Nah, actually fun, if you're in the right unit.Dilbert_X wrote:
Isn't being in the army punishment enough?
Search
Search results: 3,340 found, showing up to 50
So, who all is left around here?
It generally even has a uniform.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's simple: rebellion has been packaged, marketed and sold
1970's and 1980's it was leather jackets, Doc Marten boots, jeans, wallet chains.
Angsty teens and twenties rebellion.
It has a uniform of accepted clothing styles, a market demographic, and a soundtrack.
Part of the approved and accepted transition into adulthood in the Western world.
Flappers, Greasers, Hippies, Stoners, Punk, Goth, Emo, Hipsters.
It changes over time, but it's a controlled outlet for that youthful energy and enthusiasm.
What is your major fucking delusion?13urnzz wrote:
about your love affair with atg, retard. fuck off
I have nothing to do with your lovers feud with ATG.
I have nothing to do with you.
Take your crazy somewhere else.
My "experience in the dustbowl" boils down to a few key observations.
- The Haves are running over the Have Nots of the world. It's not that hate them, it's not that they don't give a damn about them, it's that they don't even think of them at all.
- "There is more wrong done in the world by Apathy than by Malice"
- Generals make poor statesmen, and politicians make poor military planners
- Colonels with a Plan are the mother of all fuckups
- The more money involved in a project, the less common sense and compassion play a role
- The biggest problem with national governments is that it attracts politicians obsessed with ONLY power & control, purely for the sake of power & control. People interested in fairness, compassion, and such get run the fuck over by the psychos on a mad obsessive quest for power, control, and money.
- "The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is their inefficiency"
- Good people get mangled and dead, bad people don't get what they deserve, and apathetic people just keep being mindless drones
- Take away a people's pride, future, jobs, and infrastructure and you will have violence. Religion, culture, politics, nationalism, and everything else are just excuses used to rationalize the violence.
- The world is random, capricious, violent, and unfair. If you find a corner of the world with the persistent illusion of fairness, peace, and sanity - protect it with your life.
- An inexperienced Private is a danger to himself and a few others. An inexperience officer is dangerous to many others.
- Helicopters are the most perfect target ever invented
- You can never be where you're supposed to be, with all the equipment you need. If you're where you're supposed to be, you didn't bring enough equipment. If you have all the equipment, there's no way you can get it all where you need to be. This is infinitely magnified in the case of medical gear & trauma medicine.
I get your point in the first paragraph.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's funny cause your "history lessons" focus on (in)direct political control, and such like consequences of american interventionism post-1990. but really neocolonialism/imperialism is defined by a complete lack of care about aforementioned political control. you are trying to disprove the usefulness of the term, whilst detailing at some length the exact reasons the term is valid. which, again, just merely highlights the fact you don't understand the term. "psychotic international business" IS exactly part of neocolonialist discourse: a level of foreign involvement that doesn't even care about regional/national politics, or exerting any sort of formal/political control - just, instead, laying the ground for fertile business relations, and a more open (and internationalised) market presence. the american industrial-military complex, and the obvious and oft-mentioned natural resources, are major imperatives for the wars in the middle-east. just like american scorn of chavez and other central/south american states in 20th century history was about economic benefits, more so than any cold-war related political-ideological struggle.
please read the books. you diss academics and 'ivory towers' with the dumb logic of the grunt who thinks that, because he's stomped a few afghani children, and shot a few goatherds, is entitled to make policy in a senior position as part of a washington thinktank. all the military vets here have the same attitude: "you weren't there man" / "my experience informs a more extensive knowledge of geopolitical matters". half the grunts in iraq couldn't even pass a written exam to get into a decent college. please. tell me more about how academics are useless.
I understand the term just fine.
I still think you refuse to grasp the distinction I'm making.
Your first paragraph is actually rather well written and level headed.
In your second paragraph, you're just being an irritating irrational little twat.
You are being completely fucking dense.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
lol yes. i must go to iraq and shoot donkey herders in order to understand what the concept of 'neocolonialism' means.
you dumb fuck.
Did I say your prissy effeminate effete blue-blooded snobbish little ass should join the military?
No way. It is wholly beyond your capabilities. This is a given.
You look down your nose at soldiering, we get it.
Peasants and simpletons become soldiers, not proper nobility such as yourself...
I said, "Climb down from your Ivory Tower, go see the world" and "All your "propper" fucking books don't mean a goddamned thing if the person reading them lacks the experience and perspective to know what the fuck he's reading".
You want to discuss things with people that have "read the proper books", then fuck off to your Ivory Tower and circle-jerk with the academia.
Again, you show your youth and inexperience.
You continually misrepresent what I've written, instead going off on your vain little hissy fits to masturbate your own ego.
"you diss academics" - No, dumbass, I'm telling YOU that YOU lack experience and perspective.
For an educated man, you certainly have a difficult time parsing complete thoughts without wandering off into your own imagination.
Education without experience leads to theorists divorced from reality.
"please read the books.", "dumb logic of the grunt", "all the military vets here have the same attitude", "couldn't even pass a written exam"
Holy shit.. could you be any more of a condescending egotistical little punk?
"please. tell me more about how academics are useless. "
No, that's your own little creation there.
MY view is that academics without practical experience & perspective are useless
This is coming from my engineering education & experience, and my medical education & experience.
Listen, you condescending little fuckstick..Uzique The Lesser wrote:
when clearly you haven't read a single proper thing on the subject. this is painfully evident as your own personal definitions you offer (contra 'neocolonialism'), are exactly the same thing as-defined by the so-called useless experts.
You fail to grasp the ONE point I'm trying to explain. One little fucking point.
Then you misconstrue what I wrote just for ... what? argument fodder?
"haven't read a single proper thing on the subject"
All your "propper" fucking books don't mean a goddamned thing if the person reading them lacks the experience and perspective to know what the fuck he's reading.
Climb down from your Ivory Tower, go see the world
If you want a fixed point in history where the model fundamentally changed, it would be the 1990 Gulf War.
We didn't "liberate" Kuwait, or bring "freedom" to Iraq.
We didn't change any cultures.
No, we went in, gave Kuwait back to the same royal assholes that ran it before Saddam made a land grab.
Then we left Saddam in control of Iraq (for the time being).
Who runs Iraq now?
The useful parts are under Iranian Shia influence.
