Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How so?

Militaries are becoming increasingly costly and ineffective due to the urbanization of the world. Insurgent tactics have continued over from the 20th century and it is phasing out vast military arms.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Militaries are becoming increasingly costly and ineffective due to the urbanization of the world. Insurgent tactics have continued over from the 20th century and it is phasing out vast military arms.

We are talking about a defensive force here, finance has no effect on that. If you can't afford to maintain a military then you can't afford to survive. The rise of "insurgent" tactics is actually a shift into a paradigm known as "War Amongst the People." It has been around since the Vietnam war and there are instances earlier than that. That doesn't simply mean we are fighting in the cities among the people, though it is usually true, it means that the enemey is often indistinguishable from the ordinary citizen. The enemy is literally "among the people." It means that tactics are changing and super-sized, industrial strength militaries are no longer prudent in our current conflicts. A militia is the opposite extreme of an industrial military, neither are necessarily the answer. An industrial military may be a little overkill, but a militia is like taking a gun to a tank battle, you don't stand a chance. It is important to understand that national defense tactics are much different than offensive tactics, meaning a war against an insurgent group is handled differently than the defense of our country because there are other industrial powers out there that are not friendly with us. Also realize that different countries have different needs. A country that is a major player in the international economy needs a stronger force than a third world nation. A militia may be sufficient for a third world country in Africa, but it is useless to a country like America. Just because you have a large force does not mean you need to employ the full extent of that force in all of your conflicts, but you do need that power on reserve for defensive purposes. What matters is not the size of the force but the employment of the force, unless you are not powerful enough to effectively employ that force.

Originally Posted by SKA

And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying.

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

Hehe, I typed in google 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman Debunk' and got this:

http://subversivechurch.wordpress.co...onomic-hitman/



So, do any here maybe have a serious article to refute what he's saying?
His book was quite a while on the NY Times Bestseller list and therefore I'd
think that if what he's proposing is complete garbage, some believable
source would pick up on it. But he seems quite well recieved.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

It's also a book tour, though. And I don't think you get the
whistleblower status for nothing at all, or am I mistaken?

-> Edit:
Ok, found something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confess..._and_criticism

Are you saying crackpots and con artists don't get big book deals and sales? I can name many who have.

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

Originally Posted by dajo

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

John Perkins is believed to hold whistle blower status. I don't know enough about him to say that what he claims is automatically false. Maybe it isn't. I was just responding to SKA's comment that he sees no reason John Perkins would be lying. My point was that economic hit men are not trustworthy people. So John Perkins is either lying about having been an economic hit man or really was an economic hit man and therefore is not trustworthy. His word alone is automatically worth very little.

It reminds me of the former Fox News employees who are interviewed in the film Outfoxed. They get on camera and pretty much say, "I used to be a big time liar. Listen to my story." Once a person admits that he made a career of being dishonest, isn't it too late for his claims alone to matter? He is either

1. telling the truth and has a history of grand level lying

or

2. lying

Originally Posted by Caprisun

We are talking about a defensive force here, finance has no effect on that.

So you are saying that there is no upkeep for a standing army? No upkeep for R&D? Training? Day to day operations? Incomes?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If you can't afford to maintain a military then you can't afford to survive.

Having a standing army doesn't equate to being alive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The rise of "insurgent" tactics is actually a shift into a paradigm known as "War Amongst the People." It has been around since the Vietnam war and there are instances earlier than that. That doesn't simply mean we are fighting in the cities among the people, though it is usually true, it means that the enemey is often indistinguishable from the ordinary citizen. The enemy is literally "among the people." It means that tactics are changing and super-sized, industrial strength militaries are no longer prudent in our current conflicts.

That is exactly what I am saying. I'm glad we agree. Thus militaries which are super-sized organizations are obsolete. Private forces which are contracted out for a specific objective.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

A militia is the opposite extreme of an industrial military, neither are necessarily the answer. An industrial military may be a little overkill, but a militia is like taking a gun to a tank battle, you don't stand a chance.

Well one cannot buy military grade hardware these days.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It is important to understand that national defense tactics are much different than offensive tactics, meaning a war against an insurgent group is handled differently than the defense of our country because there are other industrial powers out there that are not friendly with us.

Really just which side we would be on is different. Insurgent tactics are the best tactics of defense.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Also realize that different countries have different needs. A country that is a major player in the international economy needs a stronger force than a third world nation.

I would ask why but I feel I already know the answer and it has to due with neo-mercantilism but I will ask anyways..why?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

A militia may be sufficient for a third world country in Africa, but it is useless to a country like America. Just because you have a large force does not mean you need to employ the full extent of that force in all of your conflicts, but you do need that power on reserve for defensive purposes. What matters is not the size of the force but the employment of the force, unless you are not powerful enough to effectively employ that force.

This is interesting because you are saying the the size doesn't matter. I agree which is why I think a private force would be better. It is shown both empirically and theoretically that free-market competition produces efficient, cost effective goods and services. Competition in production would produce better production. You would also get the added benefit of a decentralized fighting force which would be nearly impossible to fully conquer. It is like the 'splinter cells' of modern terrorist groups. You can kill a cell but you can't cut off the head. Now contrast that with a centralized fighting force. You conquer the Pentagon, you conquer the central head of communications of the US military and only 9 years ago the Pentagon was penetrated. They couldn't even defend their own headquarters and we are giving them all the guns and keys in the hope they can protect us? I believe we can both agree that government would be terrible at providing healthcare, why do we expect them to handle defense? And why would centralizing military power into one organization,which we are trying to limit, be a good idea in the first place?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you are saying that there is no upkeep for a standing army? No upkeep for R&D? Training? Day to day operations? Incomes?




Having a standing army doesn't equate to being alive.




That is exactly what I am saying. I'm glad we agree. Thus militaries which are super-sized organizations are obsolete. Private forces which are contracted out for a specific objective.





Well one cannot buy military grade hardware these days.




Really just which side we would be on is different. Insurgent tactics are the best tactics of defense.




I would ask why but I feel I already know the answer and it has to due with neo-mercantilism but I will ask anyways..why?




This is interesting because you are saying the the size doesn't matter. I agree which is why I think a private force would be better. It is shown both empirically and theoretically that free-market competition produces efficient, cost effective goods and services. Competition in production would produce better production. You would also get the added benefit of a decentralized fighting force which would be nearly impossible to fully conquer. It is like the 'splinter cells' of modern terrorist groups. You can kill a cell but you can't cut off the head. Now contrast that with a centralized fighting force. You conquer the Pentagon, you conquer the central head of communications of the US military and only 9 years ago the Pentagon was penetrated. They couldn't even defend their own headquarters and we are giving them all the guns and keys in the hope they can protect us? I believe we can both agree that government would be terrible at providing healthcare, why do we expect them to handle defense? And why would centralizing military power into one organization,which we are trying to limit, be a good idea in the first place?

"So you are saying that there is no upkeep for a standing army? No upkeep for R&D? Training? Day to day operations? Incomes?"

Not at all, maintaining an army is extremely expensive. What I am saying is it is absolutely necessary to build and maintain a force no matter what the cost. It's what a large nation must do if it wants to exist for an extended period of time, or even if it wants to have any influence in world politics.

"Having a standing army doesn't equate to being alive."

It equates to having sorveign power over your own country.

"That is exactly what I am saying. I'm glad we agree. Thus militaries which are super-sized organizations are obsolete. Private forces which are contracted out for a specific objective."

I didn't say obsolete, I said overkill in certain conflicts. It can get the job done and then some, it's just expensive. Private forces are contracted out for specific objectives, those objectives are mainly escorting and providing security for VIP's, not defending entire countries. Even if a private coporation could be contracted out to defend a country, it would need to build a force just as large as a normal military. Not only is that improbable, it's most likely impossible, and a terrible idea if it were possible.

"Well one cannot buy military grade hardware these days."

For good reason. Not that it matters anyways.

"Really just which side we would be on is different. Insurgent tactics are the best tactics of defense."

What on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as "defensive insurgent tactics." The one strength of guerilla tactics is that they are always on the offensive, they choose when, where, and how to strike, then they run away. Guerilla fighters will never make a defensive stand because they know it is futile, they shoot a rocket and then leave. If a base of theirs is attacked, they either fight and die, or they run. Guerilla tactics certainly didn't defend Afghanistan in 2002 since it took about two weeks to overthrow the Taliban. The Taliban still exists, but it is no longer the ruling power in Afghanistan. Guerilla fighters cannot defend against an industrial power because it would require them to go toe to toe with them, which they obviously can't do.

"I would ask why but I feel I already know the answer and it has to due with neo-mercantilism but I will ask anyways..why?"

Get money out of your head. A defensive force exists for survival purposes only. The answer is obvious: America has powerful enemies. Even if we are not on the brink of war, a world super-power needs to maintain a stong force incase something happens in the future. A country like Bolivia doesn't need a super-sized force because one, they can't afford it and two, they are able to fly under the radar as a small and relatively poor nation. They have no influence on world politics and therefore don't have many enemies. They could survive with a small force. However, if a super-power decided to invade Bolivia for some reason, they would simply be shit out of luck. They just have to hope that no stronger forces want anything of theirs.

"This is interesting because you are saying the the size doesn't matter. I agree which is why I think a private force would be better. It is shown both empirically and theoretically that free-market competition produces efficient, cost effective goods and services. Competition in production would produce better production. You would also get the added benefit of a decentralized fighting force which would be nearly impossible to fully conquer. It is like the 'splinter cells' of modern terrorist groups. You can kill a cell but you can't cut off the head. Now contrast that with a centralized fighting force. You conquer the Pentagon, you conquer the central head of communications of the US military and only 9 years ago the Pentagon was penetrated. They couldn't even defend their own headquarters and we are giving them all the guns and keys in the hope they can protect us? I believe we can both agree that government would be terrible at providing healthcare, why do we expect them to handle defense? And why would centralizing military power into one organization,which we are trying to limit, be a good idea in the first place?"

