[Stryke 9]

Of course, now I'm hearing that these two and a couple buddies held off 30-60 heavily armed US troops in a "fierce gunfight" for six hours.


I'd demand to know what the **** is wrong with these people, that it takes them six hours and a ****ing battalion to bring down four hicks with grenade launchers??? However, I don't think I wanna know. Pussies.

[diamondgeezer]

I suppose if I compare the situation to that of the British merc who held off dozens of generic african milita by himself with only one machine gun mounted on the roof of a hotel, you'd just poke holes. So I won't.

[Stryke 9]

Superior armament or position I can understand. This wasn't, really. What I really wanna know was

1. What, exactly, happened?

and

2. Can the scenario be repeated indefinitely against a superior force?

Suddenly I feel like singlehandedly taking on the entire National Guard...

[Bobboau]

uh, ya, you go do that...

my guess is that we probly don't realy know what happened (as in ether the time scale of siz of force are totaly wrong),
or maybe we were trying to get them alive

[Stryke 9]

You don't need 60 soldiers to get four guys out of a building alive, you just need a lot of tear gas. Or, if no tear gas is available, a few punctured cans of gasoline tossed onto the roof with something burning will do the trick in a pinch.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

or maybe we were waiting for the idiots run out of ammo......maybe they just weren't worth risking an american life over.

I figure my use of those words....american life.....will get some people jumping to flame me for it.  feel free to take the bait.

the really important thing is....this is stupid.  Everyone wants to sit around and complain about how things are.....but no one is willing to stand up and make things better.  You can complain all you want, but invariably, you will be out planting trees so that the next time an invasion happens, they can walk in the shade until you call in America to handle it.  I don't care what anyone thinks about george bush.  I voted for him and i will again.  At least he has the guts to end his career to stop a madman.  And IF we created him....then we cleaned up our own mess.  

I am offended by people who want to say anything they will and claim freedom of speech, and then use whatever freedom they want, including the freedom to make childish threats which will never come to pass, in order to insult the people who have provided, do provide, and will provide those very freedoms.

sometimes i wonder at the maturity level of this place.

[Stryke 9]

Those providers would be... who? I recall recently a certain "Patriot Act" and bills that legalized wiretapping, incarceration without trial, and harassment of the citizerny by government thugs. I remember "Total Information Awareness" and how the Bush government was so intent on eliminating our right to privacy that they had to sneak the meat of the bill by as pork when the whole package was shouted down. I don't even need to remember tacit advocacy of the sort of skinheads who attack (verbally and physically) peace activists; it's still going on quite actively.

If anyone is fooled because they throw the words "freedom" and "liberty" into every other speech designed to impinge on those very things, if anyone imagines that killing tens of thousands of people to ous one dictator and then cozying up to an if anything bloodier one is justified, that person should have the sense and responsibility to take on their duty to humanity and not vote. Ever.


I don't really care about your jingoistic nationalism or inferred tendency to view foreigners as less than human; that's neither new nor particularly dangerous at this juncture, and it's one of the founding principles of this country. However, the willingness to delude oneself and line up behind a totalitarian ruler simply because he preserves the trappings of "democracy" while eliminating the opposition is lethal to the nation, and to global freedom in our lifetimes as a whole.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

truth be told i don't listen to speeches.  I also don't see anyone as being above anyone else, we are all just people (this was a serious problem when i was in the military).  that said, i threw out the bait, you took it, and did an admirable job with your view.  but here is my question, what will all of this amount to when bush doesn't get reelected?  America won't put a man in office.  They want politicians.  They want a figurehead who pretends that everything is great in the world and gets a blowjob from his secretary in the oval office.   Actually, that's the job i want, call my secretary.

The bottom line, as i see it (note an honest opinion), is that the Presidency of the United States of America is an institution which leads not only a country, but the world.  The person who sits in that office needs to be decisive.  We have a president who is very decisive, and one who doesn't backpedal when faced with a decision that will be unpopular.  I have made it clear that i support the president.  What I have not made clear, is that i don't agree with some of the decisions that he has made.  

I've always beleived that we can accept things or we can try to change them.  *****ing about it doesn't accomplish anything.  Then again you are an intelligent person, you know this.  So in light of that, what would you decide?

[CP5670]

However, the willingness to delude oneself and line up behind a totalitarian ruler simply because he preserves the trappings of "democracy" while eliminating the opposition is lethal to the nation, and to global freedom in our lifetimes as a whole.

so...having opposition in place is less lethal to a nation than getting rid of it? And anyway, nobody wants global freedom; everyone wants all the freedom for themselves and no freedom for anyone else. (both people and governments)

[Falcon X]

There are reports now that they were heading up the opposition, and a list of names of the opposition leaders was found there also.

Hey Stryke, it was special forces that went after them.  Maybe the 60 guys were to subdue the building while the pros readied and approached.  I forgot, everyone has played counterstrike, that makes them experts in urban warfare.

