Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Remake of Red Dawn coming to theaters in Nov. 2012.

Actually on Nov. 2nd. according to IMDB.

[Felch]

Oh, yeah, those scary North Koreans.

I'm looking forward to it.

[kentonio]

Absolutely. I realize that you're British and are completely ignorant, but there are over 10 million guns sold each year in the United States, many of them "assault rifles." Considering the thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, jets, and other materiel that our military already has, we are in no realistic danger.

It's easy to discount small arms, but they are effective for killing people. Much more so than cricket paddles or knives or whatever you Brits have.

I love the way you snuck..

Considering the thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, jets, and other materiel that our military already has, we are in no realistic danger.

..in there. Thats the reason you are beyond safe and no other, you spend more on defense than the rest of the damn world. If it ever came down to the US army being defeated however, and someone occupying the US, all those guns you have wouldn't mean a flying ****. As Loin pointed out, it didn't exactly do the Afghans and Iraqis a deal of good. You probably need to watch Red Dawn a bit less.


*EDIT: Ogie beat me to the Red Dawn line.

[Guynemer]

I believe the Brits prefer to use scalding hot tea.

Well, perhaps not scalding hot, as that would be unsporting. Warm tea. It might sting if it gets in the eyes.





Look, I do not support Paul. At all. I think the guy is more than a little unhinged. BUT, that doesn't mean all of his ideas are equally wackadoo. Dramatically slashing our so-called "defense" budget would be a wonderous, splendiferous, fantastic thing.

[kentonio]

True.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

As Loin pointed out, it didn't exactly do the Afghans and Iraqis a deal of good.

All of the Afghanis' and Iraqis' AK-47's certainly didn't help the US any

Now I know Loin has a tendency to the sarcastic but even I can't discern how this can be spun into the guns didn't help the Afghanis or Iraqis statement.

You probably need to watch Red Dawn a bit less.

Perhaps this would be better self advice.

[Felch]

Thats the reason you are beyond safe and no other, you spend more on defense than the rest of the damn world.

The reason we spend more on defense is because we have tens of thousands of troops scattered around the world. Howitzers are cheaper than divisions. If all we spent money on was heavy weapons, and the crews to manage them, we could easily slash spending.

If it ever came down to the US army being defeated however, and someone occupying the US, all those guns you have wouldn't mean a flying ****.

Describe a single realistic scenario where the US army could be defeated. As far as the guns meaning a flying ****, that's simply ridiculous. If guns were worthless, then the military wouldn't use them. And the American people have more guns that all the world's militaries put together. Even though many of those are civilian hunting rifles, millions of them are ARs and AKs. Considering that we intentionally don't register those firearms, it's almost impossible for anyone to institute large scale confiscations.

As Loin pointed out, it didn't exactly do the Afghans and Iraqis a deal of good. You probably need to watch Red Dawn a bit less.

So we won in Iraq and Aghanistan?

[kentonio]

Now I know Loin has a tendency to the sarcastic but even I can't discern how this can be spun into the guns didn't help the Afghanis or Iraqis statement.

How could 100,000 odd dead Iraqis be wrong!

Perhaps this would be better self advice.

Actually I need to watch it more, it's a great movie. However I can't help but laugh at the idea of all those obese rednecks thinking that their personal armouries are going to do anything to save them against an organized army with armour, air support and intelligence services.

[giblets]

Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked by a superpower with global power projection capabilities. Who exactly is going to invade the US if the military is eliminated? We should keep the military, but only to stomp down treasonous secessionists.

[kentonio]

The reason we spend more on defense is because we have tens of thousands of troops scattered around the world. Howitzers are cheaper than divisions. If all we spent money on was heavy weapons, and the crews to manage them, we could easily slash spending.

Actually you could slash it quite easily by cutting into the high tech programs, especially air and still retain a massive advantage over your nearest rivals.

