Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-Cap Military

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay so I am not entirely convinced of the wisdom of a private sector police force, but what is even more confusing is how a private sector military would work. This is more of a ramble than a specific question.

Now obviously states since time imemorial have sub-contracted military services... but under an-cap there is no state. It is down to the individual to purchase the services he/she wishes to be covered by.

Logically citizens in an an-cap society who feared invasion or who wanted to wage wars would club together financially, in order to secure sufficient services (and physically in order to form voluntary militias).

However not everyone in the same an-cap society would pay into the same military service provider. It is quite possible that a given city would be a patchwork quilt, with clusters where most people pay to one company over the others. And indeed people who did not pay at all, but would attempt a free ride of the back of their fee paying neighbours.

The possible advantage of such a system would be that it would be incredibly byzantine and confusing, waging war would probably be quite tricky. The disadvantage would be that companies would have a vested interested to threaten and escalate to war, and whilst a state might go to war to secure its citizens interests (often incidentally) a private military firm would go to war solely for it's shareholders.

Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

Not to mention that the most successful companies would also become increasingly distant from the petty concerns of it's fee payers.

I just don't buy it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

F*ck Somalia. Just move there if you praise it so much. :P
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

Or just hire a division of Gurkhas...

But anyway... thats a bit of a tangent.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:56:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?:

I think a kindergarten class could probably conquer Somalia.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:02:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:56:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?:

I think a kindergarten class could probably conquer Somalia.

Really? How?
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:03:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:41:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

F*ck Somalia. Just move there if you praise it so much. :P

Fück you, Adolf.

OBEY! o/
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:04:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:02:30 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:56:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?:

I think a kindergarten class could probably conquer Somalia.

Really? How?:
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:07:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.

How not? I've killed everyone and stuck a flag in it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:07:03 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.

How not? I've killed everyone and stuck a flag in it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:09:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:07:03 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.

How not? I've killed everyone and stuck a flag in it.



Exactly!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

One thing I want to point out about that. The way you structure that sentence makes it seem as though it's simultaneously expensive and profitable to the same entity, which is quite untrue. To the entity waging it (e.g. a state or a PMC), it would be horrendously expensive. To a different entity (e.g. arms and ordinance manufacturers), it would be massively profitable. The problem of expensiveness is further multiplied by the fact that a single PMC, or even a coalition of such, would never (alone) be able to match the resources of state power. To actually wage a war (as efficiently as possible) against any country that isn't a defenseless shithole, several things need to occur:

1. Many PMCs--and their personnel--must all be concentrated on the same goal.

2. This massive group of PMCs must be able to cooperate efficiently.

3. Each PMC would have to spend egregious amounts to sustain a war for more than a couple years at most.

And those are just the basics. This makes war far more difficult. It's massively expensive and difficult to get such an effort well-organized. Unlike a state, PMCs can't just make money appear out of nowhere to pay for stuff, cannot coerce payment from people outside the system, and don't have huge reserves of A) resources, B) soldiers, and C) military technology (e.g. advanced weaponry and such). Modern PMCs handle thousands of soldiers and small arms. The U.S. military, however, has 3 million personnel, 1.5 million or so in active duty. Additionally, it has access to some of the most advanced technology in the world, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and a metric f*ck-ton of money that's guaranteed in the yearly budget. Do you realize how hard it would actually be for a war to be waged in a society where all you have is a clown car of private contractors? Saying that PMCs have an incentive to engage in warfare is like saying that insurance companies have an interest in making people sick.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

One thing I want to point out about that. The way you structure that sentence makes it seem as though it's simultaneously expensive and profitable to the same entity, which is quite untrue.

Seriously?
Most people here are of above average intelligence I don't need to supply qualifiers for everything.

To the entity waging it (e.g. a state or a PMC), it would be horrendously expensive. To a different entity (e.g. arms and ordinance manufacturers), it would be massively profitable. The problem of expensiveness is further multiplied by the fact that a single PMC, or even a coalition of such, would never (alone) be able to match the resources of state power. To actually wage a war (as efficiently as possible) against any country that isn't a defenseless shithole, several things need to occur:

But this is not a comparison that is being made so most of what you have said is rendered moot.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

One thing I want to point out about that. The way you structure that sentence makes it seem as though it's simultaneously expensive and profitable to the same entity, which is quite untrue.

Seriously?
Most people here are of above average intelligence I don't need to supply qualifiers for everything.

Perhaps not for everything. But for this, yes. It changes the meaning of your sentence. In one sense, your argument is disingenuous. In the other, it's just wrong.

