885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
At 1/31/06 11:08 PM, BeFell wrote: Also a few years ago NASA crashed a billion dollar probe into the Martian surface because some idiot took too much creative writing and not enough math and science so he couldn't convert from metric. Why should someone working for NASA even have to convert from metric?!!!
Because NASA is a big, stinking shell of what it was once conceived to be. Do not get me wrong, it occasionally has its moments. But NASA is no longer an institution devoted to exploration and pushing impossible frontiers. They are no longer the bold innovators of the future and the explorers of the heavens. Rather, because of political pressure, they have taken to a policy that eliminates risk, which is a necessary part of any exploration.
This, of course, is all based on the assumption that time is linear, which, while simple, may not necessarily be true.
Math and science is arguably the most important things to learn in school, and the primary reason for going in the first place, right next to writing and speaking. Math and science simplest and most practical way to encourage rational thought. Writing and speaking then provides a venue for expression of this rational thought. And, my friends, this nation could use a lot more rational thought.
At 1/31/06 07:34 PM, mjairlax wrote: no, not really. Look at the how they travel
I have no idea what you are talking about.
One point that I would like to make is that there is that there is a calculated reason behind everything the military does. Many of the already suggested reasons for this may be true. Another thing to consider is that the military tries to create an atmosphere of equality within ranks. It is possible there were incidents where this armor was creating friction between squadmates. Also, keep in mind that up until now the Army had allowed, if not encouraged, the use of personal equipment if it increased the operational effectiveness of a soldier.
Now presumably, this armor has not been fully evaluated, but its protective attributes are not all that the Army is concerned with as far as equipment issue goes. The Army does a very thorough evaluation of what is necessary for each operation, theater, and campaign. What kind of protection do we need? What caliber and type of bullet will the armor have to withstand? What about fragmentation? How much mobility is necessary? How much should it weigh? Where are the anchor points? How well does it work with other equipment like the load bearing vest?
And from a logistical standpoint there is the issue of how to keep a steady supply of usable armor. Suppose a piece of "Dragon Skin" is broken in raid. Now what? Hope that person brought their issue with them, but chances are, considering the weight load, they did not.
My guess is that the original intent was to supplement Army standard issue, but it got out of hand and became an issue. I guarentee you though that the government is doing everything it can to keep soldiers safe while still meeting the operational objectives of their mission.
At 1/30/06 08:17 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Because the Somalians, Slavs, and countless other countries that we go into are threatening the US. Just because a country has a civil war doesn't mean that we should send our citizens to go over there and put their lives on the line just to make some suit in Washington feel like he's saving the day.
Right, because the only casualties that count are American, right?
Who's talking about taking out terrorists? I'm talking about getting involved in other countries' domestic affairs, that's none of our business, let them sort it out themselves.
While we are at it, let's let the Indonesians sort out the next tsunami as well. Or the next time someone decides to erradicate all the albino people in western Europe, let's just let them sort that out for themselves.
The point is that we have a higher mission than to just our country, rather all of humanity. If, as a human being, you fail to see this, then you are wrong.
I clearly implied that the point of a standing is to defend your nation, not to send your citizens to die in some third-world country for a conflict that has nothing to do with protecting their country or their fellow countrymen.
The point of a standing army is to have the ability to project power on a global and local scale.
But hell, they're expendable, right? Our armed forces are made up of numbers, not faces. How would you like to die while fighting for some other country's domestic affairs? If I joined the military, it would be to fight for my country, not Bumfuckopia.
Well, I did swear that I would support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So would I mind fighting, even if it meant dying, to protect my country's interests? No. Would I mind fighting, even if it meant dying, to protect others, even the people of Bumfuckopia? No.
At 1/30/06 05:47 PM, Gunter45 wrote:At 1/30/06 02:26 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:So, what you're saying is that we risk the lives of our own citizens to, at the very best of intentions, save the lives of other countries' citizens?
Uhmmm... yes? If you are too spineless then do not volunteer.
Or are you saying that we should compromise our own capability to defend ourselves by spreading ourselves all over the globe in the middle of several conflicts at once?
I think the real question is should we go after those who seek to do evil against the US or wait for them to strike first.
Maybe you're saying we should put ourselves at risk by giving other nations a reason to hate us regardless of what we do, seeing as how we've placed ourselves in a Catch-22 as far as foreign policy goes?
Anyone who truly "hates" the United States as a country is an idiot. And no, taking out terror leaders and oppressive dictators only strengthens those who stand for freedom - not put them at risk.
