yes, responding to a question asked by a reporter is stupid. good work, dumbass. stay in chit chat.

4/18/2009 1:46:25 AM

4/18/2009 10:23:51 AM

I heard a fun fact recently. Apparently, at the start of the Mexican-America War, the Mexican army was ten times larger than America's. As such, I am swayed by arguments against a standing army. We should have an army just large enough to stay on the cutting edge of technology and then, once war is declared, place an order for a thousand F-22s (or whatever). Sounds like a good way to keep a modern army: whenever we go into battle, all our equipment would be just off the assembly line

4/18/2009 11:34:35 AM

Quote :

"I heard a fun fact recently. Apparently, at the start of the Mexican-America War, the Mexican army was ten times larger than America's. As such, I am swayed by arguments against a standing army. We should have an army just large enough to stay on the cutting edge of technology and then, once war is declared, place an order for a thousand F-22s (or whatever). Sounds like a good way to keep a modern army: whenever we go into battle, all our equipment would be just off the assembly line"

Wait, are you trolling or do you really think that would work?

4/18/2009 12:06:41 PM

Quote :

"no, they really aren't. they are talking about the abuses of the Federal gov't. it's every one else in the media who is bringing up secession. Nowhere in his statement did he even fucking use the word. He was ASKED about it. So no, he aint talking about it. He's responding to a question about it."

Wrong. He talked about it on multiple occasions. And what does it matter that it was initiated by a reporter? Are you suggesting that the question was worded in such a way that he had no choice but to advocate secession?

4/18/2009 1:20:45 PM

someone must have messed with Texas.

4/18/2009 2:58:21 PM

Quote :

"Wait, are you trolling or do you really think that would work?"

Well, I think a nice compromise would be merely having an army equal in size to the second largest army, rather than 10 times larger.

4/18/2009 3:08:02 PM

Right... but our Army isn't 10 times larger than the next. Regardless, what about the F-22 comment? That makes no fucking sense, you would still have to produce and have ready all the equipment you would need to outfit a large army, even if you didn't have men until war. You just can't crank out 2,000 tanks, planes, trucks, etc etc in a few weeks. They would have to be produced and then maintained. Then you are comparing the Mexician-American war to today, operating say, an MLRS battery is much more difficult than lining up and firing a rifle (which most men at that time knew how to fire a load and fire a rifle anyway). So even if you could produce all the F-22's you need, who would fly them?

4/18/2009 3:33:05 PM

Did texas succeed yet?

4/18/2009 6:23:34 PM

You are right, American military spending is only 9.6 times the next highest spender (using dollars spent as a statistical stand-in for size) according to the first web-site good returned:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

So, is it really defensible for America to spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined spends?

4/18/2009 7:03:20 PM

Are you suggesting that we should only build our military to be as good as, say, China's? And not any better, because that would be "unfair?"

4/18/2009 7:07:40 PM

^ i think he's saying we should rely more on technology and strategy, than manpower, to maintain our military strength.

4/18/2009 7:21:49 PM

SUCCESS IS FOR MORANS

4/18/2009 11:41:06 PM

^^ Ummm, that's exactly what we do.

4/19/2009 12:08:59 AM

yeah, Lonesnark made a bad assumption when he did this:

Quote :

"(using dollars spent as a statistical stand-in for size)"

technology development and deployment is a ton more expensive than outfitting a bunch of guys with automatic rifles and some camo

4/19/2009 12:30:26 AM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that we should only build our military to be as good as, say, China's? And not any better, because that would be "unfair?""

If you mean to the U.S. taxpayer, then sure. We should aim to have a military large enough to defend our immediate interests. If China starts a war then we can mobilize to squash them, but until then it doesn't seem sensible to have everyone standing around for a war that is unlikely to occur for another couple decades. Keep the engineers at work, order just enough planes to get them developed, and keep the military academies open. Anything more sounds, to me, like a waste of money.

HaLo, so what? Are you suggesting that men in uniform is a better measure for army size? If so, then scrap the term, let us use another term, say military effectiveness, since with money comes force multiplication. A 50,000 man strong army with air superiority could squash a million man army without.

4/19/2009 1:13:58 AM

Capable equipment might could be kept in development and only produced on a large scale if the need arised (although even then, we'd lose our ability to respond quickly to a crisis, which is pretty important).

However, capable personnel in many fields (largely the complex, expensive ones that you'd most like to apply your plan to) are not forged overnight. As an example, I've been in for over 4.5 years, and I am, relatively speaking, a fledgling aviator. I am the newest, least experienced member of my squadron. I would say that it takes 6-7 years to produce what you would call a fully trained, fully qualified tactical jet (i.e., fighter or attack platform) aviator. For that matter, it takes us about 4 years or so to even finish all of our initial training and arrive in an operational squadron.


^ Also keep in mind that the ability to project power requires at least roughly a 3:1 combat power advantage (i.e., fighting an enemy in a prepared defense). Our place in the world has a significant cost to maintain.

On the other hand, while we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined, our military spending as a % of GDP is actually pretty reasonable.

