1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[wilberforce15]

We didn't win in Vietnam or Afghanistan because we weren't allowed to. For political reasons. Or finished Iraq in 1991.....

The whole world huh?....dude.

Political reasons being that winning would require genocide. Killing them all is the only way to defeat a determined insurgency that is well armed.

If you could go back and choose your rules of engagement in Vietnam or Afghanistan, you'd still lose. It would just take longer and cost more.

 

[Non liberal]

So only folks standing outside a clinic care? Really? That's it?

Yes, delicate nuances....

If you think every pregnancy is the same.....you are being obtuse or not paying attention.

Billions of people don't even believe in God....we'll start there.

Ok, I’m just saying, I don’t see any atheists fighting for these children’s lives outside abortion clinics, that’s all. And what possible circumstance could you give for ending someone’s life?? What is so horrible that it is worse then death? I feel sorry for the rape victims, and the horribly deformed children in the womb. That does not give the authority to anyone to kill them. They may not want to die. This is the problem, nobody thinks of what the kid wants.

 

[Non liberal]

So only folks standing outside a clinic care? Really? That's it?

Yes, delicate nuances....

If you think every pregnancy is the same.....you are being obtuse or not paying attention.

Billions of people don't even believe in God....we'll start there.

So… more people believe in a god then don’t. What’s your point?

 

[UnionStrong]

So… more people believe in a god then don’t. What’s your point?

Delicate nuances and obtuse points

 

[BMWMC]

GOP are pro-life. Then once born they could care less if you live or die.

 

[Non liberal]

Delicate nuances and obtuse points

Lol, I guess.

 

[quad decade guy]

Political reasons being that winning would require genocide. Killing them all is the only way to defeat a determined insurgency that is well armed.

If you could go back and choose your rules of engagement in Vietnam or Afghanistan, you'd still lose. It would just take longer and cost more.

WW2/WW1 proves otherwise.

Genocide? No.

Now, lots of folks killed? You bet. Insurgency would eventually become manageable.

Costly? Yep.

 

[wilberforce15]

WW2/WW1 proves otherwise.

Genocide? No.

Now, lots of folks killed? You bet. Insurgency would eventually become manageable.

Costly? Yep.

How exactly do you think WW1 and WW2 prove otherwise?

When the Japs surrendered, there was no meaningful insurgency upon occupation.

When the Germans were toast, there was no meaningful insurgency upon occupation.

They're irrelevant.

 

[quad decade guy]

How exactly do you think WW1 and WW2 prove otherwise?

When the Japs surrendered, there was no meaningful insurgency upon occupation.

When the Germans were toast, there was no meaningful insurgency upon occupation.

They're irrelevant.

Because they were beaten with overwhelming force.

Something...again...has not been allowed in the other places. Quite relevant.

 

[wilberforce15]

Because they were beaten with overwhelming force.

Something...again...has not been allowed in the other places. Quite relevant.

Yes, beaten with overwhelming force, and then they actually surrendered and did not fight the occupation.

That's the entire question here.

Of course we could take over afghanistan. Of course we could take over vietnam. Somebody could conceivably pretend to establish an invasion of the United States.

But since I'm telling you this for about the dozenth time, I'll stop. Those things will not hold and the occupier or invader will lose, and will always lose, against a well-armed determined insurgency, especially if supply lines are long or difficult. Done.

I shan't explain it to you again. You are determined not to understand. Yes, we could've bombed the crap out of Vietnam and taken control over the whole place. And we'd still have lost and been forced home 5 or 10 years after that anyway, after you pissed away more money and lives.

Your occupation would fail. You can "win" the invasion, but you can't win the occupation. And that means you'll get sent home the loser no matter what.

We beat Afghanistan and Iraq with astonishing ease. And yet, we lost. That would only be 10x the case for anyone invading America.

 

[UnionStrong]

 

[The Driver]

Did I say we should abolish it?

I corrected the notion that invasion was a threat.

And why would anyone invade when they can just walk in?

A million loyal CCP members already have citizenship. A quarter of Mexico population has moved in. Foreigners are buying up record land amounts.

We've already been invaded. This is how the 21st century does it.

Foreigners buying up land? You don’t believe in free markets?

 

[vantexan]

Yes, beaten with overwhelming force, and then they actually surrendered and did not fight the occupation.

That's the entire question here.