Oh wait, you're not saying anything at all. That's right. Thanks for the contribution.
Only an idiot would suggest that we should not have a standing army. I think my statement pretty much summed up my view.
At 1/30/06 01:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Maybe I'm missing the point of having a standing army.
You are an idiot.
At 1/30/06 01:47 AM, Samuel_HALL wrote: And we need to shut the fuck up about the expulsion of the Native American from our soil.
Their soil?
At 1/30/06 10:26 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Is it just me, or has this gotten a little too far? I favor military isolationism and cutting back the military budget.
You have no spine.
Maybe we'd have a chance at having a *gasp* surplus by not spending billions of dollars on useless conflicts and wars.
Every major recession in American history has followed a significant decrease in the national debt. And these conflicts are not useless. Not only do we attempt to do good for those who live in the regions we act in, but we also stimulate scientific, military, and economic progress for pretty much all parties involved.
At 1/29/06 09:01 PM, red_skunk wrote: You're the one making the claim, you need to explain it. What objections do these people raise?
They are upset that it is taking the spot of "Bog the Bounty Hunter" that night.
At 1/28/06 01:27 PM, The_Tank wrote: apparently I'm gay.
I would have to agree.
At 1/27/06 05:23 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: You should watch the blood drip from your sliced wrists.
I totally meant slit.
At 1/27/06 05:10 PM, kickme123 wrote: So what should I watch then?
You should watch the blood drip from your sliced wrists.
Hi Greg!
At 1/27/06 03:37 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: Look upon the world in thirty years and smile, because your not going to like it.
Is that a crystal ball or your ass you are looking in?
Happy Holocaust Day everybody!!!!!
At 1/26/06 11:03 PM, Marxist-Leninist wrote: Terrorist, shmerrorist. How many terrorists are there in Mexico? Didn't they need planes the first time they attacked? Come on guys.
You see, getting into Mexico is easy. In fact, very easy, especially if you are a terrorist with connections. And while illegally crossing the US-Mexico border may not be easy, it is still done on a daily basis by a large volume of people. Keep in mind that as far as security goes, the might of the chain depends on every link in the cable. One weak link and all the other security measures (and consequently billions of dollars) are for naught.
At 1/26/06 09:09 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.
I think Saddam already took care of that before we got there.
At 1/25/06 06:47 AM, Slizor wrote: Whatever I say, you're still a real boy? Or are you still a puppet - your thoughts do seem a bit wooden.
And yours seem a bit wrong.
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Petroleum#History
I laugh at the idea that you even try to counter a published author with intimate knowledge and a detailed study with a general history of petroleum worldwide written by no one on a website that can be editted by anyone. While I am as big of a supporter and user of Wikipedia as anyone, I definitely would not place its word above that of recognized and accepted experts. You would think they teach you kids these things.
Anyway, nothing in Wikipedia contradicts anything Mr. Ebel writes, so you fail to prove anything.
And you still haven't learnt to do simple maths? Fucking hell, I know the US had a poor education system but I didn't think it was that bad.
I guess that does not reflect very well on your education system then, does it?
Poorly constructed? Oh no no no. You have been attacking my one point, I am merely defending it.
I am attacking the point you tried to make in the first place: the US is not on top because we have a free market. Now let's review. You made a poor case for this point by stating that the US is on top because it has had a "fairly steady supply" of oil and some bullshit about intellectual property (a point that we have both effectively dropped out of sheer ridiculousness).
At this point in the game, the burden of proof still remains on you to prove that a) The US had a "fairly steady supply" of oil that every other nation in the world has not and b) this oil advantage actually caused the US to rise to power and it was not just a small factor contributing to a more likely cause like a robust free-market capitalistic economy.
Now let us continue.
Prove it. I'm tired of you making unfounded statements. Prove that the relationships were on a different level.
I know you can use Google, but let me get you started anyway.
The USSR and the USA were not at all equal. The USA (post WW2) had been an industrial power for 50 years, the USSR for 15. They were completely unequal, yet the USSR still tried to compete directly with them.
I really do not want to get into this because it really has nothing to do with this discussion, but just to name a few examples, if you look at any weapon the US had, the Soviets had either a counter or one of their own, and as far as space technology goes, the Soviets were far ahead. The key difference was industry. The US had it, the Soviets did not. Wonder why?
It's not symbolism at all you muppet. Inhospitable conditions refers to the Russian weather and landscape. It is another factor in economic development.
Total bullshit.
