StreetScooby 5 #51 September 7, 2006 Quote Nuclear weapons would destroy our infrastructure and collapse our economy. They will eviscerate our ability to even feed ourselves. That's a bit pessimistic. If it were to happen today, we would take some atomic bombs, but probably not hydrogen bombs. Then, I expect we would utterly destroy those countries with conventional weapons. There is a reason the US govt bond has been the staple for everyone in the financial world. It is considered the base case, "riskless" as they call it, i.e., we'll always pay. Literally, the only thing that could change that is an aggressive invasion by superior beings from outer space. Quote But some of us worry about tomorrow, and the day after that. Myself, included.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #52 September 7, 2006 It's not Americas oil.. God put it there for everyone to use. It should be shared fairly for the betterment of the whole human race not squandered in a very short period of time by one bunch of evil godless capitalists in their satanic 4x4s and ever so naughty aeroplanes.... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 September 7, 2006 >If it were to happen today, we would take some atomic bombs . . . Why would China choose not to use its most powerful weapons against us if it did come to all-out war? >but probably not hydrogen bombs. Then, I expect we would >utterly destroy those countries with conventional weapons. We can't. China's too big. We couldn't do it from the air (not enough aircraft/bombs) and we certainly can't do it on land (not against 1.3 billion people.) The way to win a war with China is to not start it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 September 7, 2006 Quote Rome thought they would stand forever too. They were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the planet. Then a few things happened, including a government that became corrupt, an economy that became grossly overextended (and was artificially propped up by diluted currency) and a very successful campaign to get the best and brightest to "go and die for your country." They fell pretty quickly (or more accurately evolved into something completely different than the Holy Roman Empire.) Don't forget the lead poisoning! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #55 September 7, 2006 Quote Why would China choose not to use its most powerful weapons against us if it did come to all-out war? Why would they choose to? Why would we be in all out war with China? Just because we're in all out war with radical Islamic nations doesn't mean that market-mechanisms wouldn't/couldn't apply in the rest of the world.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #56 September 7, 2006 QuoteQuote There is a reason the US govt bond has been the staple for everyone in the financial world. It is considered the base case, "riskless" as they call it, i.e., we'll always pay. Literally, the only thing that could change that is an aggressive invasion by superior beings from outer space. . Well, the steady erosion in the value of the dollar must be taken into account too. Have you noticed what has happened to it over the last few years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #57 September 7, 2006 >Why would they choose to? Why would we be in all out war with China? We shouldn't be. China uses nukes against us would be as stupid as the US military "taking its gloves off." >Just because we're in all out war with radical Islamic nations . . . You really want to be in an all-out war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia? Considering that we're barely making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan (if we are at all) - probably not such a good plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #58 September 7, 2006 Quote You really want to be in an all-out war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia? No, I don't. But, core constituents in that group do want to be in an all out war. Quote Considering that we're barely making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan (if we are at all) - probably not such a good plan. Again, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs in those areas.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #59 September 7, 2006 >But, core constituents in that group do want to be in an all out war. Yep - just as some core constituents here want to be in an all out war. >Again, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs in those areas. What would be better? Killing every civilian in every town that there's resistance? Using Sarin against rebellious towns? Starting concentration camps for muslims? Our military is doing the best it can at a job it is not prepared for. Sure, we could level every town in Iraq in a matter of days; that's what we're good at. What we're not good at is killing just enough people to make them not hate us. And turning into Saddam Hussein on steroids is not really a solution either. Heck, if you really want to "untie our hands" let Saddam go, give him control of the military, and give him a free hand. He'll get the job done, and erect a powerful secular anti-muslim government in Iraq. He's done it before. And we won't watch another 2600 US troops die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #60 September 7, 2006 Quote Heck, if you really want to "untie our hands" let Saddam go, give him control of the military, and give him a free hand. He'll get the job done, and erect a powerful secular anti-muslim government in Iraq. He's done it before. And we won't watch another 2600 US troops die. Now that we've de-WMD'ed him, I think that's a good idea. I'm calling the Pentagon now.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #61 September 7, 2006 QuoteNow that we've de-WMD'ed him Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,120 #57 September 7, 2006 >Why would they choose to? Why would we be in all out war with China? We shouldn't be. China uses nukes against us would be as stupid as the US military "taking its gloves off." >Just because we're in all out war with radical Islamic nations . . . You really want to be in an all-out war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia? Considering that we're barely making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan (if we are at all) - probably not such a good plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #58 September 7, 2006 Quote You really want to be in an all-out war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia? No, I don't. But, core constituents in that group do want to be in an all out war. Quote Considering that we're barely making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan (if we are at all) - probably not such a good plan. Again, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs in those areas.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #59 September 7, 2006 >But, core constituents in that group do want to be in an all out war. Yep - just as some core constituents here want to be in an all out war. >Again, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs in those areas. What would be better? Killing every civilian in every town that there's resistance? Using Sarin against rebellious towns? Starting concentration camps for muslims? Our military is doing the best it can at a job it is not prepared for. Sure, we could level every town in Iraq in a matter of days; that's what we're good at. What we're not good at is killing just enough people to make them not hate us. And turning into Saddam Hussein on steroids is not really a solution either. Heck, if you really want to "untie our hands" let Saddam go, give him control of the military, and give him a free hand. He'll get the job done, and erect a powerful secular anti-muslim government in Iraq. He's done it before. And we won't watch another 2600 US troops die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #60 September 7, 2006 Quote Heck, if you really want to "untie our hands" let Saddam go, give him control of the military, and give him a free hand. He'll get the job done, and erect a powerful secular anti-muslim government in Iraq. He's done it before. And we won't watch another 2600 US troops die. Now that we've de-WMD'ed him, I think that's a good idea. I'm calling the Pentagon now.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #61 September 7, 2006 QuoteNow that we've de-WMD'ed him Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
