patriot act II

[Bander EU|A]

I don't believe in the argument that you need a gun at home ?because you might need it in a revolution?. That's just really silly, why would you need a revolution? I don't think we can expect the US to turn into a dictatorship in the near future because Americans are smarter than that. If the Patriot act would pass (which I really hope won't happen), then you are all in deep shit, but you won't need a revolution 'cos of it.

@Kami: They need guns cuz they live in a dangerous country where some crack-freak or mental dirupted ex-G.I. can should you anytime for 1$ cash or cuz he doesnt like your hair colour.

They need guns to support the weapon industrie.

They need guns to feel like men (cuz their pants are emty)

They need guns to be prepared for their next civil-war

They need guns to be able to commit suicide when they finally notice that they live in a good place that turns into massive shit cuz they forgot how to use their brains (but they still know where the trigger of their gun is)

They need guns to find stupid arguments why they need guns

They need guns cuz they dont even thrust the goverment they voted before

People who possess a gun are mental distorted humans in my eyes (except soldiers, police, security personell)

Basta Camarillo ~ viva tha "real" freedom loving america
death to dumbass-nation!

Bander

[abe]

Bander,

nobody has blamed you for Haider or said you like him, simply because you are austrian. and please stop glorifying austria as this sanctuary of humanism and sanity. many austrians are biggots that hate foreigners and who voted for Haider, just like many americans are biggots and xenophobes, who voted for Bush.

just a question for the austrians: why do so many of  you hate prussians so much? i lived in vieanna and was treated like a leper because i prounounced it "ick" or "wat". i thought that was ancient history.

next, bander, when i think of the Anschluss (germany's annexation of austria), the first thing that comes to my mind is the gargantuan crowd that came to see hitler speak and not dollfusses' cry for help. the history books also remember austrians as being in favor of the anschluss. yes, maybe not all austrians, but probably more than americans who currently support the war on iraq.

then, ww2. if i remember correctly, america was attacked by japan after isolating itself from world affairs. furthermore, at the time (1941/42) it looked like the axis might actually win. that is not sticking your nose in everywhere, picking the winning side or earning a lot of cash. to me, that sounds a lot like being attacked, kinda like what happened on sept. 11th.

im not blindly defending the US here, but get your facts staight. you patronize and categorize every american here, who is for the war, as a "volltrotel". i hope you meet an austrian who disagrees with you so that you have to respond to his points instead of dissing his country. oops, i forget....austrians are all good people who would never think of hurting a fly, even less support an evil and warmongering nation like the US (sarcasm).

[Mr. Lothario]

They need guns cuz they dont even thrust the goverment they voted before

     Trusting any government is a bad idea. Remember, one definition of a gov't is: the group which claims for itself the power to kill people who they don't like. The gov't is the only group who is legally allowed to back up their rules with men with guns. Power must be watched, and watched carefully. Trusting your government is just a wee bit too innocently wide-eyed for my taste.

     Besides which, mistrust of the government is embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Checks and balances, the power of impeachment, the bicameral legislature, the three-branch system, the Supreme Court's powers, all are specifically intended to make the American gov't slower to act, less efficient in getting things done (there is nothing more dangerous to its people than an efficient gov't), and correctable if it does something bad. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

     And that is why I, for one, am upset over the "Patriot" Act I and II: they are deviating from the established precedent in giving massive unilateral power to one person (the Attorney General), and also by making many processes more efficient, such as by removing the necessity of due process and habeas corpus. Not a good thing, and certainly not trustworthy.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

They need guns to find stupid arguments why they need guns

Hehe, I liked this one best.

Oh and about your fatty unhealthy burger comment...I don't think I've mentioned it here but at the start of the year I switched over to being a full-out vegitarian...haven't eaten meat in 40 days and don't plan to for the rest of my life.  Mind you I'm not vegan, I still have cheese and occasionally other dairy...need my calcium after all.