Yes, it was the free market that pulled America out of the depression.
Glad we agree! So why are we still here?
"On 1973-09-11, the military, led by Pinochet, stormed the presidential palace and seized power from President Allende, who was found dead soon after. A junta headed by Pinochet was established, which suspended the constitution, dissolved Congress, imposed strict censorship, proscribed the leftist parties that had constituted Allende's Popular Unity coalition, and halted all political activity. In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against opponents and perceived leftists in the country. As a result, approximately 3,000 Chilean residents are known to have been executed, or "disappeared", more than 27,000[2] were incarcerated and in a great many cases tortured, according to the Valech Report. Many were exiled and received abroad, in particular in Argentina, as political refugees; but they were followed in their exile by the DINA secret police, in the frame of Operation Condor which linked South-American dictatorships together against political opponents."
I think the CIA was referring to:
"...on September 11, 1980, and General Pinochet became President of the Republic for an 8-year term. In the late 1980s, the regime gradually permitted greater freedom of assembly, speech, and association, to include trade union and limited political activity. The right-wing military government pursued decidedly laissez-faire economic policies. During its nearly 17 years in power, Chile moved away from economic statism toward a largely free market economy that saw an increase in domestic and foreign private investment, although the copper industry and other important mineral resources were not returned to foreign ownership. In a plebiscite on October 5, 1988, General Pinochet was denied a second 8-year term as president. Chileans elected a new president and the majority of members of a two-chamber congress on December 14, 1989."
What about South Vietnam?
What about it?
At 1/24/06 07:17 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: That doesn't mean we should keep our brains stuck in the Enlightenment. But if you want to stay there, take a look at Locke's Second Treatise.
According to Locke, we own ourselves, our labour makes things our property, and we can sell our labour in exchange for money. Who should decide how much my labour is worth? The employer usually wants to pay you as little as she/he can get away with; so the workers need someone to look out for their interests since the employer isn't going to do it.
Or we can look to Ben Franklin, who embodied the Zeitgeist of The Enlightenment period, in his code of conduct he states that it is necessary to be frugal so that once you are successful in your business you can help others do so. All it takes is the drive to better yourself, not a government handout.
Good to see the sarcastic humor was not lost on that one.
At 1/24/06 06:56 PM, Slizor wrote: Don't call people older than you a "kid". I wouldn't point out fucking obvious things to you if you recognised them yourself.
Whatever you say, boy.
As I said, US oil has been exploited for far longer.
"Russia has far more oil than all of North America."
Russia = 9.1m
USA = 7.61
Canada = 3m
Mexico = 3.4m
Silly boy, read carefully, I did not say all of North America combined. The point was that Russia has more oil than the US and all of its primary trading partners, but it seems to have been lost.
Can you do maths? Or do they not teach you that in "How to blow a whistle and not be sea sick" school?
I am in college.
Or do you want the proven reserves stats with Canada second?
I trust the CIA's information over probably anything else.
Since it was a parody I only mentioned two, as the thing I was parodying only mentioned two - or did that escape you?
Then why do you continue to try to argue from such a poorly constructed case?
I love it when people agree with me. So we are agreed that they didn't "have much of the Middle East"? I mean, to have something is to possess it, the nature of possession of nations is zero-sum, and so the fact that the US had quite similar relations with the Middle East is clearly indicative of a lack of possession.
Not really. The relationships the US established in the Middle East were on a different level, certainly not military alliances.
Wow, I never knew nations could just pluck technology out of the air. Or just magic themselves advanced industry.
You prove nothing.
Yes, Californian Summers and Siberian Winters are the same.
While I appreciate your attempt at symbolism, I would not exactly call Korea and Vietnam a "Californian summer."
The USSR maintained an army of between 3-5 million during the Cold War, the US were nowhere near that.
Relativity.
No I don't. The Depression, when compared with the death of 20 million people and the destruction of huge areas of Russia, was nothing. Nothing was destroyed, no-one was killed, confidence was the only thing required with the depression.
It was a good thing that America was a free market so people could regain that confidence.
Ah the joy of wild assertions. I think I'll be the bigger man and not bother lowering myself to refuting such idiotic claims.
Good, because I know you cannot.
Like in Chile? South Vietnam?
I am really not seeing what you are driving at.
At 1/24/06 06:05 PM, mackid wrote: Are you opposed to taxation rates that go up as income increases? (IE someone who's making $40,000 a year is taxed less than someone making $250,000 a year)
A progressive tax is a very backwards policy. A regressive tax would be more beneficial to our nation because, after all, who are the most likely investors? The rich.