Describe a single realistic scenario where the US army could be defeated. As far as the guns meaning a flying ****, that's simply ridiculous. If guns were worthless, then the military wouldn't use them. And the American people have more guns that all the world's militaries put together. Even though many of those are civilian hunting rifles, millions of them are ARs and AKs. Considering that we intentionally don't register those firearms, it's almost impossible for anyone to institute large scale confiscations.

You're putting two different things together for the second time. Your military cannot be defeated, thats a simple fact. In a foreign war, sure its possible, but not at home. That has nothing to do with the worthlessness of your citizens having guns however. You can have as many as you like in your basement, but if you try and use them against a real army they will kill you, simple as.

So we won in Iraq and Aghanistan?

You won the war and lost the occupation. Despite the atrocities the US commited at various points however, you did obey international law a majority of the time. You'd have won the occupation without those limitations, and any power theoretically capable of matching the US in future is a lot less likely to obey those same international obligations.

[Felch]

Armor isn't an effective means of policing over three million square miles of territory. Even if it were, tanks don't operate alone. They need fuel trucks, infantry support, ammunition resupply, and everything else. Small arms and IEDs can easily disrupt logistics. Without logistics, all those tanks are worthless.

Air support is a bit scarier, but the biggest air force in the world is the USAF. The second biggest air force is the US Navy. I don't think we're in any danger there.

Personal armories are absolutely effective against intelligence services. Spies aren't bullet proof.

[Felch]

You won the war and lost the occupation. Despite the atrocities the US commited at various points however, you did obey international law a majority of the time. You'd have won the occupation without those limitations, and any power theoretically capable of matching the US in future is a lot less likely to obey those same international obligations.

That's very kind of you to say.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How could 100,000 odd dead Iraqis be wrong!

Considering Loin's passage was silent on the helpful or harmful nature to the Iraqis (or Afghanis) merely that is didn't help the US, I fail to see how mentioning it advanced your arguement. If anything it was contra your position. But then again I wasn't looking or argueing a given position in this discussoin merely pointing how well reasoned your thoughts were (not).

[kentonio]

Armor isn't an effective means of policing over three million square miles of territory. Even if it were, tanks don't operate alone. They need fuel trucks, infantry support, ammunition resupply, and everything else. Small arms and IEDs can easily disrupt logistics. Without logistics, all those tanks are worthless.

Air support is a bit scarier, but the biggest air force in the world is the USAF. The second biggest air force is the US Navy. I don't think we're in any danger there.

For the third time you're mixing military power with civilian weaponry to make your point. You just lost a war, you don't HAVE an operating air force any more. Anywhere you have groups of citizens making their stand for freedom, you have helicopter gunships and drone strikes landing.

Personal armories are absolutely effective against intelligence services. Spies aren't bullet proof.

Once they learn where your freedom fighters are based, the airstrikes are going to be landing shortly afterwards.

Considering Loin's passage was silent on the helpful or harmful nature to the Iraqis (or Afghanis) merely that is didn't help the US, I fail to see how mentioning it advanced your arguement. If anything it was contra your position. But then again I wasn't looking or argueing a given position in this discussoin merely pointing how well reasoned your thoughts were (not).

Well done sir, there are literally no arguments that cannot be strengthened by adding 'NOT! party time, excellent!' at the end. I am slain.

[Felch]

For the third time you're mixing military power with civilian weaponry to make your point. You just lost a war, you don't HAVE an operating air force any more. Anywhere you have groups of citizens making their stand for freedom, you have helicopter gunships and drone strikes landing.

You decided that we lost a war. My original statement was that the US is nigh invulnerable, and that our militia contributes that that. You're argument is absurd, in that it separates two facts and tries to deal with them separately. The United States has both the most powerful military and the most heavily armed militia. We have both. At the same time. That matters because any invasion will have to deal with both. Assuming PLA land on the west coast, they'd have to fight through thousands of miles of varied terrain, with a heavily armed and hostile population in their rear, and the most powerful military to their front. It's hard enough fighting a conventional war, an ocean away from your homeland. It's even more difficult when your target has enough guns to arm 9 out of every 10 people. Invading armies ignore partisans at their peril.