tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,936
- 21,129
I personally thought the Abbott and Costello version was far superior.So the French Foreign Legion is now being run by the Saudis?
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,822
I wonder about the equalizer argument.
Does that mean all men were equals before Sam Colt? Everyone had the pretty much the same weapon. Couldn't we all be just as equal if we all had knifes or Bows? Why weren't the Dark Ages times of great personal freedom?
Would we be even more equal if we all had automatic weapons like in some of the great libertarian countries such as Somolia? What if had even more deadly weapons..
FREEDOM!!
Does that mean all men were equals before Sam Colt? Everyone had the pretty much the same weapon. Couldn't we all be just as equal if we all had knifes or Bows? Why weren't the Dark Ages times of great personal freedom?
Would we be even more equal if we all had automatic weapons like in some of the great libertarian countries such as Somolia? What if had even more deadly weapons..
FREEDOM!!
Erronius
<WoW Guild Officer>
- 17,319
- 44,965
[tinfoil]
What frightens me is how we've been manipulated by the Sauds, to some degree. They (Saudi Arabia) want to remap the Middle East but they can't use the extremists they fund and control directly, as many of them don't want to settle for less than an absolute pan-Arab theocracy. So they need America yet again as a cat's paw to become involved so we can set up a moderate gov't friendly to the Saudis as opposed to either a pro-Iran/Russia/Shia gov't, or an extremist gov't tied to jihadism that might threaten ME stability. They opened their wallet in regards to Iraq and Kuwait, and now they're offering to open their wallet again to get US intervention even as they've been operating in the background in Syria already. And I haven't seen this really vetted well yet, but in addition to the Saudis exerting an extreme amount of diplomatic pressure on the US, France and others, they've admitted their influence with the Chechen rebels (who have been supported by the Saudis for over a decade) to Russia, which should highlight just how dangerous a game the Saudis are playing right now.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/poli...#ixzz2d5UVLSNv
The entire Neocon bit about toppling the old Soviet regimes within 5 or 10 years, up to and including what Wesley Clark said...I'd bet almost anything that that wasn't thought up by anyone here in America, but by the Saudis. The old Soviet alignment has been around a long time, and I think the Saudis are the ones pushing for much of this upheaval and the Neocons were probably just an easy sell. It's the Saudis trying to sell us on Syria, they sold us on Iraq and I wouldn't be surprised what else they've been involved with. It's their backyard and I think they want to be the ones in control of the ME.
[/tinfoil]
What frightens me is how we've been manipulated by the Sauds, to some degree. They (Saudi Arabia) want to remap the Middle East but they can't use the extremists they fund and control directly, as many of them don't want to settle for less than an absolute pan-Arab theocracy. So they need America yet again as a cat's paw to become involved so we can set up a moderate gov't friendly to the Saudis as opposed to either a pro-Iran/Russia/Shia gov't, or an extremist gov't tied to jihadism that might threaten ME stability. They opened their wallet in regards to Iraq and Kuwait, and now they're offering to open their wallet again to get US intervention even as they've been operating in the background in Syria already. And I haven't seen this really vetted well yet, but in addition to the Saudis exerting an extreme amount of diplomatic pressure on the US, France and others, they've admitted their influence with the Chechen rebels (who have been supported by the Saudis for over a decade) to Russia, which should highlight just how dangerous a game the Saudis are playing right now.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/poli...#ixzz2d5UVLSNv
It really looks like there is a stark possibility that the ME could erupt into a religious war between Sunni and Shia factions, with people lining up on either side of the divide. Factions are still fighting in Iraq, now they're picking sides in Syria, and I have a sneaking suspicion that we will end up with BotG in Syria one way or another. Now I don't want to be in the ME in the first place, I didn't like the idea of Afghanistan or Iraq, but what happens if things escalate further? We have no way of telling what will happen, but if the shit hits the fan then this all might get painted as a push to oust some sort of "Axis of Terror" from the region.
The entire Neocon bit about toppling the old Soviet regimes within 5 or 10 years, up to and including what Wesley Clark said...I'd bet almost anything that that wasn't thought up by anyone here in America, but by the Saudis. The old Soviet alignment has been around a long time, and I think the Saudis are the ones pushing for much of this upheaval and the Neocons were probably just an easy sell. It's the Saudis trying to sell us on Syria, they sold us on Iraq and I wouldn't be surprised what else they've been involved with. It's their backyard and I think they want to be the ones in control of the ME.
[/tinfoil]
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,028
- 138,800
Seriously you got the main point of the concept backwards somehow, literally you missed the whole point. rethink it and try again. not everyone is born with equal physical ability.
would this 10 year old boy be able to defeat an attacker armed with a sword, if he was armed with a sword?
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,822
No, the argument is ridiculous.
It isn't soldier vs the civilian either with gun or sword. It is, as it has always been in history, the story of the group vs the individual. Guns or weapons or even capability are nothing compared to group. Mans best protection against either the more physically capable individual or the tyranny of the collective is only through rule of law. You have a gun? Great, the dude down the street has a group of 50 men, they all have guns and want your land. Where's the equalizer?
It isn't soldier vs the civilian either with gun or sword. It is, as it has always been in history, the story of the group vs the individual. Guns or weapons or even capability are nothing compared to group. Mans best protection against either the more physically capable individual or the tyranny of the collective is only through rule of law. You have a gun? Great, the dude down the street has a group of 50 men, they all have guns and want your land. Where's the equalizer?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,028
- 138,800
You're taking it to the most extreme you can think of, instead of thinking of it as something to have "just in case" but even in your attempt to redicule the concept you go against the grain of recorded history.
