Hypothetical- What would you rather have?
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Oaf
Our shop in Montreal employ's a Para from 2 Commando...strange fellow....he wanted to take me to a strip joint to show off his wife(a stripper)...apperantly every Friday he takes the guys from his shift to watch his wife work.
LOL
That fresh Canadian air has its side effects.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,152
From: ex-post whore
Car Info: Aspin '02 WRX sedan
Originally Posted by Oaf
Our shop in Montreal employ's a Para from 2 Commando...strange fellow....he wanted to take me to a strip joint to show off his wife(a stripper)...apperantly every Friday he takes the guys from his shift to watch his wife work.
so if you were a citizen of a country who was to be invaded and you could pick the invading army who would you pick?
I would pick the US army as it would allow me to manipulate the situation into a manner in which it would benefit my posistion of rebeling against said invasion. IE if the biggest and baddest in the block comes to beat up on you if you are smart you can make it seem like they are bullying you around and being a general nuisance. ESP if they dont have everyone on the block supporting them. That in combination with the US's superior firepower and technology (which would lead them to many tactical and strategic blunders and possibly under estimating their enemy which would be me and my band) i think it would be harder to fight the US. But as it would be the US invading it would make the stakes that much higher. I think it would in the case of mounting nad creatina civil insurgency it would be best to have the most feared and largest opponent you possibly could have. As well as the US is goverened by certain laws weither it wants to admit it or not, not like the us army can just go and kill an entire town and not have hell to pay. Its like a giant with his hands tied behind his back.
Make sense? The US given its current socio political situation is the perfect enemy to wage a insurgency or guerilla war against. Its deeply divided, segrageted, and tightly controlled by a corrupt media and goverment. Many if not most of its citizens are disenfranchised with the system of goverment they have. And to top it off the economy and devaluation of its currency is not looking good.
Just my two cents
I would pick the US army as it would allow me to manipulate the situation into a manner in which it would benefit my posistion of rebeling against said invasion. IE if the biggest and baddest in the block comes to beat up on you if you are smart you can make it seem like they are bullying you around and being a general nuisance. ESP if they dont have everyone on the block supporting them. That in combination with the US's superior firepower and technology (which would lead them to many tactical and strategic blunders and possibly under estimating their enemy which would be me and my band) i think it would be harder to fight the US. But as it would be the US invading it would make the stakes that much higher. I think it would in the case of mounting nad creatina civil insurgency it would be best to have the most feared and largest opponent you possibly could have. As well as the US is goverened by certain laws weither it wants to admit it or not, not like the us army can just go and kill an entire town and not have hell to pay. Its like a giant with his hands tied behind his back.
Make sense? The US given its current socio political situation is the perfect enemy to wage a insurgency or guerilla war against. Its deeply divided, segrageted, and tightly controlled by a corrupt media and goverment. Many if not most of its citizens are disenfranchised with the system of goverment they have. And to top it off the economy and devaluation of its currency is not looking good.
Just my two cents
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
so if you were a citizen of a country who was to be invaded and you could pick the invading army who would you pick?
I would pick the US army as it would allow me to manipulate the situation into a manner in which it would benefit my posistion of rebeling against said invasion. IE if the biggest and baddest in the block comes to beat up on you if you are smart you can make it seem like they are bullying you around and being a general nuisance. ESP if they dont have everyone on the block supporting them. That in combination with the US's superior firepower and technology (which would lead them to many tactical and strategic blunders and possibly under estimating their enemy which would be me and my band) i think it would be harder to fight the US. But as it would be the US invading it would make the stakes that much higher. I think it would in the case of mounting nad creatina civil insurgency it would be best to have the most feared and largest opponent you possibly could have. As well as the US is goverened by certain laws weither it wants to admit it or not, not like the us army can just go and kill an entire town and not have hell to pay. Its like a giant with his hands tied behind his back.
Make sense? The US given its current socio political situation is the perfect enemy to wage a insurgency or guerilla war against. Its deeply divided, segrageted, and tightly controlled by a corrupt media and goverment. Many if not most of its citizens are disenfranchised with the system of goverment they have. And to top it off the economy and devaluation of its currency is not looking good.