To the entity waging it (e.g. a state or a PMC), it would be horrendously expensive. To a different entity (e.g. arms and ordinance manufacturers), it would be massively profitable. The problem of expensiveness is further multiplied by the fact that a single PMC, or even a coalition of such, would never (alone) be able to match the resources of state power. To actually wage a war (as efficiently as possible) against any country that isn't a defenseless shithole, several things need to occur:

But this is not a comparison that is being made so most of what you have said is rendered moot.

Correction: it's not a comparison that you are making. It is, however, one that I am making, and one which serves to illustrate how misguided your concerns in that regard are.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

One thing I want to point out about that. The way you structure that sentence makes it seem as though it's simultaneously expensive and profitable to the same entity, which is quite untrue.

Seriously?
Most people here are of above average intelligence I don't need to supply qualifiers for everything.

Perhaps not for everything. But for this, yes. It changes the meaning of your sentence. In one sense, your argument is disingenuous. In the other, it's just wrong.

Actually you are being disingenuous. War is both expensive and profitable. History shows us this, your point is one of petty semantics.


To the entity waging it (e.g. a state or a PMC), it would be horrendously expensive. To a different entity (e.g. arms and ordinance manufacturers), it would be massively profitable. The problem of expensiveness is further multiplied by the fact that a single PMC, or even a coalition of such, would never (alone) be able to match the resources of state power. To actually wage a war (as efficiently as possible) against any country that isn't a defenseless shithole, several things need to occur:

But this is not a comparison that is being made so most of what you have said is rendered moot.

Correction: it's not a comparison that you are making. It is, however, one that I am making, and one which serves to illustrate how misguided your concerns in that regard are.

So by applying what I have said to a totally different situation what I have said becomes invalid? Yea...

It seems you have not thought through the ramifications of your ideology.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

One thing I want to point out about that. The way you structure that sentence makes it seem as though it's simultaneously expensive and profitable to the same entity, which is quite untrue.

Seriously?
Most people here are of above average intelligence I don't need to supply qualifiers for everything.

Perhaps not for everything. But for this, yes. It changes the meaning of your sentence. In one sense, your argument is disingenuous. In the other, it's just wrong.

Actually you are being disingenuous. War is both expensive and profitable. History shows us this, your point is one of petty semantics.

It's semantics, but it isn't petty. Saying "expensive" or "profitable" implies a "to whom". I was merely demonstrating that the entities to which war is expensive and profitable are different. War is expensive to the entity waging it, and profitable to the entity supplying it. Neither states nor PMCs profit from war. My point was that it's far more difficult to have wars in a society of PMCs because of the increase in different costs and requirements which states are better at coping with.


To the entity waging it (e.g. a state or a PMC), it would be horrendously expensive. To a different entity (e.g. arms and ordinance manufacturers), it would be massively profitable. The problem of expensiveness is further multiplied by the fact that a single PMC, or even a coalition of such, would never (alone) be able to match the resources of state power. To actually wage a war (as efficiently as possible) against any country that isn't a defenseless shithole, several things need to occur:

But this is not a comparison that is being made so most of what you have said is rendered moot.

Correction: it's not a comparison that you are making. It is, however, one that I am making, and one which serves to illustrate how misguided your concerns in that regard are.

So by applying what I have said to a totally different situation what I have said becomes invalid? Yea...

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. My intention was to demonstrate, by comparing PMCs to states, just how difficult it would actually be to wage a war in such a society. The purpose of the comparison qua comparison was to highlight the circumstances and conditions under which private contractors operate.

It seems you have not thought through the ramifications of your ideology.

I'm not an an-cap.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I'm not an an-cap yet.

Fix'd
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:25:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay so I am not entirely convinced of the wisdom of a private sector police force, but what is even more confusing is how a private sector military would work. This is more of a ramble than a specific question.

Now obviously states since time imemorial have sub-contracted military services... but under an-cap there is no state. It is down to the individual to purchase the services he/she wishes to be covered by.

Logically citizens in an an-cap society who feared invasion or who wanted to wage wars would club together financially, in order to secure sufficient services (and physically in order to form voluntary militias).

However not everyone in the same an-cap society would pay into the same military service provider. It is quite possible that a given city would be a patchwork quilt, with clusters where most people pay to one company over the others. And indeed people who did not pay at all, but would attempt a free ride of the back of their fee paying neighbours.

The possible advantage of such a system would be that it would be incredibly byzantine and confusing, waging war would probably be quite tricky. The disadvantage would be that companies would have a vested interested to threaten and escalate to war, and whilst a state might go to war to secure its citizens interests (often incidentally) a private military firm would go to war solely for it's shareholders.

Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

Not to mention that the most successful companies would also become increasingly distant from the petty concerns of it's fee payers.

I just don't buy it.

PMCs, NATO employs private mercenaries in Iraq. Also - WWI/II freicorps, dogs of war. Most African armies, even national ones, tend to be rented militias or bandits. The Sudanese and Congolese armies are prime examples.

Private armies are nothing new.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:27:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:25:04 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay so I am not entirely convinced of the wisdom of a private sector police force, but what is even more confusing is how a private sector military would work. This is more of a ramble than a specific question.

Now obviously states since time imemorial have sub-contracted military services... but under an-cap there is no state. It is down to the individual to purchase the services he/she wishes to be covered by.

Logically citizens in an an-cap society who feared invasion or who wanted to wage wars would club together financially, in order to secure sufficient services (and physically in order to form voluntary militias).

However not everyone in the same an-cap society would pay into the same military service provider. It is quite possible that a given city would be a patchwork quilt, with clusters where most people pay to one company over the others. And indeed people who did not pay at all, but would attempt a free ride of the back of their fee paying neighbours.

The possible advantage of such a system would be that it would be incredibly byzantine and confusing, waging war would probably be quite tricky. The disadvantage would be that companies would have a vested interested to threaten and escalate to war, and whilst a state might go to war to secure its citizens interests (often incidentally) a private military firm would go to war solely for it's shareholders.

Inb4 someone complains that war is expensive, it is, but it is also very profitable.

Not to mention that the most successful companies would also become increasingly distant from the petty concerns of it's fee payers.

I just don't buy it.

PMCs, NATO employs private mercenaries in Iraq. Also - WWI/II freicorps, dogs of war. Most African armies, even national ones, tend to be rented militias or bandits. The Sudanese and Congolese armies are prime examples.

Private armies are nothing new.

Why bother replying if you are not going to read what it is you are replying to?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:30:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:18:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I'm not an an-cap yet.

Fix'd

Funny.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:07:03 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.

How not? I've killed everyone and stuck a flag in it.
Annihilation is not a means of conquering.

This is a slight equivocation. Conquering can be used to describe conquering a people or a region. What you described in a means of conquering a region, but not the people.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:33:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:30:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:18:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I'm not an an-cap yet.

Fix'd

Funny.

Wasn't a joke.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:37:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:31:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:07:03 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:04:03 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:53:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:42:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:40:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:37:00 PM, juvanya wrote:
Could the worlds militaries conquer Somalia without destroying their economies?

Yes...

Lol, how would you conquer Somalia without completely F-ing up your own economy?!

Well I wouldn't... I don't have much against it and I am pretty certain I'd be unlikely to extract profit from it. But I'd probably do a leaflet drop and then the following weak let off about a dozen nukes (they have already been paid for and aren't doing much). Then send in a drone with a flag.

That is not conquering.

How not? I've killed everyone and stuck a flag in it.
Annihilation is not a means of conquering.


Why not?

This is a slight equivocation. Conquering can be used to describe conquering a people or a region. What you described in a means of conquering a region, but not the people.

Maybe I just wanted the land, not the people. Somalia is more useful as a golf course.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:37:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Annihilation is not a means of conquering.


Why not?
When you annihilate a place you destroy a place, make nothing of it. That's what nuking is for, you don't nuke a place you hope to make yours. Conquering is making a place yours.

This is a slight equivocation. Conquering can be used to describe conquering a people or a region. What you described in a means of conquering a region, but not the people.

Maybe I just wanted the land, not the people. Somalia is more useful as a golf course.
Is there a lot of Somalians were you live?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:44:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:33:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:30:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:18:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I'm not an an-cap yet.

Fix'd

Funny.

Wasn't a joke.

Doesn't mean I didn't find it funny.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:41:19 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:37:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Annihilation is not a means of conquering.


Why not?
When you annihilate a place you destroy a place, make nothing of it. That's what nuking is for, you don't nuke a place you hope to make yours. Conquering is making a place yours.

I stuck a flag in it, what more do you want?


This is a slight equivocation. Conquering can be used to describe conquering a people or a region. What you described in a means of conquering a region, but not the people.

Maybe I just wanted the land, not the people. Somalia is more useful as a golf course.
Is there a lot of Somalians were you live?

Probably, theres a lot of everyone.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:46:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 5:44:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:33:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:30:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:18:17 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:16:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 5:01:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:38:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 4:30:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I'm not an an-cap yet.

Fix'd

Funny.

Wasn't a joke.

Doesn't mean I didn't find it funny.

I'll be amused when you actually become an ancap. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.