Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?

[Gabu]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

[Bono]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

[Gabu]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

I'm not talking about extermination, but simply that they wouldn't need to worry if they accidentally shot an innocent person who they thought posed a threat to them.  If they did worry about such a thing, it's highly unlikely that they would have taken over in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot.

[Beet]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

I'm not talking about extermination, but simply that they wouldn't need to worry if they accidentally shot an innocent person who they thought posed a threat to them.  If they did worry about such a thing, it's highly unlikely that they would have taken over in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot.

The problem with this whole discussing is that Iraq is not a "free state" except insofar as the American government is willing for it to be. Frodo has completely misconstrued the purpose away from creating anarchy (which the insurgents are doing) and safeguarding a free state. The insurgents are in no way capable of establishing any sort of order. Furthermore, as is obvious in Iraq, Americas primary difficulty lies in establishing a self-sustaining democratic state that can survive free of American influence and being self-coherent. If the matter was simply putting down the insurgents, a Saddam-Hussein style (or Waco-style, or Pine Ridge Reservation) repression would do very well. But to truly win one's way over a modern government, requires nuclear weapons, rather than any sort of small arms.

[Bono]

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain.

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

I'm not talking about extermination, but simply that they wouldn't need to worry if they accidentally shot an innocent person who they thought posed a threat to them.  If they did worry about such a thing, it's highly unlikely that they would have taken over in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot.

The problem with this whole discussing is that Iraq is not a "free state" except insofar as the American government is willing for it to be. Frodo has completely misconstrued the purpose away from creating anarchy (which the insurgents are doing) and safeguarding a free state. The insurgents are in no way capable of establishing any sort of order. Furthermore, as is obvious in Iraq, Americas primary difficulty lies in establishing a self-sustaining democratic state that can survive free of American influence and being self-coherent. If the matter was simply putting down the insurgents, a Saddam-Hussein style (or Waco-style, or Pine Ridge Reservation) repression would do very well. But to truly win one's way over a modern government, requires nuclear weapons, rather than any sort of small arms.

YOu are the one who doesn't get it.
It isn't practical to nuke a whole country, not even large portions of it, or the dictators would end up with not much to rule over.
The branch davidians were a few people. It's it totally different to fight a random group that most people consider nuts, than to fight a nation.
On top of that, Iraq's terain is very good for mass army operations, and even though, they're having trouble. Imagine fighting a battle like that in Appalachia?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just to note that the problems in Iraq have been caused largely by large bombs rather than by small-arms.

[Bono]

Just to note that the problems in Iraq have been caused largely by large bombs rather than by small-arms.

Most of those artifacts are rather artesanal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just to note that the problems in Iraq have been caused largely by large bombs rather than by small-arms.

Most of those artifacts are rather artesanal.

You can't really describe them as "small-arms" though. Big arms, maybe.