[abe]

Lothario,

i agree with everything you say in your last two paragraphs, but youre first sentance and most of what follows sounds like somthing right out of charlton hestons mouth.

trust is one thing, blind trust is another. i for one have confidence in my government and i believe they are, generally speaking, acting in our collective interest. to assume anything else of a democraticly elected government is almost absurd. and this is one of the big criticisms i have for american society....this outdated and almost irrational phobia that our government will somehow go bananas and start killing us all. the result of this has been that the country is armed to the teeth, yet lacks any sort of public health care or welfare system. bander pointed out that our schools are shitty too, and i agree. the combination of a shitty education system, gun culture, not enough abortions and too much free time produces accidents like spaz.( no offense, spaz, but you shit all over yourself in that post. go read a book!)

Lothario, the government has napalm and Mx missles. do you really think that a bunch of hicks in michigan with ak 47s is really gonna make a difference?? i don't. if the government really was out to get you, no matter how many glocks you have and how many times a week you go to the shooting range....unless you are propising that every citizen get his own tank, it is ludicrous to assume that the "right to bear arms" is going to protect you from any national government and its military.

as much as i think bush is an ass, i still have faith in our legislative and judicial system (eventhough both are full of bush's buddys), as well as the military, the state department and the rest of the bureacracy that makes up our government to prevent him turning the US into a gestapo-state and appointing John Ashcroft (can u believe he lost an election to a DEAD guy???) Reichscsar for security matters. besides, i think a lot of whats in these acts is genuinly aimed at terrorists  and not part of a master plan to install a totalitarian government (remember that bush is a big fan of cutting government himself, unless of course its corporate welfare or defense).

ps. : wasnt part of austria occupied by US troops for a few years after ww2? this is not meant to be polemic in any way.....im simply asking if this was because the russian genosses gave the other allies part of austia (like they did with berlin) or whether US/UK/France actually invaded part of austria before may 1945. just cuious.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty I agree, If republicans have a whole new term holding all branches of the government we are screwed. The media seems to very biased on picking up on more conservative aspects of the news which seems to be because they conform with the party in charge, for fundings perhaps.

Funding?  For the news media?  What are you smoking exactly Zaitsev?  

The only pressure that the government can place on the news media in this country is plain and simple barter.  Hey, if you don't print that, I'll give you something better.  There is more of an impact from big business and the pulling of advertising (where they make their money).  You are more likely to see a negative article about Bush and War in Newsweek then you are to see a negative story about tobacco.  But you see both.

Who do you think it is that exposes any government wrong?  

Every communication medium has it's own slant, usually depending on the owner and editors.  But the government doesn't control them, that is just too far fetched.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Whats the deal with all you IGNORENT SOB'S saying that europe owes us somethin from World War II? Europe doesnt owe us a damn bit of NOTHING and to make it more remember the frrench and indian war? Engalnd helped us. You dont repay people by sendiing your troops UN-NESSICARILY (sp) so a foriegn country to die., That isnt payment, its stupid. You can claim the owe us but we are the ones in billions of dollars of debt to them when they help us out of social and economical depressions.

Ok, is any part of what you wrote here true Zaitsev?

England didn't help us in the French Indian wars, Those wars were between France and England over who controlled what in North American.  The French had a large chunk in the north, you may have heard of it.  It's called Canada now.  So there was much fighting around New York as both sides (England and France) were trying to expand.  This was before the USA was a nation.  And if France had won, who knows, there may never have been the American or French revolutions.  (now the French did eventually support the US in it's Revolution, once America proved it was strong enough to have a chance.)

I have no idea what you are even trying to say about repaying by sending troops.  I do know that after WW2, the European nations in question formed an organization with the USA, called NATO.  It being a mutial defense treaty amongst other things.  This was more important to the Europeans, who feared that Russia was going to continue moving east after the war.  If that had happened, the USA would have sent troops in, as thy promised.  If it happened today, the US would still send troops.  As they should (otherwise, why have mutual defense agreements?)