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 1:35 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/19/2009 1:28:49 AM

All that is true, but does not negate my point. As you no doubt recognize, I was not going to dispand the military, just shrink it a bunch. If we spent half as much, we would still be spending almost five times that of the next big spender. Surely that is enough?

It is perfectly affordable, no doubt, but just because we can afford to waste money does not mean we should.

Now, should we? I realize that my assertions to cut back only make sense in a world where real war is decades away. If it is likely that China is going to come after us next year then any cut in spending this year would be absurd. As such, from my understanding of China, I find a war to be at least a decade away. Would you agree? If so, then who do we need this army for?

4/19/2009 2:04:41 AM

To make sure that large scale war doesn't happen anytime soon, for one thing.

4/19/2009 2:16:20 AM

With regards to our current military, we rely heavily on private weapons manufacturers. Would these businesses be self-sustainable, or sustainable at all, without a standing army?

^
How much credence is there to the possibility that an overpowering military may give rise to the growth of adversarial military power?

4/19/2009 3:02:39 AM

Ironic.

4/19/2009 4:47:04 AM

That is an interesting delima. Afterall, it was suggested that Mexico was unwilling to compromise because it knew our military was puny and unorganized, right up until our puny and unorganized military occupied Mexico City.

4/19/2009 11:46:48 AM

I don't think your plan will succeed.

4/19/2009 12:58:42 PM

I was considering Texas for jobs once I finish school but I don't know. An independent Texas could run one of two ways: the retarded Rick Perry way where gays are a threat and the needs of Exxon are prime, or a pretty rad quasi-libertarian with a social safety net chili republic that's more Austin and San Antonio than Houston or Dallas.

Or maybe it'll be a Paultard wasteland.

wait, who is THE GREAT ENSLAVER?

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:07:07 PM

i think that kook was talking about Lincoln

4/20/2009 6:36:07 PM

4/20/2009 7:22:47 PM

A long time ago I remember posting a thread about whether or not it would be possible for today's United States to exist under a new Articles of Confederation and the answer was pretty much "no, because they did that in Wing Commander and it sucked". But what if you used the European Union as a model? The states share a common trade, military, and customs zone. Welfare issues, education, everything except, well, what's in the constitution, is for the states.

Hey wait a second...

(really this is just me saying that if we're gonna go strict constructionist we should just drop this illusion of a national debate on the issue and just come out and say we want more of a confederacy)

4/21/2009 8:16:31 PM

works for me.

4/21/2009 9:25:45 PM

I care about as much about Alaska or Michigan as I do about Belgium or Burundi.

4/21/2009 9:40:32 PM

lol

split it all up and just hand sole superpower status to china

[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 9:47 PM. Reason : BUT I GUESS OBAMA'S GONNA SO THAT ANYWAY... I'LL BE SAFE IN MY TIN-FOIL BUNKER]

4/21/2009 9:46:01 PM

i know you're being marko and i'm glad you're marko but seriously as long as we stay as militarily united as NATO as a confederacy i'm not so sure China could threaten us.

then again...meh

4/21/2009 9:52:01 PM

i'd also mandate that they have to give the interstates back

4/21/2009 10:02:10 PM

Also we get their sports teams.

Move the Cowboys to Raleigh, the Astros to Greensboro, the Rangers to Richmond, the Spurs to Norfolk, etc.

4/25/2009 2:59:50 PM

i will allow the baseball, should we let cuba and puerto rico (and possibly the dominican) into the MLB

4/25/2009 4:08:32 PM

Quote :

"Gov. Rick Perry today in a precautionary measure requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide 37,430 courses of antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile to Texas to prevent the spread of swine flu. Currently, three cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Texas."

WE SHALL ABIDE BY THE MASTER'S HAND NO MORE!!!!

EXCEPT WHEN WE WANT MEDICINE!!!

4/26/2009 10:30:39 AM

4/27/2009 7:25:23 AM

^^yeah, cause its not the CDC's job to control epidemics in all states

4/27/2009 4:23:40 PM

YUO GOT ME THERE!!

4/27/2009 5:24:26 PM

Quote :

"You are right, American military spending is only 9.6 times the next highest spender (using dollars spent as a statistical stand-in for size)"

How about we use size as a stand in for size?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

Also it's interesting that Russia has 4 times as many tanks as we do.

What you are describing ("once war is declared, place an order for a thousand F-22s (or whatever).") sounds like Russia in World War 2. Sure, once they got the war machine fully mobilized, Germany coudn't stand against them. But by then they had already suffered like 20 million losses.


I would rather spend the money now and not have anyone attack us. Although I do think military spending could be cut significantly.

4/27/2009 7:09:15 PM

Spending could be cut significantly -- and quality possibly improved -- just by reforming the way in which defense contracts are generally handed out. If the powers that be were more concerned with getting bang for the buck than with getting lots of jobs for home districts or sucking lobbyist dick I bet we could shave off quite a bit.

How you work that into an enforceable regulation, I don't know. Though I suppose shooting the lobbyists would work too.

Quote :

"What you are describing . . . sounds like Russia in World War 2."