Just my two cents
I would pick the US army as it would allow me to manipulate the situation into a manner in which it would benefit my posistion of rebeling against said invasion. IE if the biggest and baddest in the block comes to beat up on you if you are smart you can make it seem like they are bullying you around and being a general nuisance. ESP if they dont have everyone on the block supporting them. That in combination with the US's superior firepower and technology (which would lead them to many tactical and strategic blunders and possibly under estimating their enemy which would be me and my band) i think it would be harder to fight the US. But as it would be the US invading it would make the stakes that much higher. I think it would in the case of mounting nad creatina civil insurgency it would be best to have the most feared and largest opponent you possibly could have. As well as the US is goverened by certain laws weither it wants to admit it or not, not like the us army can just go and kill an entire town and not have hell to pay. Its like a giant with his hands tied behind his back.
Make sense? The US given its current socio political situation is the perfect enemy to wage a insurgency or guerilla war against. Its deeply divided, segrageted, and tightly controlled by a corrupt media and goverment. Many if not most of its citizens are disenfranchised with the system of goverment they have. And to top it off the economy and devaluation of its currency is not looking good.
Just my two cents
I agree with almost everything you said.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Side note: Your patriotism is inspiring. I think I'll call you motivator from now on.
Thanks for pledging your blood to the US, Motivator.
Thanks for pledging your blood to the US, Motivator.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by BlingBlingBlue
I have no idea what you're talking about. But I will say most animals fight back when cornered. I expect that I would be no different.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by dub2w
Key word is invasion
IMO this is a red herring across the real issue... that being, why are we invading countries in the first place?
IMO this is a red herring across the real issue... that being, why are we invading countries in the first place?
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by dub2w
Key word is invasion
IMO this is a red herring across the real issue... that being, why are we invading countries in the first place?
IMO this is a red herring across the real issue... that being, why are we invading countries in the first place?
Some countries need invading in order to stop abhorant activities.
Look at the whole Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia mess ofthe early '90's.
The US more or less invaded the Balkans, under weak UN/NATO support. Hardly a word was uttered in protest.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by Oaf
This is a little off topic, but since you asked....
Some countries need invading in order to stop abhorant activities.
Look at the whole Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia mess ofthe early '90's.
The US more or less invaded the Balkans, under weak UN/NATO support. Hardly a word was uttered in protest.
Some countries need invading in order to stop abhorant activities.
Look at the whole Serbia/Kosovo/Croatia mess ofthe early '90's.
The US more or less invaded the Balkans, under weak UN/NATO support. Hardly a word was uttered in protest.
Stopping abhorent activities in other countries is not invading...
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: in·vade
Pronunciation: in-'vAd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go -- more at WADE
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
Good to see that we have conceded to the fact that we indeed invaded Iraq (that is, entered for conquest or more specifically plunder)
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Tomato...Tomahto.
And yes, we did "invade" Iraq.
Just like we "invaded" the Balkans.
Just like we "invaded" Panama.
Just like we "invaded" Viet Nam.
Just like we "invaded" Korea.
Just like we "invaded" France/Belgium/Holland/Luxemburg/Austria/Germany.
And yes, we did "invade" Iraq.
Just like we "invaded" the Balkans.
Just like we "invaded" Panama.
Just like we "invaded" Viet Nam.
Just like we "invaded" Korea.
Just like we "invaded" France/Belgium/Holland/Luxemburg/Austria/Germany.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Oaf
Tomato...Tomahto.
And yes, we did "invade" Iraq.
Just like we "invaded" the Balkans.
Just like we "invaded" Panama.
Just like we "invaded" Viet Nam.
Just like we "invaded" Korea.
Just like we "invaded" France/Belgium/Holland/Luxemburg/Austria/Germany.
And yes, we did "invade" Iraq.
Just like we "invaded" the Balkans.
Just like we "invaded" Panama.
Just like we "invaded" Viet Nam.
Just like we "invaded" Korea.
Just like we "invaded" France/Belgium/Holland/Luxemburg/Austria/Germany.
You forgot Somalia and Grenada