Your logic is screwed up. The only advantage a free market has over government projects is that there is an incentive for doing a good job, where that incentive doesn't always exist in government projects. National defense however, is the greastest incentive you can offer the government, which makes it the best organization for the job. The free market can produce efficient and cost-effective goods and services, but to what extent? Private military coporations are growing, but they provide specific small-scale services, because that is all they are capable of. They hire the select few "warrior souls" that exist in this world, the few men that are willing to fight not for their country, but for a pay check. A private military won't just serve one country, they'll serve the highest bidder. Now, do you think a corporation would be able to find several million men that are willing to fight for a country that is not their own? If a private military is the most powerful force in the world, who is to keep them in check? What is to stop super-sized private militaries from waging war against eachother? There are so many things wrong with that idea I could probably write a whole book about it, if only I didn't have the vocabulary of a third grader.

As for the attack on the pentagon, are you seriously saying that because a terrorist hijacked a plane and flew it into the pentagon, the American government is not capable of defending itself? It would take much more than a bomb in the pentagon to overthrow the American government. You would need forces on the ground and they wouldn't stand a chance against the might of the American military, which is the largest and most powerful industrial force on the planet. We are more than capable of defending ourselves.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Having a standing army doesn't equate to being alive."

It equates to having sorveign power over your own country.

Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That is exactly what I am saying. I'm glad we agree. Thus militaries which are super-sized organizations are obsolete. Private forces which are contracted out for a specific objective."

I didn't say obsolete, I said overkill in certain conflicts. It can get the job done and then some, it's just expensive. Private forces are contracted out for specific objectives, those objectives are mainly escorting and providing security for VIP's, not defending entire countries. Even if a private coporation could be contracted out to defend a country, it would need to build a force just as large as a normal military. Not only is that improbable, it's most likely impossible, and a terrible idea if it were possible.

Well one, it wouldn't have to be a singular corporation. Two, why is it a terrible idea even if it is one corporation? That is similar to what the US military is in practice. Anyways, let's explore why it is a 'terrible idea.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Well one cannot buy military grade hardware these days."

For good reason. Not that it matters anyways.

Why it is 'for a good reason'? It is rather odd to encourage a ban on military grade weapons and also say that people are unable to defend themselves and therefore require a military.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Really just which side we would be on is different. Insurgent tactics are the best tactics of defense."

What on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as "defensive insurgent tactics." The one strength of guerilla tactics is that they are always on the offensive, they choose when, where, and how to strike, then they run away. Guerilla fighters will never make a defensive stand because they know it is futile, they shoot a rocket and then leave. If a base of theirs is attacked, they either fight and die, or they run. Guerilla tactics certainly didn't defend Afghanistan in 2002 since it took about two weeks to overthrow the Taliban. The Taliban still exists, but it is no longer the ruling power in Afghanistan. Guerilla fighters cannot defend against an industrial power because it would require them to go toe to toe with them, which they obviously can't do.

Yet chaos still reins in Afghanistan. They are not dominated. Who cares about capitals and buildings, they can be rebuilt. The point is that the US could never conquer these people...ever. They may live in caves but we're quickly reducing our economy to third world levels in the process.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"I would ask why but I feel I already know the answer and it has to due with neo-mercantilism but I will ask anyways..why?"

Get money out of your head. A defensive force exists for survival purposes only. The answer is obvious: America has powerful enemies. Even if we are not on the brink of war, a world super-power needs to maintain a stong force incase something happens in the future. A country like Bolivia doesn't need a super-sized force because one, they can't afford it and two, they are able to fly under the radar as a small and relatively poor nation. They have no influence on world politics and therefore don't have many enemies. They could survive with a small force. However, if a super-power decided to invade Bolivia for some reason, they would simply be shit out of luck. They just have to hope that no stronger forces want anything of theirs.

Right, the military has only been used for defense. Honestly, why does there need to be a super-power in the world? Why does there have to be one nation to wipe the tears for all others? And why does it have to be the US?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"This is interesting because you are saying the the size doesn't matter. I agree which is why I think a private force would be better. It is shown both empirically and theoretically that free-market competition produces efficient, cost effective goods and services. Competition in production would produce better production. You would also get the added benefit of a decentralized fighting force which would be nearly impossible to fully conquer. It is like the 'splinter cells' of modern terrorist groups. You can kill a cell but you can't cut off the head. Now contrast that with a centralized fighting force. You conquer the Pentagon, you conquer the central head of communications of the US military and only 9 years ago the Pentagon was penetrated. They couldn't even defend their own headquarters and we are giving them all the guns and keys in the hope they can protect us? I believe we can both agree that government would be terrible at providing healthcare, why do we expect them to handle defense? And why would centralizing military power into one organization,which we are trying to limit, be a good idea in the first place?"

Your logic is screwed up. The only advantage a free market has over government projects is that there is an incentive for doing a good job, where that incentive doesn't always exist in government projects.

Actually that is just a topographical critique. The free market is a result of voluntary exchanges which establish a sustainable price system and supply/demand curve that you cannot achieve with a monopoly provider. The free market actually has sustainable, long term growth while government programs are ad hoc.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

National defense however, is the greastest incentive you can offer the government, which makes it the best organization for the job.

What incentive does government have? Obviously to protect themselves, but so do corporations and people. So what else?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The free market can produce efficient and cost-effective goods and services, but to what extent? Private military coporations are growing, but they provide specific small-scale services, because that is all they are capable of.

Well we have never had a private defense company or companies that are charged with defending private citizens in in the US. Frankly many of our foreign policy issues are a result of imperialistic tendencies in foreign nations. A great deal of drama could be sidestepped if we went back to a policy of non-intervention and armed neutrality.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They hire the select few "warrior souls" that exist in this world, the few men that are willing to fight not for their country, but for a pay check.

Oh please, there is nothing more overrated then fighting for one's 'country.' 300 million strangers. Private security is like any other profession. It reacts to supply and demand. I had a rather funny thought, you should encourage bakers to 'bake for America.' Bake for one's country for that is the highest honor!

Originally Posted by Caprisun

A private military won't just serve one country, they'll serve the highest bidder. Now, do you think a corporation would be able to find several million men that are willing to fight for a country that is not their own?

Is the money right?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If a private military is the most powerful force in the world, who is to keep them in check? What is to stop super-sized private militaries from waging war against eachother? There are so many things wrong with that idea I could probably write a whole book about it, if only I didn't have the vocabulary of a third grader.

What stops a super-sized military from waging war? What stops government from waging war? Especially since we have captive customers. A private defense force cannot externalize their costs like governments due therefore if you are apart of private corporate A and it starts a war then you are going to be paying for that. Now you can either continue to pay for that war if you think it is just which some might do but I think it more plausible that their customers leave their business and thus bankrupt them because why pay for something you don't agree with and you have the ability not to pay?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

As for the attack on the pentagon, are you seriously saying that because a terrorist hijacked a plane and flew it into the pentagon, the American government is not capable of defending itself?

That is exactly what I am saying. It is an irrefutable fact that they didn't properly defend the Pentagon. The government spends billions of dollars every year on "Defense" and they couldn't even defend their home base.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It would take much more than a bomb in the pentagon to overthrow the American government. You would need forces on the ground and they wouldn't stand a chance against the might of the American military, which is the largest and most powerful industrial force on the planet. We are more than capable of defending ourselves.

My point was that in destroying the Pentagon, you are destroying the hub of the entire US military effectively crippling them.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?




Well one, it wouldn't have to be a singular corporation. Two, why is it a terrible idea even if it is one corporation? That is similar to what the US military is in practice. Anyways, let's explore why it is a 'terrible idea.'



Why it is 'for a good reason'? It is rather odd to encourage a ban on military grade weapons and also say that people are unable to defend themselves and therefore require a military.



Yet chaos still reins in Afghanistan. They are not dominated. Who cares about capitals and buildings, they can be rebuilt. The point is that the US could never conquer these people...ever. They may live in caves but we're quickly reducing our economy to third world levels in the process.





Right, the military has only been used for defense. Honestly, why does there need to be a super-power in the world? Why does there have to be one nation to wipe the tears for all others? And why does it have to be the US?



Actually that is just a topographical critique. The free market is a result of voluntary exchanges which establish a sustainable price system and supply/demand curve that you cannot achieve with a monopoly provider. The free market actually has sustainable, long term growth while government programs are ad hoc.





What incentive does government have? Obviously to protect themselves, but so do corporations and people. So what else?




Well we have never had a private defense company or companies that are charged with defending private citizens in in the US. Frankly many of our foreign policy issues are a result of imperialistic tendencies in foreign nations. A great deal of drama could be sidestepped if we went back to a policy of non-intervention and armed neutrality.




Oh please, there is nothing more overrated then fighting for one's 'country.' 300 million strangers. Private security is like any other profession. It reacts to supply and demand. I had a rather funny thought, you should encourage bakers to 'bake for America.' Bake for one's country for that is the highest honor!




Is the money right?




What stops a super-sized military from waging war? What stops government from waging war? Especially since we have captive customers. A private defense force cannot externalize their costs like governments due therefore if you are apart of private corporate A and it starts a war then you are going to be paying for that. Now you can either continue to pay for that war if you think it is just which some might do but I think it more plausible that their customers leave their business and thus bankrupt them because why pay for something you don't agree with and you have the ability not to pay?



That is exactly what I am saying. It is an irrefutable fact that they didn't properly defend the Pentagon. The government spends billions of dollars every year on "Defense" and they couldn't even defend their home base.



My point was that in destroying the Pentagon, you are destroying the hub of the entire US military effectively crippling them.

"Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Obviously. Name one large, powerful, affluent nation that does not or did not have a military, or is not allied with a powerful military. You can attribute your existence to shear luck if you are not able to forcefully defend yourself and your interests, and the thing about luck is it eventually runs out. Think about my Bolivia example.

"Well one, it wouldn't have to be a singular corporation. Two, why is it a terrible idea even if it is one corporation? That is similar to what the US military is in practice. Anyways, let's explore why it is a 'terrible idea.'"