Who are we billions and billions of dollars in debt to?  Who is billions and billions in debt to us??  You do realize that there are many countries that owe US money, right??  That we are also lenders and givers?  But, back to your statement, why don't you look up which banks hold most of the notes on the US.  I think you'll find much if it comes from Saudi Arabia.  Yes, some comes from European banks.  But then, European nations owe money to both the US government and to US banks too.  That's the world of economics for you.  Banks (sometimes governments) think we are a good investment and lend money.  Do your parents owe any special allegiance to the Bank that holds their mortgage?  Or do they just owe the cash?

P.S. look up how many loans European nations defaulted on after WW2 before bringing it up next time.  The bad part about lending governments money.  If they don't really want to pay, it's not like you can foreclose.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I don't believe in the argument that you need a gun at home ?because you might need it in a revolution?. That's just really silly, why would you need a revolution?

Kami, I'm going to ask you again to go and read the old threads.  The information you are looking for has to do with the forming of our constitution and the second amendment.  Our forefathers that formed this country, and had to fight with those same guns, wrote it.  But please don't start that thread here again.

Thank you. Another proof of the idioty of most americans who cant even look over the ream of their coffee cup.

Again, Bander uses his worthless time to show us all what dumbasses most of Austria must be (using his logic).

Listen up hairless cunt: Soviets liberated Berlin and Vienna. THANKS genossen!

So, those Americans and Brits that were in Berlin had nothing to do with it?  You are such a stupid fuck.  If you really think that the Allies would have won the war without America, the UK or the Soviet Union all there and doing all each of them could, you are the one in need of a history lesson.  Without American and British forces pushing from the west and south, the Axis forces could have focused on the Russians.  They may not have taken all of Russia (this is a debate between me and Cossack), but the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have taken them either.  Also, it was a bigger deal for America, because we were also fighting the Nippons at the same time, with little help.  

U.S. just stepped into every war in europe, wisely choosing the side of the slicely stronger

Wrong again.  The Allies were losing the war when America joined WW2.  And we didn't completely pick that side, the Nippon's did that picking for us.

What other wars in Europe have we just "stepped into"?  WWI?  Yeah, real tough as to whose side we would have come onto there, wasn't it?  Fool.  Any others?

Learn history out of a book and not from a spielberg movie u volltrottel

BAH: It just amuses me to always notice how SHITTY your scchool system must be.

Obviously it's a littler better then yours, if this is what you learned.

The second ww endet 1945. austria was anexed 1938 by hitler cuz U.S. let us alone (we called for help u idiot but your smart President said: "Hitler is a garanty for a stable europe. No intervention for austria"). So - and now look into the mirror and poke into your own face mr. "i have no clue about nothing but i talk shit". MUAHAHAHA!

All of the world made that mistake.  Takes a biggot like you to try to pin it on America.  But, while pointing, who put him in power in the first place??  Why not point the finger in that direction?  Oh, becaue it doesn't fit your hate.  I see.

Yeah - and your country is BIG. Like a BIG pile of shit (if it would be only filled with faggots like u, Bushaneer and Bush itself). Go and be happy when eating your next "unhealthy and fatty" burger.

OMG, they don't eat burgers in Austria!!  OMG, they only eat healty food in Austria!!  OMG, they are so superior!!  What a fucking idiot you are with your implied insults like that.  Why don't you rund down to the corner and get a McDonalds happy meal.  Since there are a shit load of them there, you may as well.  Guess people eat like shit there too.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Lothario, the government has napalm and Mx missles. do you really think that a bunch of hicks in michigan with ak 47s is really gonna make a difference?? i don't. if the government really was out to get you, no matter how many glocks you have and how many times a week you go to the shooting range....unless you are propising that every citizen get his own tank, it is ludicrous to assume that the "right to bear arms" is going to protect you from any national government and its military.

Have to disagree with you here Abe.  

First, while the government has the better weapons and technology, how many actual soilders does it have?  How many would actually fight other Americans?

Second, underarmed guerralas have proven time and time again that they can defeat better trained and equipted soilders.  You should have learned that from history.  (and they manage to find ways to get the arms.  Besides stealing them and taking them off bodies, they will most assuradly get them from other countries, like with all revolutions).

