by selfish politicos and industrialists who sacrificed nothing and made fortunes. However alot of other things happened then also, for example the defeat of the murderous nazis and the imperial Japanese who were raping & murdering their way across China.

WW2 was worth fighting, but like most wars, rich men found ways to play it a lot safer than the average sad sack who became a rifleman in a line company of an infantry division. Over 80% of the US Army was stateside, supply, and other non-combat forces. Gee, wonder how those assignments got filled, and by who?

WW1 was a bunch of fops with oversized egos sending others off to die for their own arrogance.

Now we face a new threat, world terrorism and nuclear and biological proliferation.

Bull****. That's just the marketing line to get people to go along with Bushy and the current corporate interests feeding from the biggest trough in history. Look at how much many has passed through DoD and DHS budgets in the last five years, and how little real security has been achieved?

You have a marketing formula for a perpetual war against an undefined enemy, to get people to give a free pass to this administration and its buddies.

We're in a war whether we feel like fighting it or not or whether we don't like those who profit from it or not or agree with the way it's fought or not.

A nice hollow marketing pitch. There are a few nutbags and extremists who have the potential to do some nasty things if we're terminally stupid about lack of security.

Our enemies are taking advantage and their soldiers are walking onto planes with bombs strapped on and killing themselve for their cause.

A few of them did that, once, because we had our political, security and intelligence leadership has their collective heads up their asses.

We on the other hand...we are at war with ourselves. We are a house divided lacking all sense of commitment. Why? Because commitment comes from those rare things, honor, integrity, faith and faithfulness.

So we should all swallow the marketing rhetoric without question? Bull****, we'd still be Brit subjects if we'd done that 200 odd years ago. Honor, integrity and faith requires that we cynically question and challenge a corrupt and inept leadership, rather than just goose step in formation to whatever destination is picked for us.

[Arrian]

[Lancer]

Mike, I understand your pov, agree with much of it. I wish we had a defined enemy... not personally much into goose stepping, but I am into winning the war against terrorism, a war which I believe exists and which is supported in the moslem countries by a fairly united media and governments. I'd be interested to hear Oerdin on this subject, though I know he's opposed to the effort in Iraq, I wonder how strongly terrorism is being pressed in the region. From what I understand it is being taught in many public schools. So, if we can establish an economicly successful secular Iraq in the heart of all these wacko regimes, that might destableize them. If the people in these extremeist countries can see the middle class in Iraq grow, so will discontent against extremeist governments. In Iran the students are already change oriented and the government is keeping things going through confrontation with the US in order to fan the flames of nationalism. So there are good signs for the future. However all these extremeists have to do is wait us out. They can see the writing on the wall, the discontent being whipped up in the US and west in general against our efforts in Iraq and for a deadline to pull out. Might as well engrave an invitation for them to keep blowing things up. No, I'm no puppet on a string, but I do believe if we ever want to win a war ever again we better learn how to support a national effort again. If you don't want to use words like integrity, faith, honor, how about a word like victory? If we win in Iraq it might mean victory against tyrany and terrorism in the Persian Gulf. How long has the region been threatening to set the world on fire? Why are the American people being blinded to the reality of failure?

Sure, we need restraints on extemeism in our own country, and the next election should take care of that. But if the democrats cut and run for domestic political reasons, or fight the fight looking like a bunch of wimps who feel guilty for being in it...well then we are truly ****ed and it's all been for nothing.

Iraq may be another VietNam, but it doesn't have to be. We can win this one.

[lord of the mark]

the problem being the govt during the WOT. If the baddies blow a lot of stuff up, the govt is incompetent. If the baddies DONT blow a lot of stuff up, the govt is overblowing the threat from a buncha guys who got lucky and pulled a one off.

In fact, since 9/11 we AND our allies have been doing a helluva lot, and more than just fixing airplane cockpit doors and baggage screening. We've been breaking up cells around the world, clamped down on financing, broke up the training camps and command centers in Afghanistan, have pressed Pakistan to at least no longer overtly support AQ and to occasionally attack it, have instituted naval patrols in the Indian ocean to interfere with terrorist movement, etc, etc, etc. So naturally its harder for AQ to pull big operations off, esp outside the muslim world. But thats BECAUSE we're fighting the WOT.

The next admin, which id say has at least a 50% chance of being Dem, will undoubtedly continue to fight the WOT. (and yes, any increase in competency in doing it would be welcome)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lancer
. But if the democrats cut and run

The next Dem president wont cut and run. Im quite sure she wont

[Lancer]

Condi is going Dem?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Look at how much many has passed through DoD and DHS budgets in the last five years, and how little real security has been achieved?

How do you measure how much security has been achieved?

I find it impossible to believe that al quaeda and friends haven't intended to launch several massive terrorist attacks in the US since sept 11 2001.

Curiously they have not. Even if an attack succeeded tommorow it would be hard for me to believe that several attacks were not successfully averted in the previous years.

Is it possible that much of the money has been spent on security measures that are invisible to the public and intended to be invisible to the would be terrorists?

[Proteus_MST]

AT least the more than 90.000.000.000 $ spent on the war in Iraq could have been better used for other measures against terrorists, as, at least concerning the war on terror, the invasion of iraq didn´t accomplish anything.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
AT least the more than 90.000.000.000 $ spent on the war in Iraq could have been better used for other measures against terrorists, as, at least concerning the war on terror, the invasion of iraq didn´t accomplish anything.

DoD budget certainly includes money pissed away on the invasion of Iraq but the DHS budget really has nothing to do with it.

In any event that is a depressing number of zeros.

[Ben Kenobi]

Im not sure if any one has noticed that not much has changed over the years. I need evil defined!!! are we talking relegion or general human feelings?? If it is human feelings, the same feelings occur, they are just now about differnt things.

Yeah that is more of what I meant, how people hurt each other and take pleasure in hurting others. It really doesn't matter what religion you are, most say the same thing.

Evil just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think in terms of human feelings there are certain things everyone would agree are evil.