It would most certainly be more than one corporation, and they would compete with eachother. War becomes not a means of reaching a political goal and an ultimate measure of peace, but a profitable business. People argue that America entered war with Iraq because war is profitable and we wanted oil and blah blah blah, it matters little if there is any truth to that statement since there are still political and moral reasons for entering war. When it is due to legitimate coflicts of interest between countries, that is the only justifiable reason for going to war. When corporations stand to make enormous profit, the legitimate concerns for justice and survival are skewed. Corporations don't have non-monetary interests like nations do. You want to talk about coruption on an epic scale, talk about corporations manipulating or creating violent conflicts to best suit their income.

"Why it is 'for a good reason'? It is rather odd to encourage a ban on military grade weapons and also say that people are unable to defend themselves and therefore require a military."

I'll give you a minute to think about why it wouldn't be a good idea to sell military grade hardware to private citizens. . . . . . have you figured it out yet?

"Yet chaos still reins in Afghanistan. They are not dominated. Who cares about capitals and buildings, they can be rebuilt. The point is that the US could never conquer these people...ever. They may live in caves but we're quickly reducing our economy to third world levels in the process."

That is guerilla warfare meeting industrial warfare. It doesn't change the fact that the Taliban was removed from power and in its place is a new government. Guerilla tactics failed, completely, in every sense of the word, to defend the Taliban's government against the American military. A good defense does not entail letting your enemy crush you and evict you from power, forcing you to wait in the shadows until your new rulers do or do not bleed themselves dry. What happens to your people in the mean time? What if they don't bleed themselves dry? Guerilla forces are not invincible, keep that in mind.

"Right, the military has only been used for defense. Honestly, why does there need to be a super-power in the world? Why does there have to be one nation to wipe the tears for all others? And why does it have to be the US?"

It doesn't matter if there needs to be a super power or not, the fact is they exist whether there is a need or not. That's the same argument stonedape was using for world peace, just because it is physically possible to not fight doesn't mean we will stop, there are so many other factors that go into global politics.

"What incentive does government have? Obviously to protect themselves, but so do corporations and people. So what else?"

If a country loses a war, the government stands to be disbanded by the conquering force. If a corporation loses a war, they stand to lose a little bit of business, but they survive to fight another war. A government is made of the native citizens, all of whom have personal investments and pride in their country.

"Oh please, there is nothing more overrated then fighting for one's 'country.' 300 million strangers. Private security is like any other profession. It reacts to supply and demand. I had a rather funny thought, you should encourage bakers to 'bake for America.' Bake for one's country for that is the highest honor!"

Private security is not like any other profession. Any profession that has such a high mortality rate is not a normal profession. It takes a very desperate soldier to fight for an entity that is not his own country. And remember, just because you dont have a sense of pride or honor, doesn't mean other people don't. It isn't "300 million strangers" to most people.


"Is the money right?"

For some. For most the money will never be right.

"What stops a super-sized military from waging war? What stops government from waging war? Especially since we have captive customers. A private defense force cannot externalize their costs like governments due therefore if you are apart of private corporate A and it starts a war then you are going to be paying for that. Now you can either continue to pay for that war if you think it is just which some might do but I think it more plausible that their customers leave their business and thus bankrupt them because why pay for something you don't agree with and you have the ability not to pay?"

The difference between a war of nations and a war of coporations is a matter of legitimacy. If there is a war based on a legitimate conflict of interest between nations, it is important to resolve the conflict, through violent force if necessary. There are no legitimate conflicts between corporations, at least not ones that warrant violent force, but that is not to say they won't use violent force if they have the capability.

You've made the mistake of thinking nations will sacrifice themselves on a matter of principles and morals. If doing business with a private military will benefit a nation, or more importantly save that nation from conquest, it will do business with that organization regardless of its past ethics.

"That is exactly what I am saying. It is an irrefutable fact that they didn't properly defend the Pentagon. The government spends billions of dollars every year on "Defense" and they couldn't even defend their home base."

This is bullshit of the highest order. The only irrefutable fact is that an airplane hit the pentagon. I study aiport security in school so I know a little about its inner workings, and it is really just national security on a smaller scale. You've commited the same mistake as the TSA in that you expect to be able to defend against every threat in every situation at all times. Im writing my english term paper on this subject and one of my main points is comparing evolutionary survival techniques with security techniques. A group from Duke university conducted this study. They concluded that it is impossible to be accountable for every threat at all times, all biological organisms inherently know this. They found that organisms that can successfully prioitize threats and spend energy on the most important threats rather than wasting energy on the unimportant ones, usually win the evolutionary game. That doesn't mean a hijacked aircraft isn't an important threat, but we can't be expected to place such an unusual and unique attack so high on our list. For one, hijackings usually result in landing the aircraft and then negotiating for certain terms, and two there were many other factors that would have made it difficult to shoot that plane down, one of them being it was filled with people and another being we weren't even sure if it was going to hit the pentagon.

"My point was that in destroying the Pentagon, you are destroying the hub of the entire US military effectively crippling them."

This is another ridiculous statement. You assume the government is dumb enough to pile all of their resources into one building. You also overlooked the extreme difficulty of completely destroying the pentagon. The 9/11 attack was a pin prick.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Obviously. Name one large, powerful, affluent nation that does not or did not have a military. You can attribute your existence to shear luck if you are not able to forcefully defend yourself and your interests, and the thing about luck is it eventually runs out. Think about my Bolivia example.

Why do I need to name a nation? I'm not interested in being a nation. I am an individual. In saying that government shouldn't be the organization that defends rights, that does not infer that no one should. It's not like saying 'Government shouldn't be a healthcare provider' therefore means we should all be our own doctors.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Well one, it wouldn't have to be a singular corporation. Two, why is it a terrible idea even if it is one corporation? That is similar to what the US military is in practice. Anyways, let's explore why it is a 'terrible idea.'"

It would most certainly be more than one corporation, and they would compete with eachother. War becomes not a means of reaching a political goal and an ultimate measure of peace, but a profitable business.

Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

People argue that America entered war with Iraq because war is profitable and we wanted oil and blah blah blah, it matters little if there is any truth to that statement since there are still political and moral reasons for entering war.

Moral reasons for entering a war?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

When it is due to legitimate coflicts of interest between countries, that is the only justifiable reason for going to war. When corporations stand to make enormous profit, the legitimate concerns for justice and survival are skewed. Corporations don't have non-monetary interests like nations do. You want to talk about coruption on an epic scale, talk about corporations manipulating or creating violent conflicts to best suit their income.

This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Why it is 'for a good reason'? It is rather odd to encourage a ban on military grade weapons and also say that people are unable to defend themselves and therefore require a military."

I'll give you a minute to think about why it wouldn't be a good idea to sell military grade hardware to private citizens. . . . . . have you figured it out yet?

Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Yet chaos still reins in Afghanistan. They are not dominated. Who cares about capitals and buildings, they can be rebuilt. The point is that the US could never conquer these people...ever. They may live in caves but we're quickly reducing our economy to third world levels in the process."

That is guerilla warfare meeting industrial warfare. It doesn't change the fact that the Taliban was removed from power and in its place is a new government. Guerilla tactics failed, completely, in every sense of the word, to defend the Taliban's government against the American military. A good defense does not entail letting your enemy crush you and evict you from power, forcing you to wait in the shadows until your new rulers do or do not bleed themselves dry. What happens to your people in the mean time? What if they don't bleed themselves dry? Guerilla forces are not invincible, keep that in mind.

Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Right, the military has only been used for defense. Honestly, why does there need to be a super-power in the world? Why does there have to be one nation to wipe the tears for all others? And why does it have to be the US?"

It doesn't matter if there needs to be a super power or not, the fact is they exist whether there is a need or not. That's the same argument stonedape was using for world peace, just because it is physically possible to not fight doesn't mean we will stop, there are so many other factors that go into global politics.

That doesn't address any of my questions.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"What incentive does government have? Obviously to protect themselves, but so do corporations and people. So what else?"

If a country loses a war, the government stands to be disbanded by the conquering force. If a corporation loses a war, they stand to lose a little bit of business, but they survive to fight another war. A government is made of the native citizens, all of whom have personal investments and pride in their country.

So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Oh please, there is nothing more overrated then fighting for one's 'country.' 300 million strangers. Private security is like any other profession. It reacts to supply and demand. I had a rather funny thought, you should encourage bakers to 'bake for America.' Bake for one's country for that is the highest honor!"

Private security is not like any other profession. Any profession that has such a high mortality rate is not a normal profession. It takes a very desperate soldier to fight for an entity that is not his own country. And remember, just because you dont have a sense of pride or honor, doesn't mean other people don't. It isn't "300 million strangers" to most people.

What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Is the money right?"

For some. For most the money will never be right.

Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"What stops a super-sized military from waging war? What stops government from waging war? Especially since we have captive customers. A private defense force cannot externalize their costs like governments due therefore if you are apart of private corporate A and it starts a war then you are going to be paying for that. Now you can either continue to pay for that war if you think it is just which some might do but I think it more plausible that their customers leave their business and thus bankrupt them because why pay for something you don't agree with and you have the ability not to pay?"

The difference between a war of nations and a war of coporations is a matter of legitimacy. If there is a war based on a legitimate conflict of interest between nations, it is important to resolve the conflict, through violent force if necessary. There are no legitimate conflicts between corporations, at least not ones that warrant violent force, but that is not to say they won't use violent force if they have the capability.

Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You've made the mistake of thinking nations will sacrifice themselves on a matter of principles and morals.

Actually I think that is your transgression.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If doing business with a private military will benefit a nation, or more importantly save that nation from conquest, it will do business with that organization regardless of its past ethics.

We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That is exactly what I am saying. It is an irrefutable fact that they didn't properly defend the Pentagon. The government spends billions of dollars every year on "Defense" and they couldn't even defend their home base."

This is bullshit of the highest order. The only irrefutable fact is that an airplane hit the pentagon. I study aiport security in school so I know a little about its inner workings, and it is really just national security on a smaller scale. You've commited the same mistake as the TSA in that you expect to be able to defend against every threat in every situation at all times.

That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Im writing my english term paper on this subject and one of my main points is comparing evolutionary survival techniques with security techniques. A group from Duke university conducted this study. They concluded that it is impossible to be accountable for every threat at all times, all biological organisms inherently know this

All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"My point was that in destroying the Pentagon, you are destroying the hub of the entire US military effectively crippling them."

