Oversimplification. One, you win a war by making the other side give up its ideals--and when one of your biggest reasons for fighting is that the other person will wipe you out even if you don't fight back...
Two, we didn't win the American Revolution singlehandedly. The only really "good" war we won singlehandedly was our Civil War. Though I'm sure you'd have opposed that, given your earlier posts...
in the first two years of the war we had two major supply problems. 1: we had FAR too many rifles and far too few muskets in the general army's mind and 2: we didnt have the powder needed to function in war. despite the fact that the american business of rifle making was booming at the time there were no real production centers of powder. most of it was "downright primitive".
the united states marine corps' first amphibious landing assaulting british forces in the bahamas with the single goal of capturing enough ammunition for washington's planned battle at trenton. such was the scarcity of the stuff. the munitions captured allowed the american forces(whom were FAR more accurate then europeans but still not their betters in shock action) to beat the hessian garrison, while washington could have even attempted at forcing the british to withdraw from the americas by pressing on in the gap formed and capturing the british army's pay he did recognize that his meager force was far too exhausted to continue and ended the campaign season.
the fact was, that britian had a CHANCE of winning the war by breaking the will of the highest echelon of leaders. there were enough "torries" around to evidence that support for the war was not so overwhelming that britain initially did not have to actually control all the ground to force a peace. however as the war wore on that changed and victory became an impossibility, especially since the continental army did indeed manage to get arms for its men.
simple fact. there are only three or four ways to control a nation with a hostile population. 1: force to space ratio, 2: scorched earth, 3: a century long fortress strategy(how the english conquered the welsh) and 4: using the leadership of the country to enslave itself for you thus giving the illusion of legitimacy in the system and preventing hostilities from boiling over.
most failed occupations in history were based on one simple truth. lack of force to space ratio. once again thats why napoleon was unable to actually keep control of spain, and actually why france was not chopped up into little pieces when napoleon was defeated....
You love war. There's more to history than that.
you have to study it all to really start understanding. like how the english spoke french in court in the early years, or the intricities of monarchial germany with its class system and inner racism. some of the former german city states retained ability to deal independently with the outside world till the 30's for example.
however, war is such a dominating factor in history that its very difficult NOT to bring it into everything else. man kind is constantly at war with itself and the repercussions are everywhere. european culture was dramatically changed by a bunch of seaborn raiders for example. how can you study the other things and ignore that?
No, you're one of the far-too-many ignorant enough to dismiss anything that didn't happen on the battlefield. Congratulations! Your parents must be proud.
alright my boy lets discuss one thing that americans recognize as what universally made us so successful at the start of the 1900s. mass production, specificly of things like cars, refrigerators and so on.
now all of that relied on a single piece of rather difficult complex technology. completely universal replaceable parts. before then every last machine was unique in some way or another and had to be hand fitted, ESPECIALLY firearms.
well it turned out that a man named hall became fascinated with firearms. he wasnt a gunsmith or nothing, he just recognized the superiority of the rifle and decided to improve on it. he realized that he couldn't improve on the actual accuracy of a weapon already renowned for it but he could improve its rate of fire. with that hall invented one of the first reliable safe breach loading black powder rifles. the original was flintlock but then when percussion caps became popular it was upgraded.
well, the thing was that hall's "factory" could only produce 20 a month. even when he finally did get the government's ear to adopt the new weapon he couldnt meet the demands of the government so no contract. so two years later he proposed a new plan, he wasn't selling his rifle so much as selling the idea of a completely universal firearm. each with identical parts that would work in all firearms of the same model or "pattern". now hall was not the original thinker of this idea, a man in france achieved limited sucess with this and boosted arms output tremendously for france.
long story short the government liked the idea, gave hall a factory and money. there hall developed the fundamentals of american mass production. he didnt really invent more firearms but invented machines like a screw lathe and so on. production soared and the government was pleased.
so army engineers in the ordinance department worked in hall's facilities. they gained the knowledge of how he made the universal parts, and how he ran the factory. this knowledge soon began to spread across the country not just in arms industries. the founder of the crystler company for example was a former army engineer educated in hall's systems. my friend, america was made by the rifle. it brought us much needed wealth from abroad after the civil war, it tought the world mass production, and it created a nation of imagination and innovation.
im sorry to say but to a very large degree our nation was made by the rifle.
Does Hamas have those now too? You know, your description makes 'em sound pretty high-tech--kinda like something we'd be more likely to have the technology for than a group that has to suicide-bomb if it wants to kill Israelis because it doesn't have any proper guns...
air bursters high tech? please..... and btw i was talkin about what israel could have been using. hamas likes rockets and mortars because launchers are lighter and easy to move. a howister however is heavy and not so mobile. hamas also likes mortars because they are so simple that a monkey could make one.......
"Objective" used here to mean "self-righteously ignorant apathetic toward anything that focuses on human lives rather than religion and/or money."
religion? money? bah. im talking about a battle of culture here. israel is like us, hamas is not. israel values freedom and human rights similar to ours amongst its own, hamas does not. you dont support those with opposing world views as your own, it just is not done my friend.