The rest of it is a cesspool of corruption and petty influence peddling, last I checked.
And the USA isn't going to do a damned thing to change that.
We're done there.
We took out Saddam, changed the power balance in the region to Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs Israel in one part, and Pakistan vs India in the other part.
When we leave Afghanistan, Karzai will be (in name) in charge of the major urban centers, and the tribals will be being tribal in their tribal regions.
Same as it ever was.
Really rather fascinating, the history of how presumptive "rulers" of Afghanistan have occupied Kabul and/or Khandahar, only to find themselves imprisioned in a 'gilded cage' within those cities.
And, again, the point of this excursion into history lessons is to show how the "new imperialism" is NOT the "old imperialism".
A new word is needed to describe the "new imperialism", as the old word has a history and methodology that does not describe the current world.
Neocolonialism, or new imperialism died in 1990.
Call it "psychotic international business", call it "post-neocolonial-imperialism", call it "capitalism on crack".
Doesn't matter what you call it, really.
Just don't call it by the name of it's predecessor.
The modern 21st century incarnation is different,
just as 20th century neocolonialism was different from 19th century Great Game era imperialism,
which was different from 18th century colonialism.
We didn't "liberate" Kuwait, or bring "freedom" to Iraq.
We didn't change any cultures.
No, we went in, gave Kuwait back to the same royal assholes that ran it before Saddam made a land grab.
Then we left Saddam in control of Iraq (for the time being).
Who runs Iraq now?
The useful parts are under Iranian Shia influence.
The rest of it is a cesspool of corruption and petty influence peddling, last I checked.
And the USA isn't going to do a damned thing to change that.
We're done there.
We took out Saddam, changed the power balance in the region to Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs Israel in one part, and Pakistan vs India in the other part.
When we leave Afghanistan, Karzai will be (in name) in charge of the major urban centers, and the tribals will be being tribal in their tribal regions.
Same as it ever was.
Really rather fascinating, the history of how presumptive "rulers" of Afghanistan have occupied Kabul and/or Khandahar, only to find themselves imprisioned in a 'gilded cage' within those cities.
And, again, the point of this excursion into history lessons is to show how the "new imperialism" is NOT the "old imperialism".
A new word is needed to describe the "new imperialism", as the old word has a history and methodology that does not describe the current world.
Neocolonialism, or new imperialism died in 1990.
Call it "psychotic international business", call it "post-neocolonial-imperialism", call it "capitalism on crack".
Doesn't matter what you call it, really.
Just don't call it by the name of it's predecessor.
The modern 21st century incarnation is different,
just as 20th century neocolonialism was different from 19th century Great Game era imperialism,
which was different from 18th century colonialism.
Why don't you try reading what you quoted, smartass.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
are you not even reading?
Again,The term neo-colonialism was coined by the Ghanaian politician Kwame Nkrumah, to describe the socio-economic and political control that can be exercised economically, linguistically, and culturally, whereby promotion of the culture of the neo-colonist country facilitates the cultural assimilation of the colonised people and thus opens the national economy to the multinational corporations of the neo-colonial country.
The end goals are nearly the same ("opens the national economy to the multinational corporations"), the defining methods have changed.RDX-fX wrote:
The whole concept of "spreading freedom & democracy" around the world is an outdated Cold War ideological prop.
We are no longer in the business of spreading American culture around the world - we are in a culture of spreading American business around the world.
Again, with a key difference.RDX-fX wrote:
Influence through business and money is the new control.
No pretense of culture, freedom, or democracy.
Setting regional powers against each other is the new "intervention"
We don't have the national will to indefinitely occupy the Middle East or Asia with our own troops.
We don't really care about 'opening foreign markets'.
We don't give a shit about opening up a few more McDonalds in Turkey or Tokyo.
We want THEIR markets to come to US.
Ship us your oil, your cheaply manufactured goods.
We don't give a shit about your domestic market, your domestic politics, your religions, your sweatshop child labor, your forced movement of farmers to factories.
Again, the model has changed.
The viewpoint you are referencing is out of date.
Which, for the Nth and final time, is exactly my point;
The term "imperialism" is wrong, it is outdated, it implies fundamentals that are no longer true, and describes policies and perceptions that are no longer current practice.
Put on the mannerisms and affectations without becoming too Westernized.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you have to be white, well educated, and good looking. then you get to look after rich asian's kids, who basically want their kids to go onto good ivy-type universities in the west, and put on the mannerisms and affectations of the white posh elite. thus i am a role model. thus i shall rake in grands. thus i shall bang many asians. thus shall be my righteous might.
FTFY
"thus i shall bang many asians"
Have fun with that.
The novelty will wear off pretty damn quickly.
Just to bug you and Shat, really. Rather than list every nation with imperialist histories, I chose the two that would hit closer to home.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
why does calling it imperialism tie it to russian and english imperialism? i am confused. why not french? why not portugese? why not japan? a confusing statement.
And those "two generations of thinkers" are about 10-20 years out of date now.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
'neo-imperialism' (or neocolonialism, if you prefer) has a very precise definition of exactly what it is, and the term has been developed and fleshed out as an ideology by almost two generations of thinkers now. you saying it is "cloudy" only betrays the fact you have clearly refused to do any reading on it. the academy and the discipline of political science are really quite familiar with it.
I'm sure their writings are very well thought out, very detailed, and very out of date.
US imperialism was crippled in Viet Nam, and died with the fall of the Soviet Union.
Some misguided, misinformed policy wonks in DC tried to resurrect it in Iraq, and failed.
Saddam's Iraq and the 1990 Gulf War;
We didn't remove Saddam. We didn't bring Democracy and Freedom to Kuwait.
Wonderful that a bunch of Ivory Tower academics have reached a consensus on their historical studies.
Perhaps they could host a conference, write a few more papers?
Meanwhile, on Wall Street and in Washington DC, foreign policy has moved on.
Direct control is out of date.
Influence through business and money is the new control.
No pretense of culture, freedom, or democracy.
Setting regional powers against each other is the new "intervention"
We don't have the national will to indefinitely occupy the Middle East or Asia with our own troops.
More efficient to set regional powers against each other (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs Israel, or China vs Japan vs Korea).
Doesn't have to be a shooting war, as long as the foreign nations are wasting time, energy, and attention on each other.
Neighbors understand how to bleed each other more efficiently than a foreign power could ever comprehend.