This is another ridiculous statement. You assume the government is dumb enough to pile all of their resources into one building. You also overlooked the extreme difficulty of completely destroying the pentagon. The 9/11 attack was a pin prick.

...THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why do I need to name a nation? I'm not interested in being a nation. I am an individual. In saying that government shouldn't be the organization that defends rights, that does not infer that no one should. It's not like saying 'Government shouldn't be a healthcare provider' therefore means we should all be our own doctors.



Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals.



Moral reasons for entering a war?



This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?



Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?



Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed.



That doesn't address any of my questions.



So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest.



What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests.



Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization.



Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?



Actually I think that is your transgression.




We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security.



That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen'



All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity.




...THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US.

"Why do I need to name a nation?"

Because you said this: "Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Does that not imply that you think a country can survive without a military? Even a private military is still a military.


"Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals."

We already have that, they are called police and they do not defend this country.

"Moral reasons for entering a war?"

Yes?

"This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?"

Babble babble babble? What are you trying to say?

"Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?"

Think about it some more. I am not against gun control, but I am for tank control. Military grade weapons won't make people more violent, but the already violent people will now be able to receive military grade weapons. Plus the black market would explode, so don't give some spiel about background checks.

"Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed."

That is NOT defense! Listen to what I am saying because I will keep saying it until it is pounded into your head. There are still Nazis alive, did you know that? Does that mean the Nazis successfully defended Germany in WWII? Defending your country means retaining your government and your national identity, no interim periods of occupation are allowed.

"That doesn't address any of my questions."

Sure it does. I think I made it clear that there DOES NOT have to be a world super power, and then I explained why is DOES NOT MATTER. That is how society naturally evolved, now that we have reached that point I think there is no return. No matter how much you romanticize the return to the stone age, you will not convince the world that progression is bad. We are on to new frontiers and we are not looking back.

"So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest."

It's called unemployment and it isn't worth losing your life over. Is a person more likely to fight for the Bank of America or the the country of America? Most people don't have a lot of pride in their company unless they own it and the owners won't be fighting. They fight for a pay check and that is all, if one business goes under, they find someone else. There's no such thing as fighting for corporate pride.

"What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests."

I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.

"Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization."

What?

"Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?"

Re-read my paragraph, the answer is in plain sight. A conflict between corporations can never legitimately turn to violent force to solve said conflict.

"Actually I think that is your transgression."

Now I know for sure you aren't paying attention. Go back and read carefully.

"We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security."

This doesn't make sense. You said that the nations of the world would not tolerate an illegitimate war started by a corporation, I said you were wrong. How does the free-market have anything to do with that?

"That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen' "

Seriously, are you really reading what I am writing or am I wasting my time? It isn't their job to be in complete control of every threat in existence on account of it's physical impossibility. We could be invaded by Russia and they could destroy all of our cities and kill millions of people, as long as we eventually push them out, the government would have successfully defended the country. Obviously the goal is not to allow that much destruction, but you can't cite 9/11 as proof that the government is incapable of defending itself. You know damn well it could crush any nation foolish enough to cross into our borders. Nobody is using the excuse "these things happen," those are your words. Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat. National security agents unfortunately do not posses the capability to read minds or predict the future, which means they can only effectively focus on the most important threats, like a nuclear missle pointed in our direction or more recently, airport security. Your expectations are completely unrealistic for mortal beings and even your magical corporations couldn't provide such flawless security.


"All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity."

Good idea. Lets turn our security system into a giant cluster fuck of corporations trying to prove to everyone that they provide the best security. Since when does the private sector collaborate with the government? How do you avoid redundancies? Why do many small corporations work better than one coherent, organized force? How do you synchronize the whole operation? A strong, coherent, organized force is the only way to truely provide thorough security. Its not like there are people multi-tasking, there are separate sectors that are completely dedicated to one aspect of security. Keep in mind we are talking about defending against the large scale attacks on a country, we already contract security forces for small scale operations.

"THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US. "

The greatest value of the pentagon lies not with the physical building but its employees, the four star generals and all other high ranking officials. How much time out of the year do you think they actually spend in the pentagon? How often are they all in there at once? Why do you think we have a ranking system? I'll give you a hint, it's a very elaborate system designed to have a predetermined line of succession just incase a superior officer is killed. If any high ranking officer is killed, we have highly qualified and highly trained individuals ready to step up. Smart huh? You act like the entire United States military is permanently stationed in the pentagon. And yes, we can still communicate without the pentagon. This is all without mentioning the fact that the pentagon is a bonafide fortress, good luck destroying it. And the very obvious point that I have not made yet is the fact that the pentagon is still alive and well with very minimal time spent recovering. I'll call it a defensive victory!

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Why do I need to name a nation?"

Because you said this: "Ah so you are contending that the only way a country can exist is through military force?"

Does that not imply that you think a country can survive without a military? Even a private military is still a military.

No the implication of that statement was that a country can only survive if there is a band of individuals [ the military ] who use coercion. I should of been more detailed but I didn't think you would outright agree that military force creates a nation. It is rather shocking.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Security is not simply fighting foreign power, it could just be simple protection against criminals."

We already have that, they are called police and they do not defend this country.

There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Moral reasons for entering a war?"

Yes?

What are these moral reasons for entering a war?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"This completely ignores the reaction of individuals who are in this corporation. Why would the consumer base be paying for a war beyond corporations in which they seek no benefits yet retain all the costs?"

Babble babble babble? What are you trying to say?

Very simple. Government can externalize the costs of war onto their citizenry through taxation. No politician actually has to foot the bill. Corporations cannot do that obviously. So why would the consumer base pay for a war beyond corporations in which they do not profit from but retain all the costs for? [ This is of course baring the legality of it which is another argument ]

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Not really. It's not as if people when receiving military grade weapons will suddenly become more violent. Are you against gun control?"

Think about it some more. I am not against gun control, but I am for tank control. Military grade weapons won't make people more violent, but the already violent people will now be able to receive military grade weapons. Plus the black market would explode, so don't give some spiel about background checks.

Black markets would 'explode'? Black markets are a result in the criminalization of certain items. They exist because there is still demand for products that governments ban. It is not as if criminals can't get military weapons now anyways.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Yes yes, that is why Vietnam didn't become a communist country. The Taliban is still alive and remain alive as long as there is a large group to continue the ideology. The US will leave Afghanistan talking about how they changed it for the better, give themselves a pat on the back and within several years the Taliban will resurge, the status quo will return and nothing will have changed."

That is NOT defense! Listen to what I am saying because I will keep saying it until it is pounded into your head. There are still Nazis alive, did you know that? Does that mean the Nazis successfully defended Germany in WWII? Defending your country means retaining your government and your national identity, no interim periods of occupation are allowed.

How can you say what the Vietcong did wasn't 'defense' with a straight face? Were they just happening to attack French and US troops that just happened to be in the area? The reason that Nazis aren't in Germany right now isn't because we took over their government but because not enough of them still hold the ideology in that country. You can't kill ideas through guns but you can nullify an idea through reformation. If say 40% of Germany still believe in Nazism, would they still retain the same government they do today?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That doesn't address any of my questions."

Sure it does. I think I made it clear that there DOES NOT have to be a world super power, and then I explained why is DOES NOT MATTER. That is how society naturally evolved, now that we have reached that point I think there is no return. No matter how much you romanticize the return to the stone age, you will not convince the world that progression is bad. We are on to new frontiers and we are not looking back.

Right, US has a pre-determined destiny to police the world. You are the one who is romanticizing your silly position. You cannot coherently state that the world doesn't require a super power but through the mysteries of progression the US has been hand picked by the forces of history to be a super power and we should not shrink from this duty.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"So do individuals who fight for corporations. If they want to keep their way of life with that corporation, because who will contract services of an organization which has lost, then they do have person investment and interest."

It's called unemployment and it isn't worth losing your life over. Is a person more likely to fight for the Bank of America or the the country of America? Most people don't have a lot of pride in their company unless they own it and the owners won't be fighting. They fight for a pay check and that is all, if one business goes under, they find someone else. There's no such thing as fighting for corporate pride.

Well if one were to fight for a business and such a business fails, how likely is one to be viewed as a positive employee in another business?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests."

I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.

argument ad populum.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Then they will not be private security providers. Division of labor and specialization."

What?

You said there are people who won't fight for money. Obviously they will not be private security providers. However, there are people who will.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Ah so government can have legitimate conflicts but not corporations cannot? Why is this so?"

Re-read my paragraph, the answer is in plain sight. A conflict between corporations can never legitimately turn to violent force to solve said conflict.

If defending their property, why not?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Actually I think that is your transgression."

Now I know for sure you aren't paying attention. Go back and read carefully.

No you are displaying the state as some grand institution which defends all and forgoes all pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"We're not talking about the state contracting out business to crony businesses. We are talking about free-market security."

This doesn't make sense. You said that the nations of the world would not tolerate an illegitimate war started by a corporation, I said you were wrong. How does the free-market have anything to do with that?

I didn't say nations, I said people. Nations are not rational agents. They cannot act. Individuals can act. You stated that the government can fork out security jobs to private industries. I don't believe the government should engage in corporatism or crony capitalism which is essentially favoring certain businesses or markets over others. The free market is devoid of government regulation and interference.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That is their job isn't it? To be on constant vigilance. What the hell are we paying 600 billion dollars a year for in the first place if they cannot even defend themselves? You cannot say that the government is a great defender of us and let them slide on such a catastrophe by saying 'these things happen' "

Seriously, are you really reading what I am writing or am I wasting my time? It isn't their job to be in complete control of every threat in existence on account of it's physical impossibility.

Then to that extent, the government doesn't defend our rights or us and is therefore lying in its claim to be our agents/protectors.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

We could be invaded by Russia and they could destroy all of our cities and kill millions of people, as long as we eventually push them out, the government would have successfully defended the country.

That is absolutely ridiculous if that were to happen. Millions of people hypothetically die but somehow it was a success? You obviously have a bizarre notion of defending a nation or do you mean defending a government? What you label success wouldn't be to individuals who are killed nor their families but if you mean to say that politicians survive and their lives become unaffected by the events, if that is success then I think you are pointing out a powerful claim against yourself. That government only cares about retaining its power in a geographical local and that citizenry are expendable to a certain point.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Obviously the goal is not to allow that much destruction, but you can't cite 9/11 as proof that the government is incapable of defending itself. You know damn well it could crush any nation foolish enough to cross into our borders.

