rec.autos.simulators

by **Kevin F. Gavit** » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 04:31:54

>>Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
>>argument.

> It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US
> strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest
> neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the
> border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force
> overseas.

Well, of course, for the first 100 years of its exitence America skirmished
with both Mexico and Canada on an almost continuing basis. We may have
friendly borders now, but such has not always been the case.

One could make the argument that the only proper use of a standing army in
times of internal peace is to stand on the border.

American can project its forces overseas largely due to the fact that it
has the largest standing army and spends the most money on it, *despite*
the fact that it has no agressive neighbors. Did you know that America
spends more on the military than the next *20* countries combined?

That's right. Take England, Germany, Russia, China etc. Add their military
expenditures up. The US spends more.

The issue here is not that the US has secure borders, but rather that it
has always looked far afield for enemies. We may not have to worry about
attack from Canada, but we consider the borders of our military interests
to extend at least as far as Kuwait and Vietnam. We think locally and act
globally, exactly the opposite reccomended by the bumper sticker.

KFG

by **Kevin F. Gavit** » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 04:41:28

>> >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling
>> >argument.

>> It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US
>> strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest
>> neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the
>> border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force
>> overseas.
> If we HAD to have tanks on the borders...they would only need to be
> there
> for a couple of weeks...then we'd have a few more States to add to the
> flag.
> :)
> dave henrie

Historically this is, of course, how we aquired most of our states in the
first place. We stole them by force from Canada and Mexico, fair and square.

And of course Canada is seperated from the US only by politics. They are,
literally, the Americans of a different political persuasion, but are
historically and culturally the same people as those residing in the
northern states of America. If Canada decided to join the Union it would be
a fairly simple political issue decided by votes.

This isn't true of Mexico. Mexico is a foriegn culture, and the US has done
everthing in its power to crush that culture in lands that were once
Mexican but are now American. Take one step across the border though, and
it is absolutely undeniable that one has entered a different country. If
Mexico decided to join the Union there would be rioting in the streets of
San Antonio.

KFG

by **Kevin F. Gavit** » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 04:44:55

>> Unfortunately..the sick thing is...many of those families were not ever
>> whole again.
>> dave henrie

> Yes, sad indeed. In war there are no winners.

> --

> Fester

This is literally true. In virtually all wars the *winner* would have ended
up better off if instead of fighting it simply unconditionally capitulated
to the eventual loser.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but they are shockingly few.

KFG

by **Rob Adam** » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 05:09:34

square.

You can still have Saskatchewan if you want it! (just kidding)

I think you'd find some cultural differences if you visited Quebec,
Newfoundland or the North, eh?

Some Western Separatists have tried to get this vote to happen but
fortunately it hasn't happened yet. If Canada does become part of the Union
while I'm alive I'm moving to England.

by **Kevin F. Gavit** » Fri, 07 Dec 2001 08:48:26

>> Historically this is, of course, how we aquired most of our states in the
>> first place. We stole them by force from Canada and Mexico, fair and
> square.

> You can still have Saskatchewan if you want it! (just kidding)

NOBODY wants Saskatchewan! I honestly don't see why the Britsh made such a
big deal about keeping it. : )

I've been to Quebec at least. The cultural differences certainly exist, but
arnt' as great as some might think. There are many towns in the Northeast
US where French is still the culture and daily language. NYS's capital
building is obviously architecturally related the Chateau Frontenac.

Like I said, we ARE definately seperated by politics.

KFG

by **STP** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:44:40

I hear you have lots of sheep there too. Just not of the same quality as the
New Zealand kind. OK, how's this? Mutton Shaggers!

by **Eldre** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:49:53

>The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want
>American world police.

*This* American would be more than happy to stop sending our guys to die, and
stop giving money, food, etc. to countries that don't like us, or even
appreciate the help. *** 'em - let them kill each other for all I care...
The majority of these conflicts are religious in nature,and have been going on
for GENERATIONS. That means it won't stop until one side(or both) is totally
wiped out. :(

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Will DeRiver** » Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:35:44

Same here, Eldred. I'm with you all the way with that, word for word!
--
- Will DeRivera
- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
- http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Don Burnett** » Sun, 09 Dec 2001 09:32:43

> >The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want
> >American world police.