At 1/24/06 06:40 PM, fli wrote: A government is there to care for its citizens
Not if you believe in the philosophy of The Enlightenment that lead to the formation of this country in the first place.
and the only true reason why people maintain a government is for the reason those citizens give up a portion of their freedom.
The only true reason why people maintain a government is for protection. That is first and foremost; everything else is added as convenient. The original colonies that would later become the United States were first united under the Albany Plan to create a common defense against the French during the French and Indian War.
If a business mistreats and abuses people, the government has a reasonable right to regulate businesses.
Of course. But petty issues like wages should not be something the government dictates.
At 1/24/06 02:23 PM, Slizor wrote: You didn't illustrate anything. All you have done is overstated my argument. I have not said that having oil will make you successful, I've said that it helps. The world runs on oil and has done for a long period of time, having it is a great benefit.
Oh really? You are such a smart kid. A+
Having oil in the ground and being able to exploit it are two different things. Plus I'm not so sure of the correctness of your statement since they currently produce less and the US has been exploiting their own oil for far longer (to the extent that production peaked 30 years ago.)
Proved oil reserves.
Oil Production.
Comparisons, particularly considering oil is only one factor I mentioned, are not instructive.
Yeah, it was one of two. And the second one was a feature, albeit greatly exagerated and spun, of free market capitalism.
It did not "have much of the Middle East" it had favourable relations (and a few client states which weren't particularly well endowed with oil) with the states there, that effects nothing.
Russia gave technology and empty promises to many Middle Eastern countries, and made military alliances with several nations including Iraq, to get Middle Eastern oil.
You don't suppose losing 20 million people in a war, competing with the world's leading technological power when they had only recently industrialised, having to deal with inhospitable conditions, maintaining a huge army, maintaining a number of client states, having a bureuacratic and secretive political system had anything to do with it do you?
The US and the Soviet Union had comparable technology, both with their own fortes. The entire world was living under "inhospitable" conditions. The US also maintained a huge army. You forget that the US had just come out of a depression at the same time that the USSR suffered its great losses. The fact that the Soviets were dragged down by all their other socialist buddies was a fault of their economic system. And lastly, you must remember that a free market and personal freedoms go together like wine and cheese.
It does if you actually begin to understand what I'm saying and stop pretending I've said something different. Man, you've ruined my illusions - I thought the Coast Guard was full of brave clever people, guess not.
My favorite part of every Newgrounds pissing match: the trash talk at the bottom. I think I will just be the bigger man and refrain, thanks.
At 1/24/06 09:39 AM, Slizor wrote: Ignoring the fact that the US had a very large amount of the most tradable commodity in the world is just stupid.
Look, that really has nothing to do with it, as I illustrated. Russia has far more oil than all of North America. Russia produces almost as much as Saudi Arabia, and compare them to us! And consider the old Soviet Union which had much of the Middle East as well. What happened? You don't suppose their economic policies had anything to do with their demise, do you?
Don't be a dick and exaggerate what I said. Or do you need me to type things twice so you can understand? Should I type more slowly so you can follow?
Saying it twice does not make it anymore true.
At 1/24/06 07:05 AM, Slizor wrote: The US produced oil during its industrialisation and still does, to a small extent. Ignoring the fact that the US had a very large amount of the most tradable commodity in the world is just stupid.
You know, you are absolutely right. A nation's success is a function of the oil it produces. This explains why the Middle East is such a thriving wonderland.
At 1/23/06 12:16 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: seriously, look up the history of the Vietnam War. NORTH VIETNAM invaded South Vietnam, not China. China only interfered after the US beat North Vietnam up to the Chinese border (at which point the US are invading North Vietnam, by the way), and pushed the US back to the border between N. and S. Vietnam. China didn't start anything - North Vietnam did. Maybe now you'll know why that war was not so popular with the American populace.
What the hell are you talking about? This sounds more like Korea than Vietnam. China went into Vietnam after Vietnam invaded and occupied Combodia, which was at the time a puppet of China.
But seriously, I suggest you look up the history of the Vietnam War.
At 1/20/06 01:15 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Either way, this truce of his gives me hope that we're closing in on him and he knows it.
Or it could be that he is trying to create a deeper divide in the American people by trying to appeal to the left. Remember what al-Zarqawi said, "half the battle is taking place in the media. Alqaeda is in a media race for hearts and minds."