Two rivals are expending time and energy against each other? It's a "win-win", a "paradigm shift", a "dynamic synergy"
(To sarcastically borrow some business phrases).
Do you get the point?
I'm not trying to rewrite the historical definition of Imperialism, or colonialism, or neo-whateverthefuckism.
My point is that the term "imperialism" no longer fits.
It is outdated and imprecise.
I pick on Russian and English Imperialism in particular, just for the benefit of Shat and Uzi.
No.
It has been tried more than a few times, with little to no success.
What ends up happening is that the people of a country revert to whichever form of government they determine.
Iraq and Afghanistan are never going to be Western Democracies.
Not going to happen. Not in the culture of the people.
(Again, not a value judgement or slur - a statement of difference)
Usually, our "allies" are nominally hostile "frenemies"(China, Pakistan, Iraq), dictators and despots (Saddam's Iraq, Karzai's Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia)
Have we EVER made a serious effort to change their culture, their government to Democracy, or their ideology to Western values.
We don't have the patience nor the attention span to change cultures.
Anyone with any sense at all knows this.
The whole concept of "spreading freedom & democracy" around the world is an outdated Cold War ideological prop.
We are no longer in the business of spreading American culture around the world - we are in a culture of spreading American business around the world.
We don't care what their beliefs are, what their government is, how their people live, if they are Free or Democratic.
We care about them selling us their products for cheap.
Culture, Freedom, Democracy, or any other ideology is NOT the method of control.
Money is the method of control.
Once the foreign government buys into the Western international business market, they are under that influence.
(can you name a single nation that is not tied into the western international business market?)
As an example;
The West may be partially addicted to Saudi oil, but the House of Saud is wholly dependent on western money.
Have we forced 'freedom' and 'democracy' on most of our "allies"?Uzique wrote:
this is exactly what america aims to do by bringing 'freedom' (the colonizers ideology) and 'democracy' (the colonizers preferred method of control, via global multinational capitalism) to supposed 'countries in need'. it is exactly why you are willing to use shady tactics - the most oppressive and totalitarian, contrary to democratic ideals in every single way - in order to achieve this goal. accept it.
No.
It has been tried more than a few times, with little to no success.
What ends up happening is that the people of a country revert to whichever form of government they determine.
Iraq and Afghanistan are never going to be Western Democracies.
Not going to happen. Not in the culture of the people.
(Again, not a value judgement or slur - a statement of difference)
Usually, our "allies" are nominally hostile "frenemies"(China, Pakistan, Iraq), dictators and despots (Saddam's Iraq, Karzai's Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia)
Have we EVER made a serious effort to change their culture, their government to Democracy, or their ideology to Western values.
We don't have the patience nor the attention span to change cultures.
Anyone with any sense at all knows this.
The whole concept of "spreading freedom & democracy" around the world is an outdated Cold War ideological prop.
We are no longer in the business of spreading American culture around the world - we are in a culture of spreading American business around the world.
We don't care what their beliefs are, what their government is, how their people live, if they are Free or Democratic.
We care about them selling us their products for cheap.
Culture, Freedom, Democracy, or any other ideology is NOT the method of control.
Money is the method of control.
Once the foreign government buys into the Western international business market, they are under that influence.
(can you name a single nation that is not tied into the western international business market?)
As an example;
The West may be partially addicted to Saudi oil, but the House of Saud is wholly dependent on western money.
I don't deny that questionable, shady, and just plain wrong things are done "in the interests of national security" or other handwaving excuses.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
rdx: 'neo-imperialism is a puff term', 'america has no interests in imperialist activities'.
what do you actually respond to the legacy of the central americas/far east? and how do you counter news like this?
Our support of pisspot dictators around the world is wrong. plain and simple.
Saddam, House of Saud, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc etc.
My point is that it is not imperialism, in the classical sense. To call it imperialism makes assumptions and implications that aren't necessarily correct.
Calling it imperialism ties it to the history of Russian and English imperialism, which it is not.
It is raw, calculated, psychotic capitalism - stripped of all empathy, morality, or even pretense of fairness.
It is broken, unsustainable, and dangerous policy.
It is a primary reason why South America and the Middle East have such an ingrained dislike and distrust of the US.
But to call it Imperialism clouds the issue, and gives it an inaccurate and imprecise definition.
And whenever I have the distasteful misfortune of reading a Macbeth post, I get the creepy disgusted feeling that I'm reading the incoherent ramblings of a future serial killer.Macbeth wrote:
Whenever I read a rdx post I get the feeling he reads his post back to himself a few times and laughs about how clever he is.
Macbeth, fuck off.
You are a piece of shit, a broken bit of humanity, a failed suicide, a creepy little troll, an idiot, a fucking moron, and a psycho.
You are the kind of gutter trash that even the most jaded Asian hookers steer clear of, so they don't end up locked in a torture basement.
You are the sad little fuck that butts into a conversation, says something creepy and stupid to kill the conversation, then delights in his own trollish awkwardness.
People feel sorry for you. It's not your wit or trollish awesomeness - it's disgust and awkward sympathy.
The only "skill" you have in life, is to bring shit and aggressive creepiness into other people's lives.
Now, here's the deal; Fuck off. You're a sad little piece of shit. I would prefer to ignore your existence. Don't post towards me, don't mention me, and I will extend you the same courtesy.
Is your feeble, creepy little skull full of shit capable of processing that?
Or BF3 and CoD1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
You know what I really hate?
When I'm trying to look for something and all that pops up is airsoft bullshit.
Suck my dick.
"Why, yes, I'm looking for parts for an M40a5 build. No, not airsoft parts. No, not your video game stuff."
True.Shocking wrote:
It's what happens when you have practically unlimited funds, people let their imagination run wild. Lockheed promised the USAF something that was pretty much impossible in the timeframe proposed and the DoD said yes anyway.
Still surprising, though.
Anyone with more than a year of engineering management experience KNOWS that their two main tasks are to;
1) Keep their engineers from going too wild eyed and "pie in the sky" with cool "what-if" designs and
2) Keep their projects realistic, on time, on budget, and to spec.
Then again, I'm thinking like a civilian engineer.
Thinking with my military mind, yeah... DoD has little to no concept of reality or practicality, once General officers become involved in anything.