[Stryke 9]

The whole point of representative government is that the ruling body is supposed to do what the people want, because frankly nobody can waste the time to go through 50,000 tax bills covering the minutiae of charging a fee for, I dunno, armpit hair, nor would people opt to do so if they wanted to. It's not a setup where we just pick one of a random assortment of pricks and let them do as they please with the planet- that's what the major party heads would like everyone to think (and, naturally, what the rulers would like everyone to think) but it just ain't so. The idea of democracy is a government that at least sort of works according to what the people want, not does whatever the hell it pleases and then tries to convince everybody it's what they want deep down. Bush invaded Iraq on what are now pretty obviously personal grounds- he didn't like Saddam personally, and so he abused his power to kill more people than you or I are likely to know in a lifetime, simply to screw him. If getting rid of this sort of murderous crap and installing a true republic is gonna lead to a wishy-washy administration, so be it- at least it won't kill so many people unnecessarily.

Incidentially, value judgements hardly figure in- we're still making nice with bloody dictators all over the world, and have historically- the US has, by the numbers, caused far more deaths than the Iraqi regime ever did. So? We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam's an asshole, anyway- or at least we didn't think that was the reason. That was a rationalization after the fact- the truth is a few months ago the media and the administration couldn't shut up about the certainity that he had nukes and was probably giving them to al Qaeda- now that Bush's transparently faked rationale has been exposed as the fraud it always was, those who backed the war naturally try to keep themselves from looking bad and admitting they were wrong by saying that it was, in the end, a good deed, even if inadvertently so. Whether it actually is is a question I could answer with statistics about mortality rates and quality-of-life factors such as availability of health care, electricity, and clean water, but that's nothing anybody wants to hear about. Me, I think our foreign policy keeps making anarchies look bad, when they don't necessarily have to be these hellholes we keep setting up...

And what makes you think Bush won't be reelected? He stands a high chance of doing just that- he makes great commercials, and has worked the war hysteria and paranoia (partially caused by his own raids on the constitution- note that these are the weapons of any inherently fascist organization) to his advantage successfully since September 11th. At this rate, he could have half the country goose-stepping around wearing armbands if he so pleased- of course, the powers that be (not him, really, I just refer to him as an identifier for the larger collective that's in charge of the Executive) are a little bit subtler than that. Though it doesn't take much subtlety to pass under the radar screens of the masses.

Why don't I do anything about it? To the extent that I can, I am. Protest has only a mild efficacy when the government really doesn't care what its opponents think and the media completely ignores dissidents not writing in the opinion pages (making the message nigh impossible to get out to the people without a more coherent structure than is available). An assassination (the outside solution of last resort if things got too hairy) would be ineffective because Bush himself is an interchangeable part of a larger machine designed essentially to set up the atmosphere necessary for a one-party system (the Democrats' and Republicans' dream realized)- killing him, or even a more significant member of the executive, would only strengthen the system, and thus be counterproductive as well as lacking in flair and no fun (yeah, you hear that you NSA ****s? Get off my back!). *****ing and spreading the word whenever and wherever I can is about the limit of my abilities until the opposition starts to form- and lemme tell you this, it ain't gonna come from none of those spineless Democrats.


CP: Exactly. Nations stagnate when unilateralized. Opposition- in the form of revolution, labor wars, student riots, etc. is what has allowed the US to evolve to the times and rise in power these recent centuries- our industrial capacity alone is inconsiderable (and nearly nonexistent, now)

And while that may seem true for the majority, it isn't an absolute. Take, for one, my pro-drug stance. A certain issue with my liver and such don't enable me to get high without quantities of weed that are way out of my price range, and I'm not into anything else. And yet I want everyone to be free to smoke up. Self-interest?

Falcon: Dude... I've never played Counterstrike. I don't dig that ****. Also, you're a moron.

[CP5670]

It's not a setup where we just pick one of a random assortment of pricks and let them do as they please with the planet- that's what the major party heads would like everyone to think (and, naturally, what the rulers would like everyone to think) but it just ain't so. The idea of democracy is a government that at least sort of works according to what the people want, not does whatever the hell it pleases and then tries to convince everybody it's what they want deep down.

Yes, that is exactly what the whole system is and the only thing it can possibly be! The people pick a "random assortment of pricks" and they "convince" us of things; that is what democracy is all about. If you still have not realized this, there is something wrong with you.

CP: Exactly. Nations stagnate when unilateralized. Opposition- in the form of revolution, labor wars, student riots, etc. is what has allowed the US to evolve to the times and rise in power these recent centuries- our industrial capacity alone is inconsiderable (and nearly nonexistent, now)

oh, that kind of opposition; I thought you were talking about international threats. But the industrial capacity being inconsiderable and nonexistent? lay off the crack, man.

