I love sex
I hate moral crusaders
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
The forums have moved!
Click here to use the new forums. Enjoy!
Search options (Page 90 of 125)
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Posts found: 2,226 to 2,250 of 3,102
2,226 08-Dec-2008 21:53:00
Re: To Love and Hate (17 replies, posted in General)
2,228 07-Dec-2008 08:37:11
Re: What's the point of having a large modern army? (41 replies, posted in Politics)
> 
sKoE )= wrote:
> > I don't quite get it, on a strategic level, why the US has a large modern army. So perhaps people in the military can explain this to me.
I agree. The Russians are reducing their large army now too -- and are actually going to focus on quality then quantity. Thats the future, i think.>
Well it pretty much already is, since very few countries use conscripted armies anymore. The US has the most advanced and well equipped army in the world, but it also has the largest army in the world. My point is that this is inefficient and expensive, and I propose that naval and air power are a better alternative as the mainstay.
2,229 07-Dec-2008 08:07:52
Topic: What's the point of having a large modern army? (41 replies, posted in Politics)
I don't quite get it, on a strategic level, why the US has a large modern army. So perhaps people in the military can explain this to me.
My thought is this. An army serves two purposes: to eliminate an enemy army and occupy a territory. The US army can defeat an enemy army pretty well, but so can our air force with much less expense. For occupying a territory, it isn't so good at. Sure a single US soldier can do more than a conscripted and less equipped one, but the equipment and upkeep is very expensive. Powerful armies today may employ well equipped and well trained soldiers, but having a large mass of them is impractically expensive. The US' army is large, but not nearly the size of the conscripted armies of World War I or World War II, where 20 million men may have been fielded by a single nation at any time. This small size, expensive army makes occupying several countries impractical, and reduces the ability to project military force elsewhere. This is why the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq is very expensive and there were complaints of our forces being spread too thin, whereas in the days of conscripted soldiers occupation would have been easier and less expensive.
So this leaves us with the fact that a powerful air force can eliminate an army from the skies just fine, and it's inefficient to employ such heavy infantry to occupy a country. Here's an analogy. Nobody would deny that knights were awesome soldiers back in the medieval period, but who in their right mind would have used them to occupy a territory? Sure knights could be better than your average peasant foot soldier at occupation, but using the knights for this purpose would be inefficient.
I think it makes more sense for the US to downsize the army, which to me makes no sense that it is the largest branch of the US, and rely more on the air force and navy. In fact, we shouldn't be afraid to use the air force in a ruthless manner against scum who dare challenge our empire. Level cities if we need to, that always works effectively. Our army should be primarily used to occupy strategic locations and for tactical missions, not for main combat or occupation. Furthermore, by accomplishing our political objectives using our naval and air power, we can eliminate our enemies more efficiently and with less cost, and enjoy more mobility. Our current strategy of using our army to the extent we do has opened a power vacuum by entangling our forces in two countries, and therefore reducing our ability to project force around the world. With a naval and air power centered strategy, we can get in and out and go somewhere else very quickly. Lastly, it's a lot easier to maintain naval and air supremacy than it is ground supremacy (e.g. you're going to know it if someone is building a fleet of aircraft carriers). Moreover, today naval and air supremacy can cancel out ground supremacy. So why the US relies so heavily on ground supremacy confounds me. If you want to occupy a country, it's a lot cheaper to use mercenaries and buy off dictators.
So those are my thoughts. Now I would like to invite people with military experience and a lot more knowledge on the matter to give their thoughts on my reasoning.
2,231 07-Dec-2008 00:33:41
Re: oil@40 (78 replies, posted in Politics)
Whatever. I don't care about Detroit. It's about time the city became a ghost town.
2,232 06-Dec-2008 22:12:06
Re: you laugh, you lose (41 replies, posted in General)
> The Yell wrote:
> here's some WW2 posters modified to refer to Battlefield:2
http://thegizmosgarage.com/BF2Posters.html
http://www.scissorclip.com/images/bail.jpg>
ROFL @ the second link. Especially loved the trap poster at the bottom of link 1 ahaha.
2,235 06-Dec-2008 21:11:08
Re: China (56 replies, posted in Politics)
What did Imperial do to attract so much flaming?
I'm surprised that I haven't gotten any, since I deserve it a lot more.
2,236 06-Dec-2008 18:37:18
Re: you laugh, you lose (41 replies, posted in General)
I don't get how that is even funny.
Yell, you post something funny. You have good taste 
.
2,237 06-Dec-2008 16:45:01
Re: 12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society (160 replies, posted in Politics)
> V.Kemp wrote:
Way to make a random statement without any logic to it!>>
Richard Dawkins agrees with me.
2,238 06-Dec-2008 00:12:16
Re: TI recruiting again! (120 replies, posted in General)
Who would want to be an idiot?
2,239 05-Dec-2008 21:46:29
Re: 12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society (160 replies, posted in Politics)
There are homosexuals because there are some genes that are beneficial to one gender and not for another, eg manifesting in homosexuality.
Anyway my argument against gay marriage is perfect and irrefutable. To say it more simply.
1. The only reasons for gay marriage are either as a formality or to give them equal benefits as heterosexual couples.
2. Legal marriage as strictly a matter of formality does not square with experience and would amount to pointless paperwork for the government.
3. When judging access to equal benefits, we need to test if gay couples satisfy the practical reasons that those benefits are given to straight couples. They fail that test.