Dilbert, it's called "economy of scale"
Rather than have allies develop expensive aerospace technology independently, they can just buy our aircraft.
Worked fine for the F-15, F-16, and F-18.
Doesn't work so well for the F-22 and F-35, which are bloated, overpriced technology demonstrator showpieces.
Personally, I think the aerospace industry could've done a modern repeat of the F-16 and A-10.
Simple, straightforward, purpose-built aircraft, both of them.
Redo the F-16 with the engine from the F-22, a better intake, modern avionics, and thicker body chord (ala Japanese F-2) for internal fuel.
Redo the A-10 with modern kevlar composite wings, thicker body for internal weapons stores, and an updated turbofan engine with modern high-temp turbine cores.
Nope.. can't do that. Too easy. Not sexy.
Gotta do bleeding edge technology, so we can milk Uncle Sugar for as many billions as possible...
Rather than have allies develop expensive aerospace technology independently, they can just buy our aircraft.
Worked fine for the F-15, F-16, and F-18.
Doesn't work so well for the F-22 and F-35, which are bloated, overpriced technology demonstrator showpieces.
Personally, I think the aerospace industry could've done a modern repeat of the F-16 and A-10.
Simple, straightforward, purpose-built aircraft, both of them.
Redo the F-16 with the engine from the F-22, a better intake, modern avionics, and thicker body chord (ala Japanese F-2) for internal fuel.
Redo the A-10 with modern kevlar composite wings, thicker body for internal weapons stores, and an updated turbofan engine with modern high-temp turbine cores.
Nope.. can't do that. Too easy. Not sexy.
Gotta do bleeding edge technology, so we can milk Uncle Sugar for as many billions as possible...
That's pretty much the evidence at the core of my point.Shocking wrote:
It's very simple really - the 'evolved' face of imperialism in the 20th/21st century. There are some rather depressing examples of the fact in my field of study. Most countries seem to show interest in UN peacekeeping missions only after lucrative economic ventures have been uncovered in its target country and contribute only as much is necessary to secure these. Peacekeeping or resolution seems to have little priority in their plans. Especially after the war in Iraq pretty much everyone is extremely skeptical of U.S. involvement anywhere, which is a problem that's only getting worse as an actual identifiable pattern of 'only get involved if oil is in the equation' is being uncovered. (I've argued against this in the past and still do, but there's not much you can say if it happens twice, three times, four times...)
It is imprecise to call it imperialism, empire, neoimperialism, or anything.
To do so references an international policy framework that it bears no real relationship to, other than being an international policy framework.
You can describe it in relation to a preceding era, but it isn't "neo"-something or "post"-something.
It is it's own unique flavor of bullshit.
You can trace it's evolution from imperialism, or neoimperialism.
But it is most definitely a unique beast now.
The modern international 'scene' is dominated by a singleminded (arguably sociopathic/psychotic) pursuit of International Business.
everything is a plus/minus on a balance sheet.
Ethics, liability, profit, compassion as a marketing tool.
It is insane and broken, but it is "just how things are" right now.
I would.Shocking wrote:
I wouldn't however say the russians or chinese suffered any magnitude more than anyone else really.
Europe rebuilt.
They knew who they were, and knew what they were rebuilding, for the most part.
For Russia, China, and the Middle East, 1915-1945 fundamentally changed their worlds.
They didn't know who they were (politically, and with mixed ethnic groups inside arbitrary borders), they had to figure out what they were building, and they didn't have much outside help in building it.
Stalin, the transition from Imperial Russia to Soviet Union. Gulags, purges, pogroms.
China, Chairman Mao, the reeducation camps.
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, arbitrary UN drawn borders containing hostile ethnic groups, Islamist versus secular governments.
Compared to all of that, Europe and the UK had a smooth rebuilding.
Chomsky, that old self-important fossilized tweed-wearing shit-flinging ape, is in love with his self-written thesaurus and the smell of his own farts.Shocking wrote:
Disregarding my dislike of Chomsky he has provided strong arguments on U.S. neoimperialism.
It is neoimperialism only so far as nobody had adequately defined what it was, so they stuck "neo" in front of the closest thing they could think of to describe it.
neoimperialism describes International Business about as well as "neo-sex" describes masturbation, or "a series of tubes" describes the Internet.
proto-terms used when there isn't a good perspective on something.
Call Chomsky a "postmodern neomarxist pseudointellectual", to borrow his word-fuckery.
3 million Jews, plus 3 million Polish died in the Holocaust.Shocking wrote:
Denoting the destruction of Europe as just some 'storm and noise' deserves a rebuttal if you ask me. And no uzi, this is the sort of stuff you're supposed to learn in highschool.
30 million Chinese, and 30 million Russians died in WW-2.
The point was that Europe and the West make a great deal of 'storm and noise' about how tragic and devastating the World Wars were, yet they neglect to mention how much worse the Chinese and Russians suffered.
Using the term 'storm and noise' was a reference to the 18th century European Sturm und Drang romantic/melodramatic literary and musical period.
Overblown, melodramatic, Eurocentric narcissism at its peak.
Kinda like the European history books regarding WW-II
(With an honorable mention to Günter Grass in there too, as a good "former" Nazi and current commentator on the European psyche)
1915-1945 was devastating for Europe, yes.
D-Day, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, all of those were phenomenal undertakings.
BUT!
But they were an order of magnitude less than what Russia and China endured.
Yet Western history books ignore it.
They also don't much mention the effect of the World Wars on the culture and maps of the Middle East.
Other than the European wars spilling over into the Middle East, and Europeans redrawing their borders, there was plenty of internal upheaval in that region during that time.
Most of the current Middle Eastern nations had their "revolutionary wars of independence" during that time.
Barely a footnote in Western history books.
Pakistan's independence from India in 1930(?)
TE Lawrence "of Arabia" and that Arab revolt of 1918(?)
All the former French and English colonies becoming independent nations, with arbitrary and problematic borders..
'Storm and Noise' compared to what the rest of the world went through at the time, not as just saying "meh.. World Wars.. they were nothing" without qualification.
The lighter the touch needed to effect control, the better.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
imo in the age of global capitalism, empire building doesn't need to be about land and direct resource control. neo-imperialism via economics and international trade power is no different in end-effect from imperialism. it's just control by another means. the actual territorial control and political control are now irrelevancies; global capital is trans-national and without borders. to refute claims that the "mericuh, fuck yeah!" attitude has nothing to do with imperial tendencies (or some sort of super-power ego) is pretty misguided. neo-imperialism and imperialism are the same shit - the same nationalist chauvinism.