Third, Michigan is not full of hicks (had to say that).  There are, however, a bunch of nuts up in the woods with guns that think that Revolution is much closer then it is.

Fourth, People said the same thing about 227 years ago.  They were wrong then.

Now, Like you Abe, I still have faith in our other branches of government (but it is being stretched).  This talk of revolution is fantasy about what happens if the other two branches don't do the right thing too.  

The talk about guns just went back to one of the key reasons that the 2nd ammendment was put there.  And remember, back then, they didn't limit the guns either.  Not like today.  You and some others were mentioning glocks and pistols.  When it was written, how it was written, it meant the same guns that the government had.  The gun control activists have been chipping away at it for decades.  But that is another thread.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

trust is one thing, blind trust is another. i for one have confidence in my government and i believe they are, generally speaking, acting in our collective interest. to assume anything else of a democraticly elected government is almost absurd. and this is one of the big criticisms i have for american society....this outdated and almost irrational phobia that our government will somehow go bananas and start killing us all. the result of this has been that the country is armed to the teeth, yet lacks any sort of public health care or welfare system. bander pointed out that our schools are shitty too, and i agree. the combination of a shitty education system, gun culture, not enough abortions and too much free time produces accidents like spaz.( no offense, spaz, but you shit all over yourself in that post. go read a book!)

Lothario, the government has napalm and Mx missles. do you really think that a bunch of hicks in michigan with ak 47s is really gonna make a difference?? i don't. if the government really was out to get you, no matter how many glocks you have and how many times a week you go to the shooting range....unless you are propising that every citizen get his own tank, it is ludicrous to assume that the "right to bear arms" is going to protect you from any national government and its military.

Abe, I've made that argument before about the armed public being able to some how rise up when the goverment has the massive weaponry.  Usually the reply is that the army wouldn't fight its own people with all those weapons so the guns do make a difference.  Well, if the the case is that the army won't defend the goverment from the public, then why do they even need the guns in the first place?  Either way the guns are certainly not defended by the idea of protection against tierany.

I think the US is way to arms-centric, both in populous and in goverment.  If I'm not mistaken the Department of Defense has the highest budget of all sections of the goverment.  We care more about building new weapons than we do about the welfare of our citizens.  No one else in the world is spending nearly as much as we are on military so why do we need to.  We aren't in an arms race anymore.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Abe, I've made that argument before about the armed public being able to some how rise up when the goverment has the massive weaponry.  Usually the reply is that the army wouldn't fight its own people with all those weapons so the guns do make a difference.  Well, if the the case is that the army won't defend the goverment from the public, then why do they even need the guns in the first place?  Either way the guns are certainly not defended by the idea of protection against tierany.

False premise lieads to a false conclusion.  the usual reply isn't that the army wouldn't fight.  Just that some wouldn't.  

The biggest point that was made was that the army lacked the numbers to stop an open revolt of the populace.  Thanks for not getting that.  Our armed forces only number in the hundreds of thousands.  Sure, they may be able to say, take NYC, and it's 8 million or so, but not the whole nation.  And it wouldn't want to use the heavier weapons, becaue it would be damaging itself (what good would it do to nuke yourself?).

The point has been stated about gurella wars, and how many of them have been successful.  Thanks for ignoring those too (that was sarcasim)

If I'm not mistaken the Department of Defense has the highest budget of all sections of the goverment.  We care more about building new weapons than we do about the welfare of our citizens.  No one else in the world is spending nearly as much as we are on military so why do we need to.  We aren't in an arms race anymore.

No, we aren't in an arms race anymore.  But it still takes money to ensure defense, to maintane what exists, and to stay ahead of the rest.  

And defense spending has been cut many times since the arms race has been over (it's the biggest place Clinton got the cash from).