And while that may seem true for the majority, it isn't an absolute. Take, for one, my pro-drug stance. A certain issue with my liver and such don't enable me to get high without quantities of weed that are way out of my price range, and I'm not into anything else. And yet I want everyone to be free to smoke up. Self-interest?

Actually, it's because you don't lose anything in that case. A choice between having a "free society" and making yourself an absolute dictator would be more interesting (it's the same amount of freedom in both cases actually). But anyway, the majority here is something like 99.9999%, so it can be taken as the standard for practical purposes.

[Stryke 9]

That shows a lack of imagination when it comes to safeguards. Remember, our existing model was originally built to be basically one stop short of a monarchy- if you toss that out and deal with the problem at its root, it's no problem.

[CP5670]

Whatever it was originally intended to be, this is simply what it is, and if you think about it for a moment, it cannot be otherwise. So stop worrying about it and go do some math instead like me.

[Falcon X]

You are excessively paranoid my friend.  Do you believe that FDR allowed the attacks on Pearl Harbor too?  Or that Area 51 really has aliens?  I'm sorry but that was a load of rhetoric right there.  Are there problems with the system?  You bet.  Will they all be fixed?  Hell no.

And on the Dictatorships...  EVERY COUNTRY IN POWER HAS.  I'm sorry, we're human we make bad judgement calls.  If someone pats your back and says he'll support you when you have a big enemy, you support him.  The enemy of your enemy turns to be your friend in world politics.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
That shows a lack of imagination when it comes to safeguards. Remember, our existing model was originally built to be basically one stop short of a monarchy- if you toss that out and deal with the problem at its root, it's no problem.

Iffy.  It was supposed to be a triumverate of sorts.  A delicate balance of power between three parties.  However, judges legislate from the bench, executives legislate etc etc etc.

However there has been reason for the increased power of the executive.  Two people really.  FDR and TR... the two Roosevelts.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

stryke one day you and I are going to go have a few beers and discuss politics.  I figure by the end of the night we will have started a barfight and be either dead or in jail.  Power to the wind up destruct-o-bots.

[Stryke 9]

CP: Funny how that hasn't worked out through the entirety of human history.

Falcon: Check some historical logs. A large degree of the power the president recieves is because people were basically expecting a King of America- that's why the position's there in the first place, not because of any essential merits to having one guy call the shots (there really aren't any, except speed, which the bureaucracy negates). Washington was reluctant to become a king, though, and talked it over with his fellow revolutionary leaders, and hence the presidency has its limits. Were it not for the now-outdated notions of the time, we wouldn't even have a president.

And FDR consolidated federal power to an extent (and the executive within that), but it was mostly not in the areas we are concerned with here. Teddy I dunno about, but I'll buy it partially- he was a big ol' imperialist dictator-type. And actually, the Bush squad has done quite a large amount of power-expanding themselves, if you look at it. They took the precedent set by the Cold War and used it to set up a massive internal "security" system, which basically translates to the federal government directly policing the people far more than they were before.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
That shows a lack of imagination when it comes to safeguards. Remember, our existing model was originally built to be basically one stop short of a monarchy- if you toss that out and deal with the problem at its root, it's no problem.

Bam! That's the problem hit on its head.

When the US Constitution and government were first drafted the idea of the country becoming what it did was hardly a concept. The electoral college was formed due to the belief that the general populace being farmers were not informed or educated enough to make their own votes, so representatives from the community who were 'qualified' would vote for them.

People like Ben Franklin warned that as long as the Republic (note: not 'democracy') was agrarian the US would stay as a strong country.

So yes the US was based on an educated (read: wealthy) elite who was supposed to be guiding the country in the interests of the workers who supposidly would be able to work their way up in the social strata. That doesn't work in real life. Those in power wish to keep their power.

Also to the comment on the "two Roosevelts" being the ones behind the increased power of the executive branch, nearly every president has increased executive powers by some measure or another. One of the few who didn't was Garfield I believe.

But overall, what Stryke said is true the United States of America was not designed with safeguards for democracy, however as he pointed out the US was not originally envisioned to be the country it currently is.

If anything the reactionary right wingers are "closer" to the elite-driven society the founding fathers wished for. However this is not the 18th century, the world is smaller and a small group of people cannot be responsible for the outcome of a species.

It is time for something different... but it seems people are too afraid of the future to take the risk...

[CP5670]

CP: Funny how that hasn't worked out through the entirety of human history.

on the contrary, that is always how it has worked (although some people like to think otherwise) because the workings of the average human brain will not allow for anything else.

Also to the comment on the "two Roosevelts" being the ones behind the increased power of the executive branch, nearly every president has increased executive powers by some measure or another. One of the few who didn't was Garfield I believe.

I guess that would only be common sense; after all, if any one of us was president, I'm sure we would also try to increase our own powers.