I'm not implying any value judgement on which is better or worse, British Empire or American Business.
American Business isn't about Empire at all.
They don't give a shit about colonies, about empire, about any of that.
It is about profit margins, stable supply chains, and a positive growth rate.
Sociopathic yuppie businessmen don't give a ratfuck about what a bunch of brown people are doing on the other side of an ocean, as long as Business gets done.
(to put it in words closer to their perspective).
It is a far colder, disinterested perspective than the British noble game of Empire and "taming the savages for their own good"
To a point, I think *some* people use the "'murka, fuck yeah" meme ironically, as a self-aware criticism.
Still, it's bound up with too much ignorance and narcissism for me to find any humor in it. Even ironically.
I'm bored with that one.Spearhead wrote:
Don't forget, Israel is the Brits fault.
Used to be a nice way to get both Dilbert and Uzique in one pithy little line.
Not so effective anymore.
I don't care much to explain, rationalize, pardon, or understand the whole 'Murka, Fuck Yeah! meme.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
almost none of that responds to the horrific attitude some americans have shown here with regard to international law, and the questionable ethics of drone-strikes that kill innocent people in neutral countries. i haven't read camus since i was about 19, but thanks for the attempts at condescension. my point was that a few americans here evidently consider themselves immune from criticism or any code of conduct/international law, because america is "fuck yeah, #1". i'm not interested in a 2,000 word balanced critique of imperialism versus neo-imperialism. my point in invoking historical examples is that nobody occupies #1 for long - historical is too contingent at worse, and dialectical at its best and most manageable. some people's attitude here stinks. it's not even the 'world police' rhetoric anymore, it's more like a 'we'll do whatever we want with the world' approach. not even maintaining a pretension of positive ethics or safe-guarding anymore. just machiavellian opportunism.
It's naieve, myopic, and pretentious.
It's not about writing a thesis on neo-classical-pseudo-imperialism or somesuch bullshit.
My point in general was that America and the modern world are not about Empire, or any derivative of such.
To view it through that outdated perspective is to start from a mistaken premise.
It comes damned close to Pauli's "Not even wrong"
My point, in specific, was regarding your personal blind spot regarding the British Empire yet having that history pervasively colo(u)r your perspective.
You mention the French and Spanish, but not the British.
You insist on viewing America thorough the outdated lens of a shareholder in the British East India company (as an analogy)
And, yes, I have to give you a ration of condescending sarcastic shit obliquely referencing your literary education.
It's like a rule here or something...
"STEM rules! Art drools!"
Drones?
Fuck yeah!
I'll take a pile of pimply drone pilots over a bunch of egotistical Top Gun fighter pilots any day of the week.
Even with their new medal, the drone pilots are more modest than any fighter pilot you'll meet.
True enough.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
history will judge you. no empire lasts forever.
"This report of my death was an exaggeration" - Mark TwainUzique The Lesser wrote:
In fact, america's time is already on the way out
You conflate two concepts.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
most of your worst empire-building strategy has arisen from this new predicament you find yourselves in: it's a power squabble. you've been the pre-eminent global power for, what, 100 years? you got a rise from europe blowing itself to smithereens and coming to you for massive loans and support in the two world wars. 100 years is a pathetic time.
The British Empire was focused on building Empire
(note: East India Trading Company, history of India/Pakistan/Afghanistan).
The United States is more concerned with trade.
We don't want to rule the world, we just want to buy & sell stock in everything.
Or, to put it more cynically; 'we want your oil. We'd actually prefer not to see the human and environmental cost of how you get it out of the ground'
We don't want to OWN anything. That's far too long term for our attention spans. We'd rather be a shareholder, or renter.
Oh, you mean the ones that are choking on their own coal pollution, passed 'peak labor' 7 years ago (available labor is on the decline), and are facing myriad social and economic issues?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
say hello to your new asian overlords.
Also, China is about as interested in Empire (in the British & European sense) as the United States or Russia.
Which is to say - not at all.
The US, Russia, and China already have all the land they want.
We're all more interested in global influence, and not so much on occupying India or Algeria.
To counterbalance the above point; China will get by. China has been China for 10,000 years. They'll be there 10,000 years from now too.
10,000 years. A longer lifespan than your British Empire, by far.
Western history seems to have forgiven Spain, England, France, Russia, and others for their past excesses.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
when people write the history books in 250 years' time, and the global discourse/consciousness shifts away from yankiee doodle america, you guys are going to come off all the worse for your actions.
China, Japan, and Korea have their own (longer) perspective on history.
And their own ability to forget certain events, while holding ancient grudges over other events.
European "World Wars" from 1915-1945? 10 million dead, including the Jewish Holocaust of 6 million.
Russia and China lost over 60 million people during WW-II alone.
For as much narcissistic 'storm and noise' as Europe makes about their self-destruction, the majority of the suffering was in Asia and Russia, NOT Europe.
Compared to that, our pissing about in the desert for 10-20 years is nothing.
You neglect to mention the British Empire. Again.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you guys have an attitude like america's place as a superpower is some sort of 'natural' right and privilege. the italians and french thought that, too. look what happened as soon as the major european empires lost their no.1 spot: 50 years of post-colonial critique, and a major turn in historicism towards outright criticism of these powers. you think the same thing won't happen to america? bring on the centuries of self-loathing.
Put down the Camus, and his incessant hand-wringing over the French Empire in North Africa.
Try a little Kipling or TE Lawrence for a bit.
Perhaps a light read of Games Without Rules: The Often-Interrupted History of Afghanistan by Tamim Ansary.
Middle East is going to turn into a regional stalemate between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Asia is going to be a stalemate between Japan & Korea versus China.
The 19th century game was "Empire" as practiced by Europe, Britain, and Russia.
The 20th century was "The Great Game", post-colonial tin-pot dictatorships, and drawing ill-conceived lines on maps at the UN.
The 21st century is going to be about "regional balancing".
Why send your troops "over there" when you can set the locals against each other in a neatly balanced stalemate?
People are always going to find a reason to be pissed at the other guy - give them a controlled, balanced conflict.