One last point, defense is also a part of the wellfare of the citizens.  Just like in every other country.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Whoever keeps bringing up that Ashcroft lost to a dead guy fails to see who the dead guy was and the circumstances surrounding the election. I hate to say iy, but whoever keeps bringing up this issue (may be more than one person in multiple threads) is plain ignorant. Here is how it went down:

Mel Carnahan (the dead guy as you ppl refer to him as) was a long time beloved Governor (7 years) of Missouri. Shortly before the election, he died in a plane wreck and his wife got elected in a landslide sympathy vote. A sympathy vote. The way most of you idiots make it seem is that they would rather vote for a dead guy than Ashcroft - the answer is most likely not. Everyone knew that his wife would be appointed and they felt sorry for her so the Carnahan ticket won.

This is not an endorsement for John Ashcroft, who is too Conservative for my liking, this is an edorsement for people to get their facts straight.

Back on topic: This went off topic a long time ago.

As for Bander: I have been around here a long time, and I have spoken with you on multiple occasions. However, I happen to be for the war...does this make me all the things you are stereotyping Americans to be? I'd rather not flame anyone that I don't truely despise (there are only a few of those dicks out here), but cut it with your wide-ranging stereotyping or else I will have to unfortunately start to flame you.

Everyone else: enjoy this thread, the flames are keeping me warm during this cold (for Southern California standards) rainstorm.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

False premise lieads to a false conclusion.  the usual reply isn't that the army wouldn't fight.  Just that some wouldn't.  

Find so lets say half would fight for the goverment and half would fight for the public...still no need for guns.

The biggest point that was made was that the army lacked the numbers to stop an open revolt of the populace.  Thanks for not getting that.  Our armed forces only number in the hundreds of thousands.  Sure, they may be able to say, take NYC, and it's 8 million or so, but not the whole nation.  And it wouldn't want to use the heavier weapons, becaue it would be damaging itself (what good would it do to nuke yourself?).

The point has been stated about gurella wars, and how many of them have been successful.  Thanks for ignoring those too (that was sarcasim)

You asshole, abe's post that I replied to was before your replies so I hadn't seen them...I hadn't ignored them.  I'd rather have a machine gun facing 100 pistol wielding people than vice versa.  The army has both superior firepower and protection...what does the public have that could deal with a tank...nuclear weapons aren't the only big firepower the US has...it has many things that could be used without damaging the land to the point that it would be damaging itself to use.  As for the point of guerilla warfare...in the two instances that come immeditately to mind (American Revolution and Vietnam) the country that was having success was the home country.  In the case of a civil war (which is what a US vs US conflict would be even if it is goverment/army vs. public) both sides would be the home side and know the terrain.  I think the guerilla factor would be marginalized because of this.

No, we aren't in an arms race anymore.  But it still takes money to ensure defense, to maintane what exists, and to stay ahead of the rest.  

And defense spending has been cut many times since the arms race has been over (it's the biggest place Clinton got the cash from).

One last point, defense is also a part of the wellfare of the citizens.  Just like in every other country.

Yes, it is part just like every other country...but how about we spend a reasonable amount on it like every other developed nation.

[tasty]

Has anyone else noticed that these so-called militia movements are by and large crazy people? I'm not saying that all gun owners are crazy, but if anyone else saw Bowling for Columbine and reads the news then they have probably come to the conclusion that these militia gun nuts are just that:nuts. I don't think anything they do really gets taken seriously, and I don't think that there is a serious enough force of people that are willing to fight the government should that opportunity ever arise. I'm not even sure I know anyone that owns a gun, and the last thing I need is for my rights to be defended by a bunch of followers of the Aryan Nations and the Christian Identity movement. I'll take my passive resistance and nonviolent protest thank you very much.

[kami]

Bucc, could you please cut down on your daily post count (or post length)? It's kind of annoying to have to read 5 of your essays when you've just been away from the forum for 12 hours.  

[Mr. Lothario]

Find so lets say half would fight for the goverment and half would fight for the public...still no need for guns.

     The more people who can offer resistance, the more likely the military boys are to think twice about attacking them. There are probably quite a few soldiers who would simply desert and help the revolutionaries without any coercion, but they're in the minority. The group identity (i.e. herding instinct) is a major driving force in human behavior. It takes a lot for most people to stop following the herd, but the prospect of attacking one of your own country's cities, which is known to be stocked to the gills with violent resisters, may be enough.

