kaylaz1978
New member
Napalm, Operation Ranch Hand and perhaps the My Lai massacre?
US embassies attacked
- Thread starter ConnorB
- Start date
jambandfan
New member
Only if the winners aren't consistently winners, and the losers aren't consistently losers. A true free and equal market would have no privilege involved - if you're winning or losing it's purely on the basis of your skills as a salesman, not due to laws which favour you, tariffs, greater starting wealth or anything similar.
No truly free markets exist to date (outside of small barter-based economies).
Easy. Reduce the scale massively. Self-governing neighbourhoods could pull it off quite easily - 60 million people being represented by a few hundred, can't.
So you take small neighbourhoods and make them (largely) self-governing, with an elected representative who is only called upon when issues come up that require a voice to speak for the neighbourhood. You then scale up from there, to towns, counties, and countries - each working on the same system where representatives only get called upon when needed.
Some universal guidelines would obviously be needed (you would need some funding for national services, such as emergency services and the military, but police could be funded at a local level by a coalition of similarly-minded neighbourhoods).
Of course I very much doubt it'll ever happen, but it's a nice idea.
No truly free markets exist to date (outside of small barter-based economies).
Easy. Reduce the scale massively. Self-governing neighbourhoods could pull it off quite easily - 60 million people being represented by a few hundred, can't.
So you take small neighbourhoods and make them (largely) self-governing, with an elected representative who is only called upon when issues come up that require a voice to speak for the neighbourhood. You then scale up from there, to towns, counties, and countries - each working on the same system where representatives only get called upon when needed.
Some universal guidelines would obviously be needed (you would need some funding for national services, such as emergency services and the military, but police could be funded at a local level by a coalition of similarly-minded neighbourhoods).
Of course I very much doubt it'll ever happen, but it's a nice idea.
justhangingaround
New member
America has a host of toys it never brings out to play.
The Bear.
The Bear.
http://news.sky.com/story/986820/france-to-shut-embassies-over-cartoon-fears
France is to close its embassies on Friday - the Muslim holy day - after a magazine prints cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
This is getting ridicolous....
"If you want to avoid upsetting these people (Muslim fundamentalists) you have to let Indonesia commit genocide in East Timor, otherwise they'll be upset with you. You'll have made an enemy. If you tell them they can't throw acid in the faces of unveiled women in Karachi they will be annoyed with you. If you say we insist, we think that cartoonists in Copenhagen can print satire on the Prophet Muhammed you've just made an enemy. You've brought it on. You're encouraging it to happen. So unless you're willing to commit suicide for yourself and for this culture, get used to the compromises you'll have to make and the eventual capitulation that will come to you, "
I know I quote Christopher Hitchens, and no thats not the only person whoes works ive read but I find his use of the English language, superb.
Raz
France is to close its embassies on Friday - the Muslim holy day - after a magazine prints cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
This is getting ridicolous....
"If you want to avoid upsetting these people (Muslim fundamentalists) you have to let Indonesia commit genocide in East Timor, otherwise they'll be upset with you. You'll have made an enemy. If you tell them they can't throw acid in the faces of unveiled women in Karachi they will be annoyed with you. If you say we insist, we think that cartoonists in Copenhagen can print satire on the Prophet Muhammed you've just made an enemy. You've brought it on. You're encouraging it to happen. So unless you're willing to commit suicide for yourself and for this culture, get used to the compromises you'll have to make and the eventual capitulation that will come to you, "
I know I quote Christopher Hitchens, and no thats not the only person whoes works ive read but I find his use of the English language, superb.
Raz
Definitely wouldn't have to nuke a single thing. A "Kill everything" ROE would probably work. We have enough equipment to get anywhere in the country fast, eyes in friggen space to watch for anyone hiding out (because you have to come out at some point in time), and enough bullets and small explosive weapons and small bombs (compared to nukes) to miss everyone 10 times and still have plenty left over. You could probably just sent a few thousand troops over, tell them to "get on line" and walk the country while bombing any major looking threats/towns by aircraft to accomplish total annihilation of Afghanistan.
At which point you have just successfully created a country's worth (well, the survivors anyway) of refugee guerilla fighters with a quite legitimate grudge against the States, no country to call home (and so no place you could 'flatten' in order to get at them), as well as generating a few more from neighbouring countries and worldwide.
So yes, they could flatten the country. Not really a good idea.
So yes, they could flatten the country. Not really a good idea.
Nobodyinparticular
New member
Kinda reminds me of the Bill Hicks sketch about the casualties from the first Iraq War.
The USA had 80 casualties in the entire war. 'Does that mean if we had sent 81 guys we still would have won the thing?! "yeah, it was me, I did it"'
(it's on youtube but chock full of swearing from what I remember)
The USA had 80 casualties in the entire war. 'Does that mean if we had sent 81 guys we still would have won the thing?! "yeah, it was me, I did it"'
(it's on youtube but chock full of swearing from what I remember)
lady_bella
Member
Yeah. People think war is bad as it is. We've never seen total war in a modern conflict. Not even China or Russia could resist America if it unleashed total war. Mind you there wouldn't be much left of the planet afterwards to care. Even total war in a limited region would rock the world.