No. I don't think the military could crush any nation right now. But it is obvious that no nation is just going to simply paradrop soldiers within our borders. I mean come on this isn't Red Dawn. No we will be brought to our knees financially, the dollar will collapse and one of two things will happen. We will either get a international currency and start the process over again or we will go back to a commodity based money. I hope its the second option.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Nobody is using the excuse "these things happen," those are your words.

Well I didn't say you explicitly said them. I said it is implicitly in your argument. You shrug off 9/11 as if it is some kind of exception with extenuating circumstances.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat.

Terrorism isn't some new fad and we are certainly not in control of it. If anything what we are doing is making it worse.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

National security agents unfortunately do not posses the capability to read minds or predict the future, which means they can only effectively focus on the most important threats, like a nuclear missle pointed in our direction or more recently, airport security. Your expectations are completely unrealistic for mortal beings and even your magical corporations couldn't provide such flawless security.

I'm not asking them to read minds. I don't see how asking them to do what they have been paid to do is somehow unrealistic. If they can't do it properly then we shouldn't baby them because of what they are. I demand protection without sacrificing rights or living under coercion and I will have my demands meet by someone for the right amount of money. If government can't do that then they should step out of the way and stop their monopoly choke hold on those who wish to satisfy my demand and the demands of others.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"All the more reason to have numerous dispersed, decentralized that can spread their nets to a large degree and better degree rather then a monolithic, bubbling bureaucratic entity."

Good idea. Lets turn our security system into a giant cluster fuck of corporations trying to prove to everyone that they provide the best security.

Ah yes, you are actually making a complaint that Marxists usually give to the free-market. 'It's anarchy!' they say. I mean look at all these food providers who are trying to prove they produce the best food, it's madness! I mean if only we could have one food provider and thus one choice in the matter, then everything will be solved and we would all go without want.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Since when does the private sector collaborate with the government? How do you avoid redundancies?

Redundancies in protection? Very simple, contractual agreements. It could be individuals or groups of individuals who come together to enlist the aid of private security.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do many small corporations work better than one coherent, organized force?

The same reason the free market beats governmental programs. It establishes a real supply/demand curve, real profit incentive, efficiency through competition and a rise in the standard of living through lowering prices.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How do you synchronize the whole operation? A strong, coherent, organized force is the only way to truely provide thorough security. Its not like there are people multi-tasking, there are separate sectors that are completely dedicated to one aspect of security. Keep in mind we are talking about defending against the large scale attacks on a country, we already contract security forces for small scale operations.

Honestly, have you ever seen how corporations work? 'Its not like there are people multi-tasking'? Are you kidding? What the hell do you think Wal-mart, perhaps the lamest company in the US, does? I mean honestly, what do you envision them doing right now with over a thousand stores in the country?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"THEY DO! What do you think happens in the Pentagon? That is where the Joint Chiefs are, that is the strategic command. It is the hub of all military activity in the US. "

The greatest value of the pentagon lies not with the physical building but its employees, the four star generals and all other high ranking officials. How much time out of the year do you think they actually spend in the pentagon? How often are they all in there at once?

Destroying vital communication equipment and killing off generals is a pretty god damn good way of crippling a military.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do you think we have a ranking system? I'll give you a hint, it's a very elaborate system designed to have a predetermined line of succession just incase a superior officer is killed. If any high ranking officer is killed, we have highly qualified and highly trained individuals ready to step up. Smart huh? You act like the entire United States military is permanently stationed in the pentagon.

Yes I know, I nearly went through OCS. However, who is the first person you target in an ambush or who is the first target for a sniper? The leader. Why? Because it creates confusion, distorts command structure and destroys moral. Killing off the top generals of a military and destroying their communication array is again a great god damn way to cripple a military. Sure you have some bumpkin one star general in some god awful bunker in Colorado but after destroying the Pentagon there would be a rush to establish communication, establish leadership roles, organize remaining forces, assess the threat, formulate mission statements, etc. all this while having a primary communication source destroyed and all this while the enemy is prepping for attack or in the process of attack. I never said that one could destroy the entire military at the Pentagon. I said that one could cripple the entire military. Destruction comes after the crippling if the crippling is sever enough.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No the implication of that statement was that a country can only survive if there is a band of individuals [ the military ] who use coercion. I should of been more detailed but I didn't think you would outright agree that military force creates a nation. It is rather shocking.




There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.



What are these moral reasons for entering a war?


Very simple. Government can externalize the costs of war onto their citizenry through taxation. No politician actually has to foot the bill. Corporations cannot do that obviously. So why would the consumer base pay for a war beyond corporations in which they do not profit from but retain all the costs for? [ This is of course baring the legality of it which is another argument ]



Black markets would 'explode'? Black markets are a result in the criminalization of certain items. They exist because there is still demand for products that governments ban. It is not as if criminals can't get military weapons now anyways.



How can you say what the Vietcong did wasn't 'defense' with a straight face? Were they just happening to attack French and US troops that just happened to be in the area? The reason that Nazis aren't in Germany right now isn't because we took over their government but because not enough of them still hold the ideology in that country. You can't kill ideas through guns but you can nullify an idea through reformation. If say 40% of Germany still believe in Nazism, would they still retain the same government they do today?




Right, US has a pre-determined destiny to police the world. You are the one who is romanticizing your silly position. You cannot coherently state that the world doesn't require a super power but through the mysteries of progression the US has been hand picked by the forces of history to be a super power and we should not shrink from this duty.



Well if one were to fight for a business and such a business fails, how likely is one to be viewed as a positive employee in another business?



argument ad populum.



You said there are people who won't fight for money. Obviously they will not be private security providers. However, there are people who will.



If defending their property, why not?



No you are displaying the state as some grand institution which defends all and forgoes all pragmatism.



I didn't say nations, I said people. Nations are not rational agents. They cannot act. Individuals can act. You stated that the government can fork out security jobs to private industries. I don't believe the government should engage in corporatism or crony capitalism which is essentially favoring certain businesses or markets over others. The free market is devoid of government regulation and interference.



Then to that extent, the government doesn't defend our rights or us and is therefore lying in its claim to be our agents/protectors.




That is absolutely ridiculous if that were to happen. Millions of people hypothetically die but somehow it was a success? You obviously have a bizarre notion of defending a nation or do you mean defending a government? What you label success wouldn't be to individuals who are killed nor their families but if you mean to say that politicians survive and their lives become unaffected by the events, if that is success then I think you are pointing out a powerful claim against yourself. That government only cares about retaining its power in a geographical local and that citizenry are expendable to a certain point.




No. I don't think the military could crush any nation right now. But it is obvious that no nation is just going to simply paradrop soldiers within our borders. I mean come on this isn't Red Dawn. No we will be brought to our knees financially, the dollar will collapse and one of two things will happen. We will either get a international currency and start the process over again or we will go back to a commodity based money. I hope its the second option.




Well I didn't say you explicitly said them. I said it is implicitly in your argument. You shrug off 9/11 as if it is some kind of exception with extenuating circumstances.



Terrorism isn't some new fad and we are certainly not in control of it. If anything what we are doing is making it worse.





I'm not asking them to read minds. I don't see how asking them to do what they have been paid to do is somehow unrealistic. If they can't do it properly then we shouldn't baby them because of what they are. I demand protection without sacrificing rights or living under coercion and I will have my demands meet by someone for the right amount of money. If government can't do that then they should step out of the way and stop their monopoly choke hold on those who wish to satisfy my demand and the demands of others.



Ah yes, you are actually making a complaint that Marxists usually give to the free-market. 'It's anarchy!' they say. I mean look at all these food providers who are trying to prove they produce the best food, it's madness! I mean if only we could have one food provider and thus one choice in the matter, then everything will be solved and we would all go without want.




Redundancies in protection? Very simple, contractual agreements. It could be individuals or groups of individuals who come together to enlist the aid of private security.



The same reason the free market beats governmental programs. It establishes a real supply/demand curve, real profit incentive, efficiency through competition and a rise in the standard of living through lowering prices.




Honestly, have you ever seen how corporations work? 'Its not like there are people multi-tasking'? Are you kidding? What the hell do you think Wal-mart, perhaps the lamest company in the US, does? I mean honestly, what do you envision them doing right now with over a thousand stores in the country?



Destroying vital communication equipment and killing off generals is a pretty god damn good way of crippling a military.





Yes I know, I nearly went through OCS. However, who is the first person you target in an ambush or who is the first target for a sniper? The leader. Why? Because it creates confusion, distorts command structure and destroys moral. Killing off the top generals of a military and destroying their communication array is again a great god damn way to cripple a military. Sure you have some bumpkin one star general in some god awful bunker in Colorado but after destroying the Pentagon there would be a rush to establish communication, establish leadership roles, organize remaining forces, assess the threat, formulate mission statements, etc. all this while having a primary communication source destroyed and all this while the enemy is prepping for attack or in the process of attack. I never said that one could destroy the entire military at the Pentagon. I said that one could cripple the entire military. Destruction comes after the crippling if the crippling is sever enough.

"No the implication of that statement was that a country can only survive if there is a band of individuals [ the military ] who use coercion. I should of been more detailed but I didn't think you would outright agree that military force creates a nation. It is rather shocking."

So what the hell are you arguing about? Do you or do you not believe a country can survive without a military? You really need to articulate better because half the time I dont even know what you are trying to say.

"There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive."

You think the police aren't busy enough?

"What are these moral reasons for entering a war?"

Justice maybe? Honor, protection, the good of humanity? Is it ethical to allow an act like the September 11th attacks to go unpunished? How about Pearl Harbor? Is it immoral to defend yourself?

"Very simple. Government can externalize the costs of war onto their citizenry through taxation. No politician actually has to foot the bill. Corporations cannot do that obviously. So why would the consumer base pay for a war beyond corporations in which they do not profit from but retain all the costs for? [ This is of course baring the legality of it which is another argument ]"


It's not like the population will experice a tax hike as a result of a war, the government just taps into the pool of money that already exists. And who says they can't profit? Is winning a war not a profit? If you face conquest from an invading nation, I don't think money will be an issue to the people.