That's because you watch Fox News. Try getting some of the coverage LinkTV shows for a couple days. Either you'll walk away knowing something, or you'll die of an aneurysm from trying to find rationalizations around everything.
Here's something funny, though--Israeli media actually gives dissenters on the subject more airtime than American media. They get better coverage on the killings and whatnot, too.
i wasn't quoting anything from fox news exept body counts which a double check on google shows that fox news isnt saying anything different there then the rest of the world.
Hamas wouldn't need to exist if Palestine had Israel's resources. The people would already have schools, and roads, and hospitals, and they wouldn't need Hamas to build them.
from what i've read online all those schools and hospitals while hamas supported(why wouldnt they? improvements like that only empower themselves) are primarily funded by the un. "un hospital", "un school". sounds like the un actually was trying for once. unfortunately for their efforts hamas got violent with a power much stronger then themselves.
And Israel cramming the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller territory every year is nothing like Germany's actions?
and israel giving up gaza years ago is pushing them into smaller and smaller territory?
Remember kids, killing is only bad when it's people you have personal grievances with. If it's somebody overseas who has a family and has never done anything against you or yours in your life, it's A-OK to kill him; after all, it's just business.
ya and i suppose people everywhere should lead foreign nations attack them all the time as they please. we should have done what the japanese wanted at pearl harbor, gave up and went to the peace table talking out of fear of re opening trade so japan could get the oil and steel it needed. we REALLY should have done that..... and israel should cower in fear and give hamas everything it wants.
WAR IS NOT AN ATROCITY. often people will use violence, the supreme authority to try to get what they want. there honestly is nothing to do except kill them. otherwise they will kill you, rape your wife in front of your children and then chop up your pathetic spawn into little pieces. what are you supposed to do then? let him do it? or are you going to pick up a gun and shoot the asshole in the face?
Violence in itself? As in, violence for its own sake?
It doesn't. How is that an unreasonable sta--
Wait, you just called the Israeli invasion violence for violence's sake.
And still endorse it.
You know, people like you are why I support eugenics and sterilizing mental patients. It may not be 100% effective in reducing the number of amoral war-hawks, but even basic preventive measures are better than none.
nope i meant that the modern bleeding heart movement views any violence what so ever as bad, even if its in self defense. "no you cant kill that guy its wrong.....", "but the fucker just shot 3 people and still has the pistol!". same case in israel, as i said there is no super ninja "a team" in the world that can charge into gaza, disarm hamas and get out. the only way israel can ensure the health of its people is disarm hamas by force of arms.
That's only a valid argument if the US is incontrovertibly right 100% of the time.
Kill it with fire.
no, its a valid argument if you believe our cultural views of human rights and economics(generally shared by western europe) are right or not. either way, as i said you support people who support your crusade, not the other way around.
Did you know the Qu'ran prohibits people from collecting interest on loans?
and without that we wouldn't have a financial industry. now its your own fault for accepting a loan with a ridiculous interest rate, but saying that all interest rates should be abolished?
Why is it that this argument never fails to remind me of the nuns from Chrono Trigger?
"All we want is world peace...
Or a peace of the world, tee hee."
read up on how many times israel has defeated its neighbors, then read up exactly how much land they have taken from them. then read up on how much land they have given back. honestly their actions demonstrate that they dont want any more land then what they have now.
Then it clearly has insufficient might, and thereby no right to exist by your reasoning.
Thank you, fail again.
wtf?/???? now your even getting more over the top then me!!!!! wow! amazing
i didnt say any such thing..... jesus..... i said that if israel ceased to have such a functioning army all those arab states would descend on it and devour it whole, like they tried so many times. and outright war has not broken out against israel in a while because they recognize that they dont have the strength to defeat it so overtly. its a war thats been going on since 1948, just because the palistinians sometimes have been the only ones keeping the pressure on doesnt mean the other players aren't watching and biding their time.
Never mind that the Palestinians' rockets have barely the explosive power of a half-soaked firecracker and most don't go more than 300 yards when fired. Never mind that they don't have any proper armies and that nobody sells them shiny new American weapons.
um bud, a light mortar can go 2k.... a rocket, well too variable but regular artillery and many cheep rocket artillery can go 20, 30k. but either way it demonstrates that israel and egypt's embargo did indeed have the desired effect. hamas doesnt have substantial arms to do much against israel. though those rockets ARE very powerful, its just like regular artillery in the fact that one honestly isnt gonna do much however......
Sadly, you're 100% right here--America's foreign policy's been "might makes right" ever since we formed a navy.
edit: original content removed because it would likely result in more diarrhea flung in my direction.
back that statement up. honestly, do it. so far i havent seen a single sign that you know what the hell your talking about. so give us a history lesson about how the united states has been the biggest bunch of arms toting war mongering evil doers, do that all the way through present and that includes covering our isolationist era after the imperialist era. good fucking luck. god, i had a flame fest here for ya first but i decided that it would decend this "argument" into even more of a stink fest. man inflamed into a modern moron by the anti bush retoric vs (a non bush supporter) a man who avidly studies. GO!