It also sounds about like us in both World Wars. We tried to stay out and maintain a small standing military, then had to scramble to send over frequently inferior equipment and green troops. And it could be much worse now, with manufacturing so much more specialized. It wasn't hard to turn car factories into tank factories in 1941. You didn't need to build new facilities, you just tweaked what you had. I'm not sure that there's enough tweaking in the world to turn a purpose-built factory for Ford Mustangs into something that could roll out an Abrams tank.

Same thing with the training. In 1941, if you could fix your tractor, you could probably do a serviceable job of fixing a lot on a Sherman. The Abrams has a gas-turbine engine that runs on jet fuel. Tractor maintenance is not much preparation there.

4/28/2009 2:23:06 AM

bump by request

12/29/2009 8:27:13 PM

When I originally heard about this, or when I would hear about any kind of secessionist movement, I immediately dismissed the idea. It seemed ridiculous to me. Lately, though, I've begun to consider when secession might be acceptable or even necessary. When most people think of secession, they think of the civil war. So, secession is equated with angry southerners, slavery, and racism in general. What people don't usually think about is that the Revolutionary War was actually a war over secession, and most everyone thinks that was acceptable. Secession is usually regarded as a good thing when it's successful, because the winners write the history books. When it fails, the winners also write the history books, but they tell the story of how the evil secessionists tried to break up the country. Slavery was a bad reason to secede, there's no doubt. However, Lincoln set a dangerous precedent - that any attempt to peacefully and voluntarily exit from the union would be prevented using force.

Let's think about the current situation. There's a massive debt bomb building right now as a result of government and central bank policy. We've racked up a national debt that cannot possibly be repaid, but we don't yet know what will happen as a result. You have deflationist camps, inflationist camps, but almost everyone supports continuing government operations at the current level. Some conservatives talk about slashing programs, but it's just that - talk. It's very clear to me that this debt bomb is going to explode sometime in the next 3-10 years, and the standard of living in this country is going go down substantially. We don't know exactly how the Federal Reserve is going to behave in the future, but there's no reason to believe they would reverse course now, and there's no reason to believe the federal government will either.

Why wouldn't a state, or multiple states, opt to separate themselves from the inevitable fallout of the federal government's policies? When it becomes clear that there is no exit strategy, and that USA is no longer #1 by any measure, would there not be an incentive to peacefully withdraw from the union? I realize that not everyone shares my views on the economy, and you're free to believe that in a few years, everything will be back to normal. Hopefully, you're right. But, if I'm right, why would anyone want to continue living under this corrupt government, and why would they want to continue using this fiat currency that is doomed to fail?

12/29/2009 9:00:25 PM

I think secession is an interesting political feature. It would be nice to have a political check/balance come from the states and flow up, as secession would offer (be agreeable or some of us will leave). But I think a simpler mechanism would be a state veto or some-sort, where a state could exempt its citizens from a federal law with a super-majority or some-such.

That said, if the union broke up tomorrow, the impact would be less than you would expect. A bunch of pensioners would go without a check, the rest of the world would go policed, but that's about it. The big argument for the need of the constitution was that without it we were too libertarian a country (trade barriers were too low and states competed too vigorously for citizens by securing their property and persons).

12/29/2009 10:10:20 PM

Bye Bye Texas! Please take New York and New Jersey with you please!!!

12/29/2009 11:52:31 PM

^you fucking idiot, you'd be kissing so much of this country's wealth away if NJ and NY left

12/30/2009 11:00:34 AM

But what would it matter? The factories and companies located in Texas would still be free to sell to us and buy our products. As such, the only thing about us that would be hurt is the federal government, which would no longer be able to tax them. The rest of us would be fine, unless congress decided to treat them like a hostile country, setting up road blocks and imposing tariffs, which would be a disaster, as it has been with Canada, but a self imposed disaster.

12/30/2009 11:51:20 AM

I think the argument of secessionists is funny. Gov. Rick Perry was probably sitting back sipping on whiskey during the years when George Bush shit all over the constitution and increased the power of the federal government. The debt situation is serious but is nothing that a mid-term election next year in congress can not solve. I just think the picking and choosing of battles with certain politicians just shows their words are merely the poison of partisan hackery.

12/30/2009 12:09:29 PM

Quote :

"The debt situation is serious but is nothing that a mid-term election next year in congress can not solve"

if you honestly think we'll stop running a deficit come the new legislators in 2011 you're smoking crack. This problem is going to take 30 years to fix, if ever.

12/30/2009 12:23:19 PM

To fix the problem you don't need to stop running a deficit; you just need to get the deficit under control, say less than a trillion dollars (last i heard it was $1.7 trillion in 2009).
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0320/cbo-us-deficit-ballooning-to-record-19-trillion

12/30/2009 12:29:21 PM

Deficits are causing the problem to get worse, but they aren't the problem. The problem is the debt. Everytime we run a deficit, we add to the debt. As the debt grows, our chances of ever paying it off decrease. You know, like having 100,000 in credit card debt is a lot worse than having 5,000 in credit card debt.

12/30/2009 12:39:15 PM