Clear out all the old, outdated Sunni strongman dictators (Quadaffi, Saddam Hussein, etc) - in with Persians versus Arabs, Sunni versus Shia.
In essence, if you've got two regional powers glaring at each other, they're NOT wasting their energy on your nation.
Let the locals deal with the locals - keeps the Westerners from doing the bleeding and dying, and the locals are better at understanding the locals (duh..)
When the US left Iraq, the most useful bits of Iraq fell under Shia control (i.e. Iranian influence)
When the US leaves Afghanistan, it's going to be a pissing contest between the Pakistani ISI, Al Quaeda/Taliban, and Iranian Quds forces.
and, best of all, his wife is NOT amongst the listed bandmembers for NIN.
Keep her sleepy shit electro-pop music confined to How To Destroy Reputations
Nice.
When does the can come in?
Looks like a Surefire muzzle brake adapter on the end.
http://www.surefire.com/catalog/product … ategory/7/
I fear for the safety of Asian hookers everywhere, once Martin Vangar MacBeth gets around to watching Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
macbeth hasn't got over his ex yet. her shallow grave still leaves a bump under his living room rug.
Arab Spring has about as much to do with Democracy as a lap dance in a strip club has to do with sex.
The jaded fatalism and paranoia of Comrade Ruskie is an illuminating counterpoint to the typical western myopic bubble.
And even easier to dispose of, once they outlive their usefulness.
Have you ever heard the phrase "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"?
Why do you think we're "allies" with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
Between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we've got more reasons to bomb the shit out of them than everyone else combined!
Pakistani ISI has been the enemy of the USA since the 1970's and the Soviet/Afghan war.
Osama was their boy. ISI played us into assassinating his rivals, ISI set up his retirement in Abottabad.
AQ Khan (stole Western nuclear info, father of the "islamic bomb") was their boy.
Insurgent advisors in Afghanistan are very often ISI officers.
Wahabbiism? Saudi Arabia
Osama bin Laden? Saudi Arabia
Most of the money, and the vast majority of "foreign fighters" the Westerners run into in the middle east? Saudi Arabian
Iran's Quds forces playing with Hezbollah and Hamas, using Palestinians as cannon-fodder against the Israelis and West?
Complete sideshow compared to the bullshit Riyadh and the Paki ISI are running.
Unless you have personally been outside that safe bubble, it is difficult to comprehend.
Comrade Ruskie comes across as someone frustrated at running into that bubble.
They don't "hate us for our freedom fries" - They hate us because they think we're spoiled, egotistical, blind, and uncaring.
The jaded fatalism and paranoia of Comrade Ruskie is an illuminating counterpoint to the typical western myopic bubble.
Tyrants are easier to buy than true believers.Shahter wrote:
what i find, well, strange, is how you have no problem with those brown people as long as they allow you to buy them, but every time somebody doesn't it turns out that person is also a tyrant supports terrorists and tries to get wmds to bomb jews.
And even easier to dispose of, once they outlive their usefulness.
Have you ever heard the phrase "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"?
Why do you think we're "allies" with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
Between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we've got more reasons to bomb the shit out of them than everyone else combined!
Pakistani ISI has been the enemy of the USA since the 1970's and the Soviet/Afghan war.
Osama was their boy. ISI played us into assassinating his rivals, ISI set up his retirement in Abottabad.
AQ Khan (stole Western nuclear info, father of the "islamic bomb") was their boy.
Insurgent advisors in Afghanistan are very often ISI officers.
Wahabbiism? Saudi Arabia
Osama bin Laden? Saudi Arabia
Most of the money, and the vast majority of "foreign fighters" the Westerners run into in the middle east? Saudi Arabian
Iran's Quds forces playing with Hezbollah and Hamas, using Palestinians as cannon-fodder against the Israelis and West?
Complete sideshow compared to the bullshit Riyadh and the Paki ISI are running.
To be fair, the myopic bubble that most people in the Western world live in is astoundingly opaque.13/f/taiwan wrote:
Is anyone else left with the impression after reading one of Shahter's post that he believes all his ideas are beyond our capacity to think further or somehow foreign to us and that he is the one who is enlightened and open-minded?
Unless you have personally been outside that safe bubble, it is difficult to comprehend.
Comrade Ruskie comes across as someone frustrated at running into that bubble.
They don't "hate us for our freedom fries" - They hate us because they think we're spoiled, egotistical, blind, and uncaring.
So, you're saying the next pope shouldn't be Catholic?Ty wrote:
Kind of surprised the Pope's resignation hasn't been brought up yet. Anyone got any thoughts about that? Personally I always thought the sooner this Pope moved on in whatever form the better. A backwards-thinking child rape covering-up unapologetic waste of space who proliferated idiocy like banning condoms, who was closed minded towards things like homosexuality and stem cell research as well as the concept of female priests. He even tip-toed around evolution more than his predecessor.
The Catholic Church needs a strong and progressive leader rather than another old man caught a couple of centuries in the past. Their main concern is still popularity of course and maintaining their followers. They're not going to do this if they remain as disconnected as they are.
Their main concern seems to be adhering to what they perceive as holy tradition.
If they were concerned about popularity and maintaining their followers, they'd have made more efforts to bring the Lutherans and other offshoot sects back into the fold.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of any flavor of middle eastern mythology - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any of their offshoot sects.
But the creaking, ancient, tradition and secrecy bound Catholic church needs to go away.
Of any of the Abrahamic religions, the Catholic church has wandered further from their origins, into a creaking relic of traditions, secrets, and self-preservation.
There is no Church anymore - just the creaking relics, traditions, and influence peddling.
But, really, Martin Luther said it better five hundred years ago.
"In the name of the left breast, the right breast, and the cleavage in between.. amen"Jay wrote:
Katy Perry should be the next Popette.
Meh. It's in Beta.
Nail the MechLab and Mech combat down, then worry about adding in Solaris, Mercenaries, or Succession Wars content.
Even if the content (Solaris, Mercenaries, or Succession Wars) was just browser based (like the MechLab), and an excuse to link arena fights together, that'd still mirror the original pen & paper game pretty well.
Wouldn't be terribly difficult to crack open an old copy of the pen & paper Mercenaries game book and code the unit/money/contract system into their browser frontend. as an example.
With all the source books from FASA, there is an insane amount of backstory. Especially the (very old) House series of books - House Davion, House Kurita etc.
