The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[Derideo_Te]

And you are all acting like China would not have these objectives in mind, would not be capable of fighting a conflict this far way and would not do so based on the fact that WE HAVE A MILITARY. You realize that anarchy means that there is no more military. That was the point. If America, being EXTREMELY rich in resource, were to have nothing that resembles an army protecting her borders, I have no doubt that various nations would make a bid to control it. That is simple logic. The idea that you don’t think this is possible is utterly insane. China would have no problem executing a war over here and killing as many were required to instill control should we have a lack of government entirely. Any other place where this has stalled was for other reasons. In Iraq it is because we are trying to set THEM up, not assume control. Had we tried to assume control, this would have been accomplished a decade ago (to our detriment as we don’t want that pile). In Afghanistan, you have similar reasons as well as the fact that there is nothing to base a stable economy on over there. No real resources exist in Afghanistan. The Russians only failed there because we were fighting a proxy war with Russia using them. Vietnam, same story as Iraq.

In the end we can essentially say that conquering works but nation building does not. See how long you remain free without any force behind that.

Agreed that the US needs a military but it also needs to be proportional and cost effective. Right now the US outspends the next 12 nations combined and that includes China and Russia. Defense spending is out of control. Until this nation learns to "nation build" at home it is just wasting taxpayer dollars overseas.

 

[Agit8r]

"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians"
-- George Washington; from letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 10, 1787)

nuff said

 

[FA_Q2]

And you are all acting like China would not have these objectives in mind, would not be capable of fighting a conflict this far way and would not do so based on the fact that WE HAVE A MILITARY. You realize that anarchy means that there is no more military. That was the point. If America, being EXTREMELY rich in resource, were to have nothing that resembles an army protecting her borders, I have no doubt that various nations would make a bid to control it. That is simple logic. The idea that you don’t think this is possible is utterly insane. China would have no problem executing a war over here and killing as many were required to instill control should we have a lack of government entirely. Any other place where this has stalled was for other reasons. In Iraq it is because we are trying to set THEM up, not assume control. Had we tried to assume control, this would have been accomplished a decade ago (to our detriment as we don’t want that pile). In Afghanistan, you have similar reasons as well as the fact that there is nothing to base a stable economy on over there. No real resources exist in Afghanistan. The Russians only failed there because we were fighting a proxy war with Russia using them. Vietnam, same story as Iraq.

In the end we can essentially say that conquering works but nation building does not. See how long you remain free without any force behind that.

Agreed that the US needs a military but it also needs to be proportional and cost effective. Right now the US outspends the next 12 nations combined and that includes China and Russia. Defense spending is out of control. Until this nation learns to "nation build" at home it is just wasting taxpayer dollars overseas.

Sure but that is beside the point. The discussion for the last several pages had been DIRECTLY about anarchy and several of the people here are jumping all over the idea that China could never invade because of our army.

The discussion at this point has broken down to a bunch of people arguing topics that are not in line with each other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And you are all acting like China would not have these objectives in mind, would not be capable of fighting a conflict this far way and would not do so based on the fact that WE HAVE A MILITARY. You realize that anarchy means that there is no more military. That was the point. If America, being EXTREMELY rich in resource, were to have nothing that resembles an army protecting her borders, I have no doubt that various nations would make a bid to control it. That is simple logic. The idea that you don’t think this is possible is utterly insane. China would have no problem executing a war over here and killing as many were required to instill control should we have a lack of government entirely. Any other place where this has stalled was for other reasons. In Iraq it is because we are trying to set THEM up, not assume control. Had we tried to assume control, this would have been accomplished a decade ago (to our detriment as we don’t want that pile). In Afghanistan, you have similar reasons as well as the fact that there is nothing to base a stable economy on over there. No real resources exist in Afghanistan. The Russians only failed there because we were fighting a proxy war with Russia using them. Vietnam, same story as Iraq.

In the end we can essentially say that conquering works but nation building does not. See how long you remain free without any force behind that.

Agreed that the US needs a military but it also needs to be proportional and cost effective. Right now the US outspends the next 12 nations combined and that includes China and Russia. Defense spending is out of control. Until this nation learns to "nation build" at home it is just wasting taxpayer dollars overseas.

Sure but that is beside the point. The discussion for the last several pages had been DIRECTLY about anarchy and several of the people here are jumping all over the idea that China could never invade because of our army.

The discussion at this point has broken down to a bunch of people arguing topics that are not in line with each other.

Isn't that how it normally goes?

Invading a nation requires feasible logistics. Not only must you be able to have a force large enough and well equipped enough to cross the borders but you also need to keep on supplying that force with food, fuel, ammunition and reserves. Furthermore you need to insure that the invaded nation cannot strike back at your homeland. Once you factor all of those into play there is no longer any debate.

 

[rightwinger]

And you are all acting like China would not have these objectives in mind, would not be capable of fighting a conflict this far way and would not do so based on the fact that WE HAVE A MILITARY. You realize that anarchy means that there is no more military. That was the point. If America, being EXTREMELY rich in resource, were to have nothing that resembles an army protecting her borders, I have no doubt that various nations would make a bid to control it. That is simple logic. The idea that you don’t think this is possible is utterly insane. China would have no problem executing a war over here and killing as many were required to instill control should we have a lack of government entirely. Any other place where this has stalled was for other reasons. In Iraq it is because we are trying to set THEM up, not assume control. Had we tried to assume control, this would have been accomplished a decade ago (to our detriment as we don’t want that pile). In Afghanistan, you have similar reasons as well as the fact that there is nothing to base a stable economy on over there. No real resources exist in Afghanistan. The Russians only failed there because we were fighting a proxy war with Russia using them. Vietnam, same story as Iraq.

In the end we can essentially say that conquering works but nation building does not. See how long you remain free without any force behind that.

Logistics........it's a bitch

 

[editec]

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

They need to come up with a term for that, don't they ed? Anarchists who don't believe there should be any government at all.

One would think that if one called oneself an ANARCHIST one would understand the word means without leader

Sadly there are organizations of self identified "anarchists: (especially in Europe).

They do believe (strongly) in government...they just have a theory that somehow the people can create a government where everybody agrees so there is not FRANCHISE of violence associatedwith it.

They are MAGICAL THINKERS...much like communists are, most libertarians tend to be, and believers in the mystical capitalists who believe in the" invisible hand of the market" are.

Anyone who believes that that thier system will work "as soon people understand and agree to it" are magical thinkers.

 

[kaz]

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

They need to come up with a term for that, don't they ed? Anarchists who don't believe there should be any government at all.

One would think that if one called oneself an ANARCHIST one would understand the word means without leader

Sadly there are organizations of self identified "anarchists: (especially in Europe).

They do believe (strongly) in government...they just have a theory that somehow the people can create a government where everybody agrees so there is not FRANCHISE of violence associatedwith it.

They are MAGICAL THINKERS...much like communists are, most libertarians tend to be, and believers in the mystical capitalists who believe in the" invisible hand of the market" are.

Anyone who believes that that thier system will work "as soon people understand and agree to it" are magical thinkers.

Capitalism is just economic freedom. There's nothing magical about the belief that you can make your own decisions better than someone else can for you. In fact, that the reverse could ever work is magical thinking.

I know what you're talking about in terms of for example the "Occupy Wall Street" movement which are Marxists calling themselves anarchists. What I don't get is why you're jumping into a conversation where the anarchists are actually arguing against all government making this point as if it were pertinent to THIS discussion.