Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:03:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1699 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > > I can't believe you insinuated that the Native Americans had an equal • chance
> > > > just because they had a few rifles and bows.
> > >
> > > They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a
> > > well trained force - I'm not so sure.
> >
> > The difference is that in any plausible (which I know is the point of
> > contention) revolutionary scenario, The People would not be outnumbered by • the
> > villains. The Native Americans were.
>
> The Villains are part of The People. How can you tell one from the other?
Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're
doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting.
> > > You mean France? They are welcome to invade, I love their cuisine. But it is
> > > just not going to happen. If I were a paranoid fantasist I might worry about
> > > it. But I am not, so I don’t. How about you?
> >
> > Because it was so long ago that one European powerhouse invaded another?
>
> I guess not. The truth is such an invasion is no longer needed, since no
> benefits would be felt: the markets are already open, the people have free
> movements, the laws tend to be equalized... generally countries invaded each
> other expecting to profit from it, and right now no positive outcome would
> be possible for either parties involved - therefore, any invasion is
> pointless.
So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that WWII
happened because Germany was trying to break into Polish, French, or
Austrian market economies. They wanted to take their stuff (foremost of
which (I guess) was productive capacity). It was simple thuggery. How has the
EC changed that?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) the (...) Prior to WWII Germany was in debt to france for reparations from WWI. It was also in the midst of a huge economic crisis. It was literally cheaper to burn money than it was to buy coal. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e., "I'm right because I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