____
3. The reasons given for gay marriage do not work.
I then provided support for 2 and 3 to exhaust any counter arguments.
PWNED!
2,240 04-Dec-2008 22:10:18
Re: 12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society (160 replies, posted in Politics)
As I said in my previous post, getting married as a matter of formality is pointless paper work for the state, which involves tax dollars.
2,241 04-Dec-2008 21:44:12
Re: 12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society (160 replies, posted in Politics)
As long as there is a small distribution of people in society who are homosexuals, then there's nothing wrong with them being homosexual. As to the causes of homosexuality, it's probably both psychological and genetic depending on the circumstances surrounding the individual.
I think homosexuals should be allowed to be homosexuals as long as there are restrictions on advertisement and they aren't harming society, and I think they should enjoy similar rights as everyone else and be judged by their individual merit. That said, I don't think they should be allowed to get married for practical reasons. There is utility in giving married heterosexual couples special benefits as incentives for producing children. Now one might say, "Well then why not forbid sterile people to get married." You could do that, but that would create a messy network of legal conditions for marriage. Simply saying "A gets our desired result 98% of the time is reason enough for A, and trying to cover that other 2% is an inefficient use of our resources." As for homosexuals getting married, well reproduction just never happens. Now you could say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because then they could adopt, and that would increase supply for high demand to adopt babies, but the fact is is that we have insufficient evidence that children turn out as productive citizens of society when raised by homosexual couples. And because of our great responsibility to raise children in to productive citizens, it is just too risky to do such an experiment. Therefore homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children. Because we should not allow homosexuals to adopt children, we should not allow them to receive marriage benefits. Now you could concede that homosexuals should be denied such benefits, but then say that they love each other and therefore should be allowed to get married. My answer to that is why should we care about marriage and go through the trouble of legal documentation if it's just about formality?
2,242 04-Dec-2008 18:26:19
Re: European Union (89 replies, posted in Politics)
> Schniepel wrote:
> the question is.. is britain included when we talk about a united europe?>
The three times that was about to happen, Britain declared war.
2,243 04-Dec-2008 14:42:32
Re: European Union (89 replies, posted in Politics)
Yeah you Brits still haven't fully realized that the British Empire has fallen, and you are no longer the independent super power that everyone hates and do whatever you want. Today, America satisfies that role .
2,244 03-Dec-2008 06:07:32
Re: Canada's Government (41 replies, posted in Politics)
> avogadro wrote:
> government exists because people try to control others. and they create a demand for services they can provide that the current form isnt, inorder to gain power.
and satisfying public demand might of been doable when countries had less pop, less educated pop, and worse communication, but nowadays, appeasing everyone is impossible. the best way to stay off rebellion is to give the other groups an opportunity to gain power via democratic elections.>>
Eh. Well the advantage of having political power is the ability to control others. But rebellion really isn't an issue if you have the media regulated, and are able to adequately administrate public services and manage the economy and diplomacy. People just don't get up and rebel because they disagree with government on ideological issues, they do it because they're hungry or fed up with neglect and inefficiency.
2,245 03-Dec-2008 05:52:59
Re: Canada's Government (41 replies, posted in Politics)
Government exists because there's demand for the services it provides, and it uses the structure and resources it acquires by doing such in order to expand and exercise its power.
A government of a state where the political, economic and social structures are unable to supply demand will be threatened in favor of one that promises to deliver. That is why Hitler came to power, and that is why the Communism declined.
There is nothing government ought to do. But a necessary component of a successful government is an ability to efficiently satisfy public demand, and empower and direct the economic and social structures to also satisfy demand.
2,246 03-Dec-2008 05:40:18
Re: Canada's Government (41 replies, posted in Politics)
But meritocratic autocracy works great. The Romans tried that and had a succession of "5 good emperors."
2,247 02-Dec-2008 02:07:43
Re: Best games ev0r (63 replies, posted in General)
Age of Empires... You mean to tell me that a game where all you do is mass archers or siege engines and pwn everything is worthy of greatest status? Kids these days have no taste...
TB: Rome: Total War
RTS: Starcraft
RPG: Final Fantasy IV
2,248 01-Dec-2008 17:10:15
Re: European Union (89 replies, posted in Politics)
Or the US can rule Europe .
We should be concerned not about a united Europe, but a united West. Imagine the supreme power of an empire like that!
2,249 30-Nov-2008 14:38:06
Re: Empirical Testability (21 replies, posted in Politics)
> V.Kemp wrote:
> So you don't believe philosophy and reason have any value?>
You could consider that a philosophy, though it would limit valuable philosophies down to the skeptical/empiricists.
2,250 30-Nov-2008 09:01:16
Topic: Empirical Testability (21 replies, posted in Politics)
I would like to know the value that you place on things being empirically testable when you formulate your beliefs. By empirically testable, I mean that a belief can be tested from experience to be false. For example, the belief that I have 5 blue pens can be tested with my sense of sight. More complex beliefs may require instruments such as a microscope. By contrast, statements like "there are cloaked aliens on the moon" are not empirically testable. We have no means of designing an experiment to test that it's false. Perhaps a better term would be falsifiability.
Though I think a lot of people expect things to be testable, they will allow some exceptions for things like religion and ethics. For me, I take a very radical approach. If it can't be empirically tested, I am not going to assent to it. Instead, I am going to suspend judgment about it.
What's your stance?
Posts found: 2,226 to 2,250 of 3,102
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.