View Single Post
      08-28-2012, 03:55 PM   #138
carve's Avatar

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by kmarei View Post
So you're saying a foreign army equipped with jets, tanks, rockets, warships, bombers will be brought to a standstill because some of you have guns?
Not at all what I said. I said they wouldn't be able to occupy without completely laying waste to the place first and killing most of the people, leaving not much worth taking but some radioactive dirt.

Frighteningly so. But in all honesty, you don't think that the guy holed-up in Idaho with his arsenal of weapons, waiting for the wave of Sharia-law-indoctrinating Arabs to occupy the US, is more than slightly insane
Originally Posted by straight six
I find it bizarre that so many Americans actually have these demented discussions about being overtaken, and then their bretheran say "right-on!".

I've made no comments about gun ownership, either for sport or protection; it's no different than liking sports cars in my opinion. But this US invasion conspiracy must make us look like the laughing stock of the world.
That's a very short view of history. I'm sure most Romans thought the same about the barbarians. We've not always been the most powerful country, and we won't always be. Hell- we've only had a powerful, standing Army for about 70 years. So no- private weapons won't be needed for national defense anytime soon, but by the time you need them, it's a bit late to get them. Think how much better the Syrians would be doing if they were as well armed as us. Also, the authors of the 2nd amendment were fighting against their own government, so there's always that. I'm sure most Romans before Ceaser didn't think they'd be ruled by tyrant emperors who worked the Senate like puppets. It's completely possible our country could go bankrupt, too. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", and very few people think anything like this will happen any time soon. However, wait long enough and sh!t happens. Things change.

I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time
Now days, we TRY to go to war doing as little damage as possible, with as few civilian causalities as possible (e.g. PGM's vs. carpet bombing a whole city to take down a factory). Then it's easy to move troops in, especially if a significant % of the population is OK with you being there. Invasion is easy- it's the occupation that's the tough part. That's because the locals know the land, know the people, and have nowhere to go and nothing to lose. The Army has to go home someday, and the troops aren't fighting for their homes. Our Army was scared shitless of massed civilian attacks that would occur should we have to invade the Japanese mainland, and most of them didn't have guns.

I think a lot of it is a difference in attitude. You see this American-esque individualistic can-do attitude as ridiculous chest thumping, and we see your...French-esque "I give up- won't even try" attitude as deplorable and craven.

If the point is to invade and annex/colonize, you don't want to destroy everything. Sure, you'll take out "key strategic targets," but you're not going to level everything.
Exactly. The only case where you'd level everything is if the other country was a threat to your existence, and that's a completely different case than whether someone would ever try to occupy the US.

Last edited by carve; 08-29-2012 at 01:23 PM.