The Bear.
The Bear.
feliciamdy
New member
To be fair that does apply to most of the major powers. Any of the big boys has enough weaponry to glass the surface of the planet (at least the land, oceans can take quite a bit of boiling).
There's obviously only one solution. To the seas and moon!
There's obviously only one solution. To the seas and moon!
dontnotice
New member
Yea America's military power is great, however we wouldn't do anything like that. We can't nuke a non nuclear nation, or totally decimate a third world country. That would alienate every country on the planet. We will however go anywhere to eliminate terrorist cells. And we should do everything we can to stop Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
thegospodinofffamily
New member
We took the gloves off with Japan but only because they couldn't seem to comprehend or accept defeat. Frankly I would rather have one enemy country to deal with than all these irritating little terrorists.
jose_jose378
New member
Ask any successful person and I bet they'll tell ya they didn't always win, in fact I would bet that they struggled greatly when they first started out. People who continuously "lose" usually have issues that interfere with their likelihood of achieving success.
Their is no "true free equal market" that I'm aware of, the U.S. has always been a modified capitalism system. A totally free market would be far worse than what we have, you would have major monopolies, slave labor, and a host of other immoral situations.
Many people make a mistake by thinking freedom means equality. Americans esteem that all men are created equal, success is based on talent, luck, and drive. Individuality is true freedom.
What's with the "greater starting wealth" thing, if your born into money you should not be entitled to it? Should the money be given away to others? And if so who? This world is really screwed up when people think that they should be rewarded for other peoples work.
Their is no "true free equal market" that I'm aware of, the U.S. has always been a modified capitalism system. A totally free market would be far worse than what we have, you would have major monopolies, slave labor, and a host of other immoral situations.
Many people make a mistake by thinking freedom means equality. Americans esteem that all men are created equal, success is based on talent, luck, and drive. Individuality is true freedom.
What's with the "greater starting wealth" thing, if your born into money you should not be entitled to it? Should the money be given away to others? And if so who? This world is really screwed up when people think that they should be rewarded for other peoples work.
joedirt4454
Member
LOL. How dumb could they be? Why are they trying to provoke people? What's worse is all these enraged under-educated Muslims will start targetting them now. Islam teaches peace, modesty, patience, and mostly, self control.
AtavanHalen
Member
Well, looks like some people didnt pay attention in class
steven19_xix
New member
Would have been a wonderful idea if there weren't so many hot heads on both sides, but sadly, I don't even see a possible solution anymore. People are so deeply hurt on both sides, so many wrongs have been done by all parties that they will never be forgotten.
panda_bear_lover
New member
I'd count myself as moderately successful, and would quite happily admit that I've lost many times previously. That wasn't quite what I was referring to.
In the system we have wealth begets more wealth, and as much as you say you admire the American system for opportunities it creates, the great majority of wealthy people in America (truly wealthy, not merely upper middle), are not wealthy because of their own abilities alone - they are wealthy because their families were before them, and so on.
Privilege exists, quite clearly to anyone who looks, and privilege is what creates an unequal market.
Monopolies, slave labour and similar are all an artifact of privilege. I'm referring to the idealistic free market. I don't believe it can exist in any form larger than involving a few hundred people (at most) who exchange goods directly with one another.
I don't think freedom automatically means equality at all. Americans may espouse that all men are created equally, but I think anyone who so much as glances at America will be able to see little there to back these high concepts.
The greater starting wealth should be quite obvious. Whether people are entitled to their inheritance or not is not something I'm willing to argue over (I believe that they are, to a point). I'm simply pointing out that an imbalance in starting wealth when entering the market, will automatically cause the market to be unbalanced.
For illustration, please see how supermarkets pay farmers pittances for their produce. I'm not trying to argue morals here, simply illustrate that the market is not free and equal.
In the system we have wealth begets more wealth, and as much as you say you admire the American system for opportunities it creates, the great majority of wealthy people in America (truly wealthy, not merely upper middle), are not wealthy because of their own abilities alone - they are wealthy because their families were before them, and so on.
Privilege exists, quite clearly to anyone who looks, and privilege is what creates an unequal market.
Monopolies, slave labour and similar are all an artifact of privilege. I'm referring to the idealistic free market. I don't believe it can exist in any form larger than involving a few hundred people (at most) who exchange goods directly with one another.
I don't think freedom automatically means equality at all. Americans may espouse that all men are created equally, but I think anyone who so much as glances at America will be able to see little there to back these high concepts.
The greater starting wealth should be quite obvious. Whether people are entitled to their inheritance or not is not something I'm willing to argue over (I believe that they are, to a point). I'm simply pointing out that an imbalance in starting wealth when entering the market, will automatically cause the market to be unbalanced.
For illustration, please see how supermarkets pay farmers pittances for their produce. I'm not trying to argue morals here, simply illustrate that the market is not free and equal.