Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wikileak Has Really Done It This Time

Good, good, but I already withdrew A). Do you have anything for B)?

I assume by "B" you question the ability for Russia or China to physically and logistically invade the U.S.?

It took only a few years for the Russian fleet and Air Force to disintegrate from lack of maintenance after the fall of the USSR.

The same would likely happen with the U.S. a few years after anarchy or whatever variation of government-less reality we would entertain.

Russia could take Alaska in a weekend.

Russia and China could build up in Mexico over a few months time and choose the date they want to enter. They don't even need to invade east of the Mississippi. They can stop at the River, thumb their nose at the main population and hold 90% of the U.S.'s natural resources.

Who would stop them?

Foxbat, you can't discuss or argue logic with a libertine. Barak is such.

"libertine?"

Sure is a dearth of dictionaries in this crowd!

Yup.


Because the government was in charge of maintaining them, and the government was busy trying to keep itself alive and didn't have the resources to maintain idle machinery.

If they were privately owned, either they'd be maintained or they'd be lovingly preserved in storage, because their owners would definitely either want to use them or sell them--now or eventually. Leaving them out in the weather to rust wouldn't serve either objective.


Would Alaska notice?


What is an army going to do with natural resources? To make use of natural resources, you need factories for building things, not tanks for blowing things apart.


Stop them from what, exactly?

Barak, you are assuming a violent group of somebody is going to act rational.
What rational did the Huns have? The Mongols?


That's what the slaves are for.

Do you mean rationale? They had tyrannical governments guaranteeing them a steady flow of abashed, meek livestock to enslave.


Cool, but where do you get the slaves? Slaves aren't much good for fighting.

Isn't the US military involvement in over 135 foreign countries - to DEFEND America? That's what I have always been told by most members around the fire.

Russia rolled into Czekoslovacia(sp) and did just that. They used their own troops for fighting and enslaved the populace.
It also worked for the Romans for a good while.

Defend America? In Belgium? Germany? Italy? Serbia? Spain? Turkey? Britain? Defend America from what, exactly? What is Turkey going to do to threaten America that troops stationed in Turkey could stop?

Here's a list from 2008 (PDF).

Lots of people have been taken in by the propaganda that service in the military equals defense of the American public. I call BS, unless somebody can show me a mechanism. I say service in the military equals defense of the ruling elite.

Once more: how do you enslave a well-armed, independent, self-sufficient populace that isn't accustomed to slavery, especially if you represent a thundering minority in their midst?

Easy, you kill half and tell the other half what awaits. Hostages work, you'd be amazed at the co-operation you can get from a man when you hold a gun to his family's head.
History is full of peoples being enslaved by others. And examples of small armies holding large populations under submission.

How do you kill half? I can see how you might get three or four by surprise, but after that you're going to be losing guys every time you turn your head. And even if you do get some hostages, do you think folks who are used to doing on their own without a government are going to meekly submit to whatever you say, or are they going to show up unexpectedly behind you and blow your head off?

Hint: what happens in Afghanistan when British, Russian, or US forces try that? Success? Another hint: no.

And yes: small governments hold large populations in slavery all over the world. But it's always populations who are accustomed to being held in slavery. Who holds the Bedouins in slavery? The mujaheddin? The Somalis? If they (at least the first two groups) can manage to stay unenslaved with practically no technology, imagine how much more successful tough, resourceful, independent folks could be with modern technology. Cheap unbreakable encryption, digital ham radio, onion-routing networks, repudiable encryption, digital cash--and those are only the elements I know a little about because of my area of expertise. I'm sure there are many others that could be put to use to frustrate and bypass an invading force bent on domination.

But not with sheep--there you're right. A society of sheep will always be enslaved, whether it's invaded or not.

Barak, gotta run, I'll get back to this when I get home.
I do so love a good argument.

The government people aren't worried that national security will be compromised.

They're worried that yet more evidence of their corruption and ineptitude will be exposed.

When they tell you otherwise, they're just doing what they do best,...bullshittin' the people.

I mean,...c'mon.

Everybody who believes that Hillary is telling you the truth about it,..raise your hand.

If you think you can hold out long against the US military.... Think again

Nice thought, but the Afghans and the Iraqis have been making monkeys of them for almost a decade now.

(It didn't escape my notice that when I talked about enslaving a populace, the US military as a tool for doing so seems to have popped immediately into your mind.)

edit to add.
to no one in particular.

Just a thought. If US military machine (or UN, for another example) were unleashed on the American people, do you think their hands would be tied behind their backs as they have been in recent "wars"?

And (with fear of sounding like Gus) what would the American liberal population do, in comparison to what they do now and have been doing since viet nam conflict?

All right � try this:

God has always preferred that He mandate our behavior.

Satan offered the option of each person managing his own behavior.

God's people insisted that instead of Him, they wanted human rulers.

God said All right, you can have your own rulers, but you won't like 'em.

God let us have the institution of human government. Even those rulers whom He approved at first sooner or later became fatally flawed, polluted, tainted, imperfect � because they were humans, neither God nor gods.

So we have, ostensibly, three choices �
� God
� self
� government

I believe that the three are really
� God
� self (with Satan pulling the strings of human nature)
� government (with God's permission)

Which one do you trust?