Nail the MechLab and Mech combat down, then worry about adding in Solaris, Mercenaries, or Succession Wars content.
Even if the content (Solaris, Mercenaries, or Succession Wars) was just browser based (like the MechLab), and an excuse to link arena fights together, that'd still mirror the original pen & paper game pretty well.
Wouldn't be terribly difficult to crack open an old copy of the pen & paper Mercenaries game book and code the unit/money/contract system into their browser frontend. as an example.
With all the source books from FASA, there is an insane amount of backstory. Especially the (very old) House series of books - House Davion, House Kurita etc.
Incorrect.Cybargs wrote:
Legal person =/= person
it just means companies can be sued (and not just their owners) and have the right sue others (especially in cases of intellectual property laws).
but that's another whole topic
1 U.S.C. §1 "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"
The fundamental flaws in this are that you cannot punish a corporation in the same way you can punish a person.
All of the upside of being a person, none of the downside.
The ancient Roman legal precedent for this had more common sense limits than we do currently.
14th Amendment was a post Civil War Amendment designed to protect newly freed black slaves. Now, it's been extended to apply to corporations too.
rdx-fx wrote:
In the US, the payment goes through when the bank feels like putting it through.
Anytime from same day to 5 days from now.
In the US, corporations are legally considered persons.globefish23 wrote:
This has been regulated in the EU last year I think.
Now any national transaction can only take until the next day.
International 2-3 days maximum, IIRC.
Also, now you get back the aliquot part of your annual fee of your credit card in case you unsubscribe.
Previously, if they deducted the annual fee in January, you could have stayed for another year, since it was already paid.
"We can't be infringin' on them thar corporate entities Cons-ta-too-shunal raights!..."
/sarcasm
"Corporations are People too!" - that has to be one of the top five most batshit insane legal precedents ever passed.
Hah!Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no third party, eg Visa, between your bank and the merchant, and the payment goes through on the day - soon to be on the minute.
In the US, the payment goes through when the bank feels like putting it through.
Anytime from same day to 5 days from now.
Banks will take all transactions from the last 5 days in a batch, and process them in order from highest to lowest.
So, your rent check will go through, but those 20 little $5 to $50 purchases are all going to bounce for the poor folk, maximizing the number of overdraft fees the bank can charge.
Some banks have been accused of reordering the batch transactions to maximize overdraft charges
Women end up in combat, regardless of MOS.
Not sure that there are many women that could deal with life in an infantry unit.
Then again, we have some 5'6" skinny kids in infantry units too.
I'd take a few females I know over some of those skinny dudes.
We also have some lardass pogue staff NCOs that Jay couldn't lift.
I'd take most any fit military female I know over them.
If the women can handle the same tasks, conditions, and standards as the guys, let them try it.
We have size "small" body armor, but we don't have size "small" machine guns.
Even if the girls aren't line infantry, they can do fine as support personnel in an infantry unit.
Not sure that there are many women that could deal with life in an infantry unit.
Then again, we have some 5'6" skinny kids in infantry units too.
I'd take a few females I know over some of those skinny dudes.
We also have some lardass pogue staff NCOs that Jay couldn't lift.
I'd take most any fit military female I know over them.
If the women can handle the same tasks, conditions, and standards as the guys, let them try it.
We have size "small" body armor, but we don't have size "small" machine guns.
Even if the girls aren't line infantry, they can do fine as support personnel in an infantry unit.
It is "petty" to expect people to follow laws?Macbeth wrote:
It is petty of you to put that much emphasis on a single document.
Wow, you're delusional.Macbeth wrote:
Then again you do pray for the day you get to shoot some cops over the constitution so it is not surprising you care that much.
The major detail about illegal immigrants, is precisely that they are illegal.
If they want to be non-resident workers, then do it legally.
Come in through the front door, or don't come in.
If we need all these low-pay workers in the country, then fix the INS process to let more good workers in on temporary work visas.
Let in the ones with the clean criminal background checks, clean work history, and good references.
Drug runners, criminals, low lifes, and psych cases? Fuck off, stay out.
It's not about race, it's not about bigotry, it's not "they took ur Jurbs". It is that they came in illegally.
Come in through the front door, like everyone else, or don't come in.
If they want to be non-resident workers, then do it legally.
Come in through the front door, or don't come in.
If we need all these low-pay workers in the country, then fix the INS process to let more good workers in on temporary work visas.
Let in the ones with the clean criminal background checks, clean work history, and good references.
Drug runners, criminals, low lifes, and psych cases? Fuck off, stay out.
It's not about race, it's not about bigotry, it's not "they took ur Jurbs". It is that they came in illegally.
Come in through the front door, like everyone else, or don't come in.
Conflict resolution is a poorly taught skill anymore.Jay wrote:
If I cornered you and started poking you in the chest, yelling obscenities at you, calling your mother a pig etc. would you feel justified in hauling off and punching me in the face? It's an escalation of the situation, but I've cornered you and the human fight-or-flight response has kicked in. I'd say you were justified and in most cases, you would call me the asshole for starting the incident, yes? We only change the narrative when politics are involved.
You have aggressive Trolls that are assholes for sport, banking on the premise that nobody can touch them.
Then you have milquetoast people that wouldn't stand up for anything, for fear of offending someone.
Somewhere, we've lost the idea of having a strongly held opinion, discussing it with someone else with equally strong (but opposite) opinions, while maintaining a mutually respectful tone.
Too much narcissism, too little respect for others.
You're neglecting a critical detail. Most of the people that make up the Army, Marines, National Guard and Reserves are pro-2nd Amendment.M.O.A.B wrote:
The ones who are terrified of the government are in the bonkers minority, and their combined arms will be trumped by just a tiny portion of the military's firepower.
A great many soldiers would likely regard any order to turn their weapons on US civilians as an unlawful order. Enlistment oath for every soldier includes the phrase "support and defend the Constitution of the United States".
The argument should not be about the lunatic fringe's delusions of persecution, and fantasies of armed insurrection against 'da gubmint's jackbooted thugs'. That silly argument is a false framework. Frame the gunowners as obviously paranoid delusionals, then anything they offer in argument can be dismissed without consideration. No thought necessary...