I'd rather have a machine gun facing 100 pistol wielding people than vice versa.  The army has both superior firepower and protection...what does the public have that could deal with a tank...nuclear weapons aren't the only big firepower the US has...it has many things that could be used without damaging the land to the point that it would be damaging itself to use.

     Do you honestly think that there aren't civilians who have the means to take out a tank? Or who have the same guns that the military has? Mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, all these things can be bought on the open (or sometimes not-so-open) market. You persist in envisioning this as a mob with water balloons confronting the Terminator and Robocop. Yeah, it'd be lopsided as far as equipment goes, but not as lopsided as you insist, and sheer numbers would skew the balance back towards the revolutionaries.

As for the point of guerilla warfare...in the two instances that come immeditately to mind (American Revolution and Vietnam) the country that was having success was the home country.  In the case of a civil war (which is what a US vs US conflict would be even if it is goverment/army vs. public) both sides would be the home side and know the terrain.  I think the guerilla factor would be marginalized because of this.

     And neither of those wars were civil wars. You've cited an example that has little to no bearing on the issue at hand.

Yes, it is part just like every other country...but how about we spend a reasonable amount on it like every other developed nation.

     How much richer is America than "every other developed nation"? A "reasonable amount" for Italy or Canada is virtually a drop in the bucket for America. Besides, like it or not, beneficial or not, America's leaders have committed us to playing world cop, and we need big boomsticks for that. So we pay for them.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Find so lets say half would fight for the goverment and half would fight for the public...still no need for guns.

Unture, and off topic.  Bring back the gun topic if you want, I'll be happy to show you the errors of your ways.  Seriously, I've asked Kami the same thing.  Let's not polute an important topic like this with that big of another issue.

You asshole, abe's post that I replied to was before your replies so I hadn't seen them...I hadn't ignored them.

I've made them in the past as well, as you know.  Like back in the old threads you were talking about.

I'd rather have a machine gun facing 100 pistol wielding people than vice versa.  The army has both superior firepower and protection...what does the public have that could deal with a tank...nuclear weapons aren't the only big firepower the US has...it has many things that could be used without damaging the land to the point that it would be damaging itself to use.  As for the point of guerilla warfare...in the two instances that come immeditately to mind (American Revolution and Vietnam) the country that was having success was the home country.  In the case of a civil war (which is what a US vs US conflict would be even if it is goverment/army vs. public) both sides would be the home side and know the terrain.  I think the guerilla factor would be marginalized because of this.

If knowing the terrain were the only factor, you could be right.  But it's not.  

First, we'll talk about tanks, and how they have been proven not to be the best thing to be in, while in a city.  Starting with the russians and bottles of gasoline to the fact that roads tear up their tracks.  And how long do you think it would take someone like me, to whip out a copy of the anarchist cookbook and whip up some decent explosives, powerful enough not to destroy a tank, but most likely to disable it.  No.  Tanks have for open fields if you read about them.  

Then we'll look at bombs.  Well, you don't want to tear up the infrastructure of your own country, do you?  So you don't want to bomb the hell out of it.  These are the cities and towns and farms that the country needs.

Which brings us to more conventional weapons and helicopters.  Those are the effective weapons, and the ones that would have to be fought.  Hunting rifles and shotguns and even pistols can do wonders against them.

Also, there are many many more examples of gurella warfare.  One thing is that yes, they are usually defensive (Vietnam wasn't though.  They were attacking south.  So saying that they knew it would be like saying that I'd know the territory in Florida as well as those that lived there).  There are many lessons to be learned from it.  It's not about who knows the territory better.  Who uses it better would be more accurate.

Yes, it is part just like every other country...but how about we spend a reasonable amount on it like every other developed nation.