> *This* American would be more than happy to stop sending our guys to die,
and
> stop giving money, food, etc. to countries that don't like us, or even
> appreciate the help. *** 'em - let them kill each other for all I
care...
> The majority of these conflicts are religious in nature,and have been
going on
> for GENERATIONS. That means it won't stop until one side(or both) is
totally
> wiped out. :(

> Eldred

Only problem with that Eldred, is sooner or later they will come after us,
much like the events of 9/11.
They don't believe it freedom of any kind, don't believe in humanity, and
don't believe in equality. They are an abomination to mankind. They have
proved what they will do when left to their own devices, and it will only
get worse from here if nothing is done about it.
They now know the might of the United States when angered, much like the
Japanese found out 60 years ago.
Others will soon learn as well.
I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms I have enjoyed, freedoms
people like my father fought for against the Germans at the time.
We've had it good, it's time we insured those we leave behind have the same
chance.

God Bless America,

Don Burnette

by **Eldre** » Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:50:18

>Only problem with that Eldred, is sooner or later they will come after us,
>much like the events of 9/11.
>They don't believe it freedom of any kind, don't believe in humanity, and
>don't believe in equality. They are an abomination to mankind. They have
>proved what they will do when left to their own devices, and it will only
>get worse from here if nothing is done about it.
>They now know the might of the United States when angered, much like the
>Japanese found out 60 years ago.
>Others will soon learn as well.
>I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms I have enjoyed, freedoms
>people like my father fought for against the Germans at the time.
>We've had it good, it's time we insured those we leave behind have the same
>chance.

My dad fought against the Japanese, so I understand where you're coming from.
Like I said, it won't stop until one side is wiped out. Should we do that? 6
weeks ago I would have been all for turning Afghanistan into a sheet of glass.
Now? I don't know. It's a no-win situation. If we kill all the current
terrorists, who's to say another group won't jump in it against us? Remember,
these people belive it's an HONOR to die in an atack against us. Even their
women and children support those actions, so logically, we'd have to kill them
too. If we pull out of the hot-spots where we have troops, others will see it
as though the terrorism worked. I honestly don't believe that leaving them
alone will stop attacks, either.
I wish I had the answer. It DAMN sure isn't religion... :(

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 06:12:33

>Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I
>think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be.

>Stephen

How do you know that, Stephen?

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Mario Petrinovi** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 06:32:51

I fought real war, if somebody is interested. But don't have
whole thread, and cannot find Stephens post. I have only last 11
posts, from which I couldn't figure out what is this thread about.
But if you have any question, ask freely. I'm not American
(Croat ), but I am on American side. I think freedom is the
greatest value, and it seems that America is protecting it, thanks
god.

> >Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I
> >think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be.

> >Stephen

> How do you know that, Stephen?

> Eldred
> --
> Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
> Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
> GPLRank - under construction...

> Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you
> with experience...
> Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Eldre** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:32:53

> I fought real war, if somebody is interested. But don't have
>whole thread, and cannot find Stephens post. I have only last 11
>posts, from which I couldn't figure out what is this thread about.
>But if you have any question, ask freely. I'm not American
>(Croat ), but I am on American side. I think freedom is the
>greatest value, and it seems that America is protecting it, thanks
>god.

Oh I fully believe there are others here who have fought in a war. I was just
questioning Stephen's certainty that no one here had ever been in a war. I'd
guess that we have enough of an age range here to cover from the Persian Gulf
war all the way back to Korea. I doubt that someone old enough to have fought
in WWII would give a hoot about simes, though...<g>

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:37:22

> >Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I
> >think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be.

> >Stephen

> How do you know that, Stephen?

> Eldred

My mistake, of course. My first assumption is that the newsgroup is
dominated by Brits, Americans etc all under the age of 40 or so. Not
likely. My second obvious error is completely overlooking the fact that
there are likely several group members from Bosnia etc., where you don't
have to be old to have experienced a major war. However, I still think that
a lot of the rhetoric comes from people projecting values formed without
this experience.

Stephen

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:39:25

My mistake. I was locked into a WWII focus. Having personally worked with
several Serbs and Croats (as we received many refugees in Switzerland) this
was a rather obvious oversight on my part.

Stephen

rec.autos.simulators

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....

Simmers have got it good right now....