The US used to have a tradition of hunters, sportsmen, outdoorsmen, and soldiers. Marksmanship was a part of that tradition. Even as recently as just prior to Viet Nam, hunting, fishing, and outdoorsmanship was seen as a healthy and respectable pursuit. Now we've got the cartoonish impression of Ted Nugent going full-auto on Bambi...
This (seemingly vanishing) tradition as outdoorsmen and hunters is what the Constitution is implying, in part, in the 2nd Amendment's a well regulated militia clause. If you have a population of skilled marksmen, hunters, and outdoorsmen - you can field an army in a very short period of time. Teaching men to march, to wear a uniform, and to recognize rank is easy - teaching them outdoorsmanship, marksmanship, and hunting is difficult.
Historically, armies were only raised in time of need. Standing armies were the showpiece playthings of the noble class officers. If you needed to raise an army, the commanding officer paid for his troops out of his own pocket until reimbursed by the government. If your recruits already knew how to shoot, hunt, and survive in the wilderness, your commander saved a bunch of money.
The other intent of the 2nd Amendment was that, if you have 300 million armed civilians, a standing Army of 1 million is going to have a very rough time subjugating them.
FTFYJay wrote:
National Guard units barely have any training at all regarding crowd control.
Plenty of experience in some guard units.
Mostly from prior active duty service and deployments.
Guard SF units, and LRSD detachments have plenty of (non-police) training.
You should see the phonebook-thick directory of SOCOM training courses at JFKSWC now.
Could spend 5-10 straight years in high-speed schools, if you could get the unit to pay for it.
But, in general, using Artillerymen and Infantrymen as police reserves is asinine.
Hell, with very little exception, the Guard Military Police units are made up of all the criminals, drunks, and low-lifes that couldn't get a clearance for anything else, and couldn't handle life in the infantry.
You know what is worse than rape?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah and then they say I'm a hypocrite because I am pro-life but I am all for the death sentence. It works both ways.
You guys twist everything I say. I never said rape is good, I NEVER said that. You guys are implying I said that. Rape sucks, it's one of the worst things that can happen to a person. There's no denying that. That is no excuse for killing a baby growing in a mother's womb.
Having a part of that rapist growing inside you.
Having a rapist's whim dictate the course of your remaining life.
I've been the friend, backup, and shoulder to cry on for more than a couple rape victims.
The revulsion and violation those women feel cannot be adequately conveyed in words.
"Think of the children" arguments are specious, and generally mean 'don't think, react emotionally'.Dilbert_X wrote:
.
Even to me it seems Obama and Feinstein have gone way too far tacking extraneous crap onto the gun bill and milking the 'think of the children' angle when they had a real opportunity to get something useful through with bipartisan support.
Obama really seems to have kicked back now and set himself no real objectives for the next four years. USM was right, he's just a big grin. Still better than Romney though.
From Reagan to present, most of the Presidential contenders have been nothing but "big grins backed by bigger money". On both sides of the US political spectrum.
Add something useful to the discussion, or fuck off.Macbeth wrote:
Keep us updated
Exactly.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Probably and old LAW or AT-4 tube. I see them on display all the time. Completely useless.
Oh no.
A live rocket, or anything the ATF classifies as a "destructive device", you need an occupational exemption (you are a manufacturer or licensed federally recognized distributor) or you go through the 6 month ATF tax stamp wait. This is assuming the ATF examiner allows you to buy the device.
Any "destructive device", above .50 cal diameter or explosive ammo, EVERY round of ammo is paperwork, a 3-6 month ATF wait, and a $200 tax stamp.
Per round. Forget that step, it's a felony. No gunshow exemption or loophole.
Once fired LAW or AT-4 fiberglass launch tubes are not reloadable, and are useless paperweights.
The Hobbit
8/10
The storm giants were completely unnecessary and pointless,
the violence was too much for a kids movie.
the goblin king was too silly - reminded me of George Lucas' silly gungan king in the prequels.
My little girl's first question after the end of the movie, "Why didn't they call the giant eagles at the beginning of the movie?"
8/10
The storm giants were completely unnecessary and pointless,
the violence was too much for a kids movie.
the goblin king was too silly - reminded me of George Lucas' silly gungan king in the prequels.
My little girl's first question after the end of the movie, "Why didn't they call the giant eagles at the beginning of the movie?"
Zero Dark Thirty
7/10
Interesting movie.
Too much focus on the 'lone heroine fighting the bureaucracy' plotline,
too many one-line mentions of actions/units/people that deserve their own story,
horribly distracting portrayal of 'tier 1' military unit.
(supposed to be SEAL Team 6, the all-stars dream team of the SEALs - movie makes them look like basic trainees on their first urban assault course)
If you took the raw footage of both Act of Valor and Zero Dark Thirty, used the acting,plot, location, and effects of Zero Dark Thirty, and the action scenes from Act of Valor, you'd have one decent movie.
7/10
Interesting movie.
Too much focus on the 'lone heroine fighting the bureaucracy' plotline,
too many one-line mentions of actions/units/people that deserve their own story,
horribly distracting portrayal of 'tier 1' military unit.
(supposed to be SEAL Team 6, the all-stars dream team of the SEALs - movie makes them look like basic trainees on their first urban assault course)
If you took the raw footage of both Act of Valor and Zero Dark Thirty, used the acting,plot, location, and effects of Zero Dark Thirty, and the action scenes from Act of Valor, you'd have one decent movie.
40 S&W is for people who can't decide between 9mm and .45
9mm works fine, is cheaper to shoot than .45.
.45 puts bigger holes in things, costs more than 9mm to shoot.
For self defense - either will work fine with center mass hits, neither will work if you miss.
Both work on possums, neither work on black helicopters...
9mm works fine, is cheaper to shoot than .45.
.45 puts bigger holes in things, costs more than 9mm to shoot.
For self defense - either will work fine with center mass hits, neither will work if you miss.
Both work on possums, neither work on black helicopters...
Oh, damn..unnamednewbie13 wrote:
P95 9mm was the last Ruger I liked. Didn't jam, easy to disassemble/clean and reassemble, accurate at respectable distances (for a pistol). Haven't shot it in ages, though.
Maybe I'll purchase four more to complete the ensemble someday.
I'm below 5 firearms now. Guess I have to turn in my ManCard™ and US passport.
Sold a few lately.
Haven't seen anything worth replacing them with.
Down to a FN Winchester 70, FN Browning HP MkIII, piston AR/M4, and AR/300BLK