"Black markets would 'explode'? Black markets are a result in the criminalization of certain items. They exist because there is still demand for products that governmen"ts ban. It is not as if criminals can't get military weapons now anyways."

Do you think gangsters with criminal records qualify to buy guns? No, they don't, so they buy off the black market. Guns are not banned by the government. And criminals cannot get military grade hardware except for firearms, which is why they should not be sold to the public.


"How can you say what the Vietcong did wasn't 'defense' with a straight face? Were they just happening to attack French and US troops that just happened to be in the area?"

Key word here is "attack." Since when does a defender attack? How do you still not understand this? The Vietcong did employ certain guerilla tactics, but they were a much more industrial force than the Taliban and most other non-state forces that exist today. There really is no point in analyzing the Vietnam War, for the sake of this argument it is not very relevant. My argument was geared more towards your statement about the Taliban returning to power at some undetermined date in the future.

"Right, US has a pre-determined destiny to police the world. You are the one who is romanticizing your silly position. You cannot coherently state that the world doesn't require a super power but through the mysteries of progression the US has been hand picked by the forces of history to be a super power and we should not shrink from this duty."

Don't twist my words. You are deluding yourself if you think I said anything remotely close to that. If you go back and actually read my argument, you will see that I said natural progression of society, that would imply that nothing is "pre-determined" or 'hand picked", whatever the hell that means.

"Well if one were to fight for a business and such a business fails, how likely is one to be viewed as a positive employee in another business?"

I have no idea, how is that relevant to the argument? I do know that a single employee of a large corporation cannot be blamed for the failure of said coporation and would therefore be able to move on with their reputation intact.

"argument ad populum."

You better make damn sure you know I've commited a fallacy before you accuse me of doing so. Never did I say it was right to have a sense of honor because the majority of people have one, never. You are saying that more people would be willing to fight for a corporation than their own country, I said you are wrong because the majority of people have a sense of honor and pride in their country which would therefore mean more people would be willing to fight for their country. Why don't you stop being so careless with your answers?

"You said there are people who won't fight for money. Obviously they will not be private security providers. However, there are people who will."

No shit! There are thousands of them in the Middle East right now. The point was that you would need to amass a force on the order of several million men or more, the likeliness of which ranges from highly improbable to impossible.

"If defending their property, why not?"

Give me an example of a piece of property that a corporation would need to defend with an amount of force equal to an all-out war.

"No you are displaying the state as some grand institution which defends all and forgoes all pragmatism."

I don't think pragmatism is the word you are looking for.

"I didn't say nations, I said people. Nations are not rational agents. They cannot act. Individuals can act. You stated that the government can fork out security jobs to private industries. I don't believe the government should engage in corporatism or crony capitalism which is essentially favoring certain businesses or markets over others. The free market is devoid of government regulation and interference. "

We are not talking about people, we are talking about nations and their ability to defend themselves.

"Then to that extent, the government doesn't defend our rights or us and is therefore lying in its claim to be our agents/protectors."

Then you will never be satisfied. Your corporations are no more capable of providing this perfect security than the government. It is physically impossible for any entity to be in complete control of every threat that exists in every situation. You can just wallow in your discontent.

"That is absolutely ridiculous if that were to happen. Millions of people hypothetically die but somehow it was a success? You obviously have a bizarre notion of defending a nation or do you mean defending a government? What you label success wouldn't be to individuals who are killed nor their families but if you mean to say that politicians survive and their lives become unaffected by the events, if that is success then I think you are pointing out a powerful claim against yourself. That government only cares about retaining its power in a geographical local and that citizenry are expendable to a certain point."

How very nice of you to take my quote out of context. Haven't you portrayed enough dishonesty for one post? This was an example that was meant to further illustrate my point that you cut out for some reason. You claimed that America was incapable of defending itself because a hijacker was able to fly an airplane into the pentagon and inflict a very minimal amount of damage upon the building. That is a ridiculous statement in itself, so I thought I would reveal this ridiculousness by providing an example of just how far things could go and still technically be a successful defense, thus proving how retarded your statement was. REMEMBER, a successful defense is not a matter of opinion, you either defended your country or you didn't. There are levels of success however.

"No. I don't think the military could crush any nation right now. But it is obvious that no nation is just going to simply paradrop soldiers within our borders. I mean come on this isn't Red Dawn."

I'm glad you don't control our defense. And just out of curiosity, who are these super nations that could theoretically take over America?

"You shrug off 9/11 as if it is some kind of exception with extenuating circumstances. "

I didn't shrug it off and I didn't say it was an exception and I didn't say the circumstances were extenuating. You would make an awful journalist.

"Terrorism isn't some new fad and we are certainly not in control of it. If anything what we are doing is making it worse."

I didn't say terrorism is a fad and I didn't say we are in control of it. Christ!

"I'm not asking them to read minds. I don't see how asking them to do what they have been paid to do is somehow unrealistic. If they can't do it properly then we shouldn't baby them because of what they are. I demand protection without sacrificing rights or living under coercion and I will have my demands meet by someone for the right amount of money. If government can't do that then they should step out of the way and stop their monopoly choke hold on those who wish to satisfy my demand and the demands of others."

"I'm not asking them to read minds." To an extent, yes you are. Your expectations are nothing short of super-human. What you are asking, no human or group of humans can provide, it isn't possible.

"Ah yes, you are actually making a complaint that Marxists usually give to the free-market. 'It's anarchy!' they say. I mean look at all these food providers who are trying to prove they produce the best food, it's madness! I mean if only we could have one food provider and thus one choice in the matter, then everything will be solved and we would all go without want."

Food and national defense are not the same. Obviously a variety in food is good, but you only want one coherent system of defense. The more you complicate it the more it loses coherency.


"Redundancies in protection? Very simple, contractual agreements. It could be individuals or groups of individuals who come together to enlist the aid of private security."

How is that an improvement over the old system? How do you know the government doesn't already have a similar system in place? Explain to me why they would scrap their system and opt for yours if they both accomplish the same goal and use the same methods.

"The same reason the free market beats governmental programs. It establishes a real supply/demand curve, real profit incentive, efficiency through competition and a rise in the standard of living through lowering prices. "

I already told you why the free market doesn't beat the government when it comes to national defense.

"Honestly, have you ever seen how corporations work? 'Its not like there are people multi-tasking'? Are you kidding? What the hell do you think Wal-mart, perhaps the lamest company in the US, does? I mean honestly, what do you envision them doing right now with over a thousand stores in the country?"

Tell me how wal-mart fits into this equation, because I don't know what wal-mart does.


"Destroying vital communication equipment and killing off generals is a pretty god damn good way of crippling a military."

You would have to kill a hell of a lot of important people to have any real effect, and it would still only be temporary. What makes you think the military isn't prepared for such an attack? Don't you think they would have an emergency plan?

"Yes I know, I nearly went through OCS."

Does that mean you got dropped or you just didn't go? Cause if you went last summer we were probably there together.

Originally Posted by Bearsy

You say you support the troops? Bring them the fuck home and give everyone who wants it an honorable discharge so they can get back to taking care of America in person. Then everyone here could support them in ways that aren’t a twisted piece of jingoism tied to bumpers with yellow ribbons.

The troops are not protecting me, my family, or my country. Iraq was no threat to the US. The President and his puppeteers, filtered, distorted, and manipulated the information at hand to suggest otherwise. It was lies. You heard half of them yourself. The whole incident, the whole cabal, will be remembered as a horrifying joke. Historians will run races against James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and George W Bush to select the worst US President in history.

The troops are hurting Iraq. Hussein was a beast but he was, of late, a stable and relatively innocuous one. The Baghdad morgue is taking in more than 1,000 murder victims a month and the number has been steadily rising since the war started. It’s also a minimum because many murders go unreported and unrecognized. This is a single city in Iraq where 20,000 civilians will be murdered this year. It will be called civil unrest but 20,000 dead in one city is a combination of anarchy and civil war. In New York City, 1.6 times more populous than Baghdad, there will be around 600 murders this year.

Excerpts from here.

SHUT IT. This is Bush's fault, not the troops. Let's see you support any given cause so much that you would be ready to die for it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"No the implication of that statement was that a country can only survive if there is a band of individuals [ the military ] who use coercion. I should of been more detailed but I didn't think you would outright agree that military force creates a nation. It is rather shocking."

So what the hell are you arguing about? Do you or do you not believe a country can survive without a military? You really need to articulate better because half the time I dont even know what you are trying to say.

A country is an abstract concept. It cannot 'die' or 'survive.' What I was saying before is that I find it shocking that you believe that a country must have a military force to enforce its dictates on the population. It's true but rarely do people say such truthful facts about naked aggression.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive."

You think the police aren't busy enough?

No. I just think that they aren't mutually exclusive. A security company could be used as bodyguards or just regular guards on the street.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"What are these moral reasons for entering a war?"

Justice maybe? Honor, protection, the good of humanity? Is it ethical to allow an act like the September 11th attacks to go unpunished? How about Pearl Harbor? Is it immoral to defend yourself?

Ah yes war for honor. How droll. If there is anything more ridiculous then the belief that a man can win glory in an environment which shows the worst of human nature, then I don't know it. I don't think it is immoral to defend yourself and concerning 9/11, the people who actually attacked us died in the crash. Now the people who funded these people, should they be held accountable? That is a difficult subject. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you to go insane and bite your neighbor...would I be at fault? Am I in control of what you do? Are your actions a result of your choices or are they a result of my dictates?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Very simple. Government can externalize the costs of war onto their citizenry through taxation. No politician actually has to foot the bill. Corporations cannot do that obviously. So why would the consumer base pay for a war beyond corporations in which they do not profit from but retain all the costs for? [ This is of course baring the legality of it which is another argument ]"


It's not like the population will experice a tax hike as a result of a war, the government just taps into the pool of money that already exists. And who says they can't profit? Is winning a war not a profit? If you face conquest from an invading nation, I don't think money will be an issue to the people.