You don't have any guarantee's that "law" or "rights" will be there forever or exist in every situation. Historically, through the most extreme examples it can be shown that the institutions you place your trust and security in can be corrupted and turned on you at a moments notice.
Ask the Armenians, ask the Russian boyars, ask the Ukrainians during the holodomor, ask the Turkish Assyrians ask any of the groups in history that suddenly vanished when they became inconvenient to the powers-that-be, how rule of law can vanish.
law's are something of a shared illusion, because they are backed by threat of force, it's really the threat of force that makes the laws work.
also
On paper the outnumbered and outgunned Syrian rebels are literally REBELLING AGAINST THEIR TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS AND ROCKETS VS A REGIME WITH TANKS AND JETS because the current rule of law doesn't work for them.
You don't have any guarantee's that "law" or "rights" will be there forever or exist in every situation. Historically, through the most extreme examples it can be shown that the institutions you place your trust and security in can be corrupted and turned on you at a moments notice.
Ask the Armenians, ask the Russian boyars, ask the Ukrainians during the holodomor, ask the Turkish Assyrians ask any of the groups in history that suddenly vanished when they became inconvenient to the powers-that-be, how rule of law can vanish.
law's are something of a shared illusion, because they are backed by threat of force, it's really the threat of force that makes the laws work.
Seriously what would you tell George Washington? "Nah britians too tough George don't even try"
also
On paper the outnumbered and outgunned Syrian rebels are literally REBELLING AGAINST THEIR TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS AND ROCKETS VS A REGIME WITH TANKS AND JETS because the current rule of law doesn't work for them.
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,822
George Washington didn't solo the British.
The rebellion GW led was born from the ideas of the enlightenment. Two Treatise of Government was far more important than the musket. The ONLY defense the individual has against tyranny is an educated citizenry which values personal freedom and creates and upholds a system of laws which elevate and protect it. Otherwise GW would have simply been replacing one king with another.
If I gave every man a gun and removed all laws, some men would form groups of mutual protection, fearing a de facto state of nature, with a strong leader. These groups would dominate and exploit lesser groups or unaffiliated people. What is 1 man with a gun to 10? What are 10 to 100?
And to further bolster this point, the only two revolutions in the 20th century where people actually improved their lives and increased their freedom came from the exact opposite of what you are saying. It was triumph of the idea over the gun. India/Gandhi and MLK.
Erroneous is right, education is the leveler.
The rebellion GW led was born from the ideas of the enlightenment. Two Treatise of Government was far more important than the musket. The ONLY defense the individual has against tyranny is an educated citizenry which values personal freedom and creates and upholds a system of laws which elevate and protect it. Otherwise GW would have simply been replacing one king with another.
If I gave every man a gun and removed all laws, some men would form groups of mutual protection, fearing a de facto state of nature, with a strong leader. These groups would dominate and exploit lesser groups or unaffiliated people. What is 1 man with a gun to 10? What are 10 to 100?
And to further bolster this point, the only two revolutions in the 20th century where people actually improved their lives and increased their freedom came from the exact opposite of what you are saying. It was triumph of the idea over the gun. India/Gandhi and MLK.
Erroneous is right, education is the leveler.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,028
- 138,800
There is an attitude that you seem to think the gun is the ONLY means of protection, the gun is there for when the OTHER means of protection break down. It's not meant to be the only means of protection, it's the LAST LINE of protection.
That statement is not mutually exclusive to what i've been saying. The gun is there for when civil discourse can't solve problems. like when piggy was confronted by tribal savagery, where did education and rule of law serve him?
You will NOT always be able to control your surroundings, as tempting as it is to say "well if I just change all my surroundings then everything will be better" until you actually GET to that point what are you going to do in the mean time? Also tangentially what would happen if that complex arrangement breaks down?
What are you going to do if you're on a cruise and Somali pirates come to try and hijack your boat? would you prefer it if the captain just yelled at the Somali pirates? "EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO CIVIL DISCOURSE" what the fuck do you think the Somali's would say to
that? the attitude you display however noble in thought is just completely DEVOID of options for real world situations.
on the Geo political stage I would say it's close to how Von Clausewitz put it
-----
tldnr It might(probably not without manipulating human dna) be achievable in the distant future one day but it's a naive fantasy to disarm yourself because in the future one day MAYBE man can be civil enough that a woman can simply ask her rapist to not rape her and it will actually work.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
Pretty much this. Anyone who doesn't get that an idiot can pick up a gun and kill someone they could not otherwise kill is beyond retarded.
@Erronius - yes Saudi's suck and why Bush and Obama insist on helping them I haven't a clue.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Dude, are you even reading the posts that have already responded to these points? Piggy was caught by surprise and had his head crushed by a boulder. How would a gun have helped him? And if everyone including him had a gun, would he really have had a better chance, or would he just have been killed sooner and more efficiently by someone else with a gun?
Shit, why stop at gun? Why not give everyone a nuclear bomb? That way the frail and weak could defend themselves against large groups of people who might pose a threat to them. Heck, given access to nuclear weapons, the weakest of us might all of a sudden become the ruling class! Isn't that a great "equalizer"? Where do you draw your line, man?
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