We do spend a reasonable amount on it.  As I define reasonible.  Another example of a weak argument.  Tell us why we should spend less, how much difference that would make, and why it's more important.  saying "spend a reasonable amount" is weak, because it's wide open, not specific and lack just about anything but your opinion that we spend too much.  I mean, you can talk about how much a country like the UK spends on wellfare and how much it spends on Defense per capata, or China maybe.  Or Iraq, yeah, how much do they spend on weapons compared to wellfare?  Be specific.  If you think we should spend more on wellfare programs, that's one thing.  If you think we should spend less on defense, that's another.  Why? is the question to either.

I think you'll also notice you used one of those weak absolutes agains "every developed nation".  Bet I can find more then one that spends a greater percent difference.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Has anyone else noticed that these so-called militia movements are by and large crazy people?

Yep.  99.9% pure nut from all the ones I've seen and read about.  They are extremests.  Fanatics.  And like all fanatics, they don't think quite right.  That goes the same for the peace fanatics.  Not someone that hates war, but the "peace at any price" people.  They are also a bit off.  I'm a moderate myself.  I think our prisions are too soft, but am against the death penalty.  I'm pro gun, but think that there should be more accountability.  I don't use recreational drugs of any kind other then alcohol, but don't think they should be outlawed for responsible use.  

I'll take my passive resistance and nonviolent protest thank you very much.

That's the perfect place to start.  Peaceful demonstration is a great first step.  And in a perfect world, it would be all that was ever needed.  We don't live there.  We live in a world were there are just bad, evil people.  And sometimes, someone has to stoop down to that level and knock them around a little, to make it a better place.  It shouldn't be the first step, or even an early step.  But I accept that it is often a necessary step.

Bucc, could you please cut down on your daily post count (or post length)? It's kind of annoying to have to read 5 of your essays when you've just been away from the forum for 12 hours.  

Sorry, I've spent most of the past 36 hours in the hospital with my woman.  She's been having a few problems with her pregnancy.  Nothing too serious and baby is fine.  But I was bored, had my laptop and had to do something while watching her sleep.

[kami]

Oh alright, good to know she's doing ok! Congrats on the kid, in advance

[The Ghost of Bondo]

We do spend a reasonable amount on it.  As I define reasonible.  Another example of a weak argument.  Tell us why we should spend less, how much difference that would make, and why it's more important.  saying "spend a reasonable amount" is weak, because it's wide open, not specific and lack just about anything but your opinion that we spend too much.  I mean, you can talk about how much a country like the UK spends on wellfare and how much it spends on Defense per capata, or China maybe.  Or Iraq, yeah, how much do they spend on weapons compared to wellfare?  Be specific.  If you think we should spend more on wellfare programs, that's one thing.  If you think we should spend less on defense, that's another.  Why? is the question to either.

I think you'll also notice you used one of those weak absolutes agains "every developed nation".  Bet I can find more then one that spends a greater percent difference.  

Bucc, if I went into full detail on every single point I've ever made in my life I would be doing nothing but typing thousand word posts by the dozen.  I personally don't feel like spending that much time on the forum.  This is a casual conversation place.  I give you a few breif comments.  But since you ask I'll be more than willing to expand on it.  But my not doing so originally isn't a sign of a weak argument...because it isn't the whole argument...just the thesis.

By reasonable, I meant as a percentage of budget.  And by developed nation I meant Western Europe and North America.  Basically our allies in NATO for this example.  The US spends as much as every other country in NATO combined.  How is that for a sign we spend too much.  We shouldn't play the world's policeman...you should know me well enough to know I think we are too involved militarily around the world.  We should keep a military that can defend our country...something that wouldn't take nearly as much as we spend currently.  I mean, the UK seems to have a pretty capable army in technology and skill...enough to properly do what they need to.  It isn't like there is any current threat for a mass scale war like WWII.  China is about the only country powerful enough and populated enough to do that and they are not as evil as it is made to seem often.  They are making quite a bit of progress in being a developed peaceful nation just like Japan has become after WWII.

So tell me Bucc, did my expanding please you...somehow I doubt it because to this day I don't think you've ever said any of my arguments are reasonable.