Ha! Yea, we actually do have 13 trillion dollars in gold bars in Fort Knox and don't worry, that recent 750 billion dollars that went into TARP was something we actually have! Do you know what a deficit is? And you think war means profit? Tell me where is the profit in building missiles that explode? Vehicles that consume resources in order to operate? I mean we aren't even talking about rebuilding efforts.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Black markets would 'explode'? Black markets are a result in the criminalization of certain items. They exist because there is still demand for products that governmen"ts ban. It is not as if criminals can't get military weapons now anyways."

Do you think gangsters with criminal records qualify to buy guns? No, they don't, so they buy off the black market. Guns are not banned by the government. And criminals cannot get military grade hardware except for firearms, which is why they should not be sold to the public.

Well certain guns are banned. You yourself admitted that by being glad that military weaponry was banned and sure they can get military grade hardware outside of firearms. It would probably be difficult, expensive and rare but it's possible.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"How can you say what the Vietcong did wasn't 'defense' with a straight face? Were they just happening to attack French and US troops that just happened to be in the area?"

Key word here is "attack." Since when does a defender attack?

What? Are you serious? A defender attacks when the opposition is in their sphere of influence.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How do you still not understand this? The Vietcong did employ certain guerilla tactics, but they were a much more industrial force than the Taliban and most other non-state forces that exist today.

And the Taliban didn't fight Soviet Russia?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There really is no point in analyzing the Vietnam War, for the sake of this argument it is not very relevant. My argument was geared more towards your statement about the Taliban returning to power at some undetermined date in the future.

And it probably will if the people still hold the idea that they should be in power.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Right, US has a pre-determined destiny to police the world. You are the one who is romanticizing your silly position. You cannot coherently state that the world doesn't require a super power but through the mysteries of progression the US has been hand picked by the forces of history to be a super power and we should not shrink from this duty."

Don't twist my words. You are deluding yourself if you think I said anything remotely close to that. If you go back and actually read my argument, you will see that I said natural progression of society, that would imply that nothing is "pre-determined" or 'hand picked", whatever the hell that means.

A natural progression isn't a type of selection process? What is this 'natural progression' if not that?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Well if one were to fight for a business and such a business fails, how likely is one to be viewed as a positive employee in another business?"

I have no idea, how is that relevant to the argument? I do know that a single employee of a large corporation cannot be blamed for the failure of said coporation and would therefore be able to move on with their reputation intact.

Because you think that people who do crappy work in their profession can easily slide into a corporation that is geared toward efficiency.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"argument ad populum."

You better make damn sure you know I've commited a fallacy before you accuse me of doing so. Never did I say it was right to have a sense of honor because the majority of people have one, never.

'I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"You said there are people who won't fight for money. Obviously they will not be private security providers. However, there are people who will."

No shit! There are thousands of them in the Middle East right now. The point was that you would need to amass a force on the order of several million men or more, the likeliness of which ranges from highly improbable to impossible.

Before you were talking about how it isn't about numbers, now you say its about numbers.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"If defending their property, why not?"

Give me an example of a piece of property that a corporation would need to defend with an amount of force equal to an all-out war.

An organization that constantly commits violence against its property. I'm not saying that every corporation should go to war if you drop a candy bar wrapper on their concrete, however, you are saying they would have no legitimate reason period. I disagree and I think there could be.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"I didn't say nations, I said people. Nations are not rational agents. They cannot act. Individuals can act. You stated that the government can fork out security jobs to private industries. I don't believe the government should engage in corporatism or crony capitalism which is essentially favoring certain businesses or markets over others. The free market is devoid of government regulation and interference. "

We are not talking about people, we are talking about nations and their ability to defend themselves.

Nations are not people. They are not actual entities. So yes, we're talking about people.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Then to that extent, the government doesn't defend our rights or us and is therefore lying in its claim to be our agents/protectors."

Then you will never be satisfied. Your corporations are no more capable of providing this perfect security than the government. It is physically impossible for any entity to be in complete control of every threat that exists in every situation. You can just wallow in your discontent.

It can provide security that can better meet my demands as a customer.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"That is absolutely ridiculous if that were to happen. Millions of people hypothetically die but somehow it was a success? You obviously have a bizarre notion of defending a nation or do you mean defending a government? What you label success wouldn't be to individuals who are killed nor their families but if you mean to say that politicians survive and their lives become unaffected by the events, if that is success then I think you are pointing out a powerful claim against yourself. That government only cares about retaining its power in a geographical local and that citizenry are expendable to a certain point."

How very nice of you to take my quote out of context. Haven't you portrayed enough dishonesty for one post? This was an example that was meant to further illustrate my point that you cut out for some reason. You claimed that America was incapable of defending itself because a hijacker was able to fly an airplane into the pentagon and inflict a very minimal amount of damage upon the building. That is a ridiculous statement in itself, so I thought I would reveal this ridiculousness by providing an example of just how far things could go and still technically be a successful defense, thus proving how retarded your statement was. REMEMBER, a successful defense is not a matter of opinion, you either defended your country or you didn't. There are levels of success however.

No I think the government, not America, is incapable of defending itself and by itself I mean that individuals who live in their territorial region are capable of defending themselves either by themselves, by banding together or by contracting individuals capable of defending them.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"No. I don't think the military could crush any nation right now. But it is obvious that no nation is just going to simply paradrop soldiers within our borders. I mean come on this isn't Red Dawn."

I'm glad you don't control our defense. And just out of curiosity, who are these super nations that could theoretically take over America?

China could, Russia probably, maybe India. I don't think they will though and I don't think they are seriously considering it but that wasn't the question. The question was 'who could?'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"You shrug off 9/11 as if it is some kind of exception with extenuating circumstances. "

I didn't shrug it off and I didn't say it was an exception and I didn't say the circumstances were extenuating. You would make an awful journalist.

Well that seems to be what you are implying.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Terrorism isn't some new fad and we are certainly not in control of it. If anything what we are doing is making it worse."

I didn't say terrorism is a fad and I didn't say we are in control of it. Christ!

'Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"I'm not asking them to read minds. I don't see how asking them to do what they have been paid to do is somehow unrealistic. If they can't do it properly then we shouldn't baby them because of what they are. I demand protection without sacrificing rights or living under coercion and I will have my demands meet by someone for the right amount of money. If government can't do that then they should step out of the way and stop their monopoly choke hold on those who wish to satisfy my demand and the demands of others."

"I'm not asking them to read minds." To an extent, yes you are. Your expectations are nothing short of super-human. What you are asking, no human or group of humans can provide, it isn't possible.

Asking someone to do their job isn't asking them to be super-human.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Ah yes, you are actually making a complaint that Marxists usually give to the free-market. 'It's anarchy!' they say. I mean look at all these food providers who are trying to prove they produce the best food, it's madness! I mean if only we could have one food provider and thus one choice in the matter, then everything will be solved and we would all go without want."

Food and national defense are not the same. Obviously a variety in food is good, but you only want one coherent system of defense. The more you complicate it the more it loses coherency.

Ah right, the laws of economics are somehow baffled in the face of the 'one coherent defense system' argument.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Redundancies in protection? Very simple, contractual agreements. It could be individuals or groups of individuals who come together to enlist the aid of private security."

How is that an improvement over the old system? How do you know the government doesn't already have a similar system in place? Explain to me why they would scrap their system and opt for yours if they both accomplish the same goal and use the same methods.

They don't use the same methods. Governments don't achieve their funds through voluntary exchange and are a monopoly. Therefore they have a skew price system and demand curve.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"The same reason the free market beats governmental programs. It establishes a real supply/demand curve, real profit incentive, efficiency through competition and a rise in the standard of living through lowering prices. "

I already told you why the free market doesn't beat the government when it comes to national defense.

So then you are a War socialist. You advocate the state ownership of the means of production when it comes to the military.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Honestly, have you ever seen how corporations work? 'Its not like there are people multi-tasking'? Are you kidding? What the hell do you think Wal-mart, perhaps the lamest company in the US, does? I mean honestly, what do you envision them doing right now with over a thousand stores in the country?"

Tell me how wal-mart fits into this equation, because I don't know what wal-mart does.

You said that corporations don't have 'people multi-tasking.' How do you explain how corporations which compose of thousands of different stores from organizing?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Destroying vital communication equipment and killing off generals is a pretty god damn good way of crippling a military."

You would have to kill a hell of a lot of important people to have any real effect, and it would still only be temporary. What makes you think the military isn't prepared for such an attack? Don't you think they would have an emergency plan?

Again, this is meant to cripple, not to kill. It wasn't like there were a bunch of PT boats with Al-Qaeda terrorists coasting through the Hudson after the attacks.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Yes I know, I nearly went through OCS."

Does that mean you got dropped or you just didn't go? Cause if you went last summer we were probably there together.

Oh no, I didn't go. I got tired of listening to jerk offs trying to break down my individual ego. Plus I asked too many questions, they hate that don't they?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

A country is an abstract concept. It cannot 'die' or 'survive.' What I was saying before is that I find it shocking that you believe that a country must have a military force to enforce its dictates on the population. It's true but rarely do people say such truthful facts about naked aggression.



No. I just think that they aren't mutually exclusive. A security company could be used as bodyguards or just regular guards on the street.



Ah yes war for honor. How droll. If there is anything more ridiculous then the belief that a man can win glory in an environment which shows the worst of human nature, then I don't know it. I don't think it is immoral to defend yourself and concerning 9/11, the people who actually attacked us died in the crash. Now the people who funded these people, should they be held accountable? That is a difficult subject. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you to go insane and bite your neighbor...would I be at fault? Am I in control of what you do? Are your actions a result of your choices or are they a result of my dictates?



Ha! Yea, we actually do have 13 trillion dollars in gold bars in Fort Knox and don't worry, that recent 750 billion dollars that went into TARP was something we actually have! Do you know what a deficit is? And you think war means profit? Tell me where is the profit in building missiles that explode? Vehicles that consume resources in order to operate? I mean we aren't even talking about rebuilding efforts.




Well certain guns are banned. You yourself admitted that by being glad that military weaponry was banned and sure they can get military grade hardware outside of firearms. It would probably be difficult, expensive and rare but it's possible.



What? Are you serious? A defender attacks when the opposition is in their sphere of influence.




And the Taliban didn't fight Soviet Russia?



And it probably will if the people still hold the idea that they should be in power.



A natural progression isn't a type of selection process? What is this 'natural progression' if not that?




Because you think that people who do crappy work in their profession can easily slide into a corporation that is geared toward efficiency.



'I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.'




Before you were talking about how it isn't about numbers, now you say its about numbers.



An organization that constantly commits violence against its property. I'm not saying that every corporation should go to war if you drop a candy bar wrapper on their concrete, however, you are saying they would have no legitimate reason period. I disagree and I think there could be.




Nations are not people. They are not actual entities. So yes, we're talking about people.



It can provide security that can better meet my demands as a customer.



No I think the government, not America, is incapable of defending itself and by itself I mean that individuals who live in their territorial region are capable of defending themselves either by themselves, by banding together or by contracting individuals capable of defending them.



China could, Russia probably, maybe India. I don't think they will though and I don't think they are seriously considering it but that wasn't the question. The question was 'who could?'



Well that seems to be what you are implying.



'Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat.'



Asking someone to do their job isn't asking them to be super-human.



Ah right, the laws of economics are somehow baffled in the face of the 'one coherent defense system' argument.



They don't use the same methods. Governments don't achieve their funds through voluntary exchange and are a monopoly. Therefore they have a skew price system and demand curve.



So then you are a War socialist. You advocate the state ownership of the means of production when it comes to the military.



You said that corporations don't have 'people multi-tasking.' How do you explain how corporations which compose of thousands of different stores from organizing?




Again, this is meant to cripple, not to kill. It wasn't like there were a bunch of PT boats with Al-Qaeda terrorists coasting through the Hudson after the attacks.



Oh no, I didn't go. I got tired of listening to jerk offs trying to break down my individual ego. Plus I asked too many questions, they hate that don't they?

"A country is an abstract concept. It cannot 'die' or 'survive.' What I was saying before is that I find it shocking that you believe that a country must have a military force to enforce its dictates on the population. It's true but rarely do people say such truthful facts about naked aggression."

After several minutes of attempting to decipher this code, I interpret this to mean you agree with me. But I could be completely misinterpreting it.

"No. I just think that they aren't mutually exclusive. A security company could be used as bodyguards or just regular guards on the street."

That still isn't defending the country.

"Ah yes war for honor. How droll. If there is anything more ridiculous then the belief that a man can win glory in an environment which shows the worst of human nature, then I don't know it. I don't think it is immoral to defend yourself and concerning 9/11, the people who actually attacked us died in the crash. Now the people who funded these people, should they be held accountable? That is a difficult subject. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you to go insane and bite your neighbor...would I be at fault? Am I in control of what you do? Are your actions a result of your choices or are they a result of my dictates?"

This is one of the most convoluted, ignoble views of war I have ever read.
"If there is anything more ridiculous then the belief that a man can win glory in an environment which shows the worst of human nature, then I don't know it." Clearly! How are the planners of a terrorist attack not responsible? Just because they don't do the deed themselves doesn't mean they don't have blood on their hands, that's why people go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder. I'll tell you what is not moral, not holding the high ranking terrorists responsible for their crimes and allowing them to live on to kill more people. And again, your biting the hand example is terrible. You keep providing examples that are completley unrelated to the topic (Muffin salesman, wal-mart, food market etc.) If you convince a person to bite your neighbor, yes you are partly responsible especially if the person didn't know better. If you convice that person to murder your neighbor, you would go to jail, so obviously you hold some of the responsibility.

"Ha! Yea, we actually do have 13 trillion dollars in gold bars in Fort Knox and don't worry, that recent 750 billion dollars that went into TARP was something we actually have! Do you know what a deficit is? And you think war means profit? Tell me where is the profit in building missiles that explode? Vehicles that consume resources in order to operate? I mean we aren't even talking about rebuilding efforts."

The deficit didn't stop us before. How do missiles that explode make a profit? How does food that gets shit out your ass make a profit? The government doesn't produce missles, they buy them. All of this doesn't matter because I already stated that money has no effect on a defensive force and it has no effect on the survival of a nation. Are you going to be a penny pincher if you face conquest from an invading nation?

"Well certain guns are banned. You yourself admitted that by being glad that military weaponry was banned and sure they can get military grade hardware outside of firearms. It would probably be difficult, expensive and rare but it's possible. "

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

"What? Are you serious? A defender attacks when the opposition is in their sphere of influence. "

In that moment they are not a defender. It doesn't matter if we are in their country. The Taliban is clearly not defending their government because they have no government anymore, they are trying to win it back.

"And the Taliban didn't fight Soviet Russia?"

Not alone.

"And it probably will if the people still hold the idea that they should be in power."

That is the goal of "War Amongst the People," to win the will of the people. You can't say the majority of Afghans want the Taliban in power because you don't know.

"A natural progression isn't a type of selection process? What is this 'natural progression' if not that?"

You assume a selection process has to be predetermined or manipulated, a natural selection process can be neither.

"Because you think that people who do crappy work in their profession can easily slide into a corporation that is geared toward efficiency."

Not every employee of a failing company is a "crappy worker." If a man is incompetent, that is just a personal problem and the success or failure of his previous employers has no effect on that. And again, it isn't worth dieing for.

"'I don't give two shits what you call it, I just want you to understand that most people don't see it that way, and their opinions are what matter.'"

I know what I said, clearly you misinterpreted what it meant. You would need to include the original question I was responding to in order to understand its context.

"What you call honor, I call idiocy. Merely faux patriotism concerning an artificial construct. I consider it the high of effrontery to presume that that there can be one institution, the military, which is falsely sanctified with the cause of protecting my interests."

The reason the majority's opinion matters is not because it is validated by their majority, but because if refutes your claim that a large amount of people would be willing to fight for a corporation. The majority or people have pride in their national identity and would much rather fight for their country, hence the reason for the importance of their opinion.

"Before you were talking about how it isn't about numbers, now you say its about numbers."

I never said you wouldn't need a large force to defend a nation. I talked about the importance of how you employ your force, but never said a properly employed force is a substitute for a large force. When I said "it's not the size of the force that matters, but the employment of the force," I referring more towards an offensive force. I also added that none of that matters if you are not large enough to defend yourself. There is no substitute for a large defensive force.

"An organization that constantly commits violence against its property. I'm not saying that every corporation should go to war if you drop a candy bar wrapper on their concrete, however, you are saying they would have no legitimate reason period. I disagree and I think there could be."

The reason there can never be a legitimate violent conflict between corporations is because they don't govern any land and there is always legal recourse for a dispute between corporations. If a corporation is "commiting acts of violence against its property," that would be an illigetimate use of force and an illegal use of force, such a corporation would be subject to national and international law.

"Nations are not people. They are not actual entities. So yes, we're talking about people."

We are talking about nations. A defensive force as a whole, not individuals.

"It can provide security that can better meet my demands as a customer."

Maybe that's the problem, you see yourself as a customer rather than a citizen that needs to be protected. Based off of your complaints about the governments performance, you would also be unsatisfied with private security because it would also be unable to provide the type of security you described, which is absolute security, which is impossible.

"No I think the government, not America, is incapable of defending itself and by itself I mean that individuals who live in their territorial region are capable of defending themselves either by themselves, by banding together or by contracting individuals capable of defending them."

What? You are making less and less sense as this goes on. A band of rebels is more capable of defending this country than the government? The government that has amassed the largest industrial force on the planet and lifted America into super-power status?

"China could, Russia probably, maybe India. I don't think they will though and I don't think they are seriously considering it but that wasn't the question. The question was 'who could?'"

OH SHIT! Haha. This one hurts me. None of the above mentioned countries are well off, none have a force that can match the size of our force, the power of our force, the sophistication of our force, they would be fighting in our territory, and one of those countries happens to be a very important ally of ours. Do you know which one?

"Well that seems to be what you are implying."

Maybe you should base your arguments off of what I actually say rather than what you perceive to be my viewpoint.

"'Now that this new threat has risen, we are in control of it and can focus more of our energy and attention towards it since it has proven to be a legitimate threat.'"

Airport security, not global terrorism as a whole. Go back and read again.

"Asking someone to do their job isn't asking them to be super-human."

Asking them to be in control of every possible threat at all times is asking them to be super-human. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, you are judging them based off of you illinformed opinion of what security is.


"Ah right, the laws of economics are somehow baffled in the face of the 'one coherent defense system' argument."

There are exceptions to most rules. We have already discussed how national defense and the military in general is a whole different beast. Just because the free market can produce other services, doesn't mean it can provide national defense. As far as I know, nobody has ever proposed privatizing national defense and military operations in general, what does that mean?

"They don't use the same methods. Governments don't achieve their funds through voluntary exchange and are a monopoly. Therefore they have a skew price system and demand curve."

It doesn't matter how they "acheive their funds."


"You said that corporations don't have 'people multi-tasking.' How do you explain how corporations which compose of thousands of different stores from organizing? "

You are going to have to re-word this question before I even attempt to answer it. I don't have a clue what you mean.

"Again, this is meant to cripple, not to kill. It wasn't like there were a bunch of PT boats with Al-Qaeda terrorists coasting through the Hudson after the attacks."

And they failed to cripple.

"Oh no, I didn't go. I got tired of listening to jerk offs trying to break down my individual ego. Plus I asked too many questions, they hate that don't they?"

What a mature view point.

For those of you who think America's involvement in the fight against terrorism is unecessary or even futile, I present a very insightful series of videos straight from the eyes and mouths of the men who are currently and have long since been fighting this conflict. For once you get the special opportunity to hear an informed opinion, the opinions of military officers and enlisted men who have dedicated their lives to learning every nuance of this global conflict. Special forces is the key to ending an insurgency. It was shear luck that I happened upon this gem of a documentary, it focuses on special forces and their current operations throughout the world, specifically in the Middle East. This is for the people who think we are destroying countries and murdering civilians, and for the people who think insurgencies are invincible or simply a local nuisance. Pay attention, this is how you win a war amongst the people.