Of course we could take over afghanistan. Of course we could take over vietnam. Somebody could conceivably pretend to establish an invasion of the United States.

But since I'm telling you this for about the dozenth time, I'll stop. Those things will not hold and the occupier or invader will lose, and will always lose, against a well-armed determined insurgency, especially if supply lines are long or difficult. Done.

I shan't explain it to you again. You are determined not to understand. Yes, we could've bombed the crap out of Vietnam and taken control over the whole place. And we'd still have lost and been forced home 5 or 10 years after that anyway, after you pissed away more money and lives.

Your occupation would fail. You can "win" the invasion, but you can't win the occupation. And that means you'll get sent home the loser no matter what.

We beat Afghanistan and Iraq with astonishing ease. And yet, we lost. That would only be 10x the case for anyone invading America.

You say that as if it's a mathematical certainty. There are examples to the contrary. The occupation of the New World by Europeans. The British Empire. The Roman Empire. Our takeover of the Philippines from Spain. Russia's domination of its neighbors for centuries. The North defeating the South in the American Civil War. The Ottoman Empire. What it takes is superior manpower, superior technology, and a political will to dominate others for your own benefit. In a time of advanced technology there's no longer the political will in many countries to force others to do the work that machines do better. And advanced weaponry and defense pacts makes invading for resources very risky.

 

[wilberforce15]

You say that as if it's a mathematical certainty. There are examples to the contrary. The occupation of the New World by Europeans. The British Empire. The Roman Empire. Our takeover of the Philippines from Spain. Russia's domination of its neighbors for centuries. The North defeating the South in the American Civil War. The Ottoman Empire. What it takes is superior manpower, superior technology, and a political will to dominate others for your own benefit. In a time of advanced technology there's no longer the political will in many countries to force others to do the work that machines do better. And advanced weaponry and defense pacts makes invading for resources very risky.

The South surrendered and had no insurgency.
The Phillippines did not mount an insurgency.
Russian neighbors didn't mount insurgencies. Afghanistan did, and that's why the Russians lost there.
The British Empire was eventually overturned by insurgencies.

It's like you're refusing to even read what the point is.

Anyone can be defeated. But successful occupation requires the other party to surrender, or you have to kill them all. Eventually, if the local populace wants the occupier to leave, they will be forced to leave.

 

[wilberforce15]

Foreigners buying up land? You don’t believe in free markets?

No, I don't believe in free markets. Foreigners should not be allowed to own essential American assets.

 

[BMWMC]

The South surrendered and had no insurgency.
The Phillippines did not mount an insurgency.
Russian neighbors didn't mount insurgencies. Afghanistan did, and that's why the Russians lost there.
The British Empire was eventually overturned by insurgencies.

It's like you're refusing to even read what the point is.

Anyone can be defeated. But successful occupation requires the other party to surrender, or you have to kill them all. Eventually, if the local populace wants the occupier to leave, they will be forced to leave.

Wow, so many historical errors in one place.
The KKK and its ilk was the south's insurgency and still is today.
The Philippines...The Moro Rebellion.
The soviet invasion of hungary and czechoslovakia in 1968
The British Empire receded by relinquishing colonial claims.

Effective authoritarian regimes can last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Rome of the past and China in the here and now.

 

[UnionStrong]

Wow, so many historical errors in one place.
The KKK and its ilk was the south's insurgency and still is today.
The Philippines...The Moro Rebellion.
The soviet invasion of hungary and czechoslovakia in 1968
The British Empire receded by relinquishing colonial claims.

Effective authoritarian regimes can last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Rome of the past and China in the here and now.

Half baked facts as usual. KKK is a shadow of its former self. Moro rebels failed. The Soviets were not chased out of Czechoslovakia, and the British relinquished colonies in large part because of insurgents or a hostile population.

 

[wilberforce15]

Wow, so many historical errors in one place.
The KKK and its ilk was the south's insurgency and still is today.
The Philippines...The Moro Rebellion.
The soviet invasion of hungary and czechoslovakia in 1968
The British Empire receded by relinquishing colonial claims.

Effective authoritarian regimes can last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Rome of the past and China in the here and now.

lololololololololololololololololololololololol

The KKK was an insurgency and still is today?

Talk about Fake News. What color is the sky in your world?

 

[Non liberal]

Foreigners buying up land? You don’t believe in free markets?

As long as they don’t try to turn us into a communist country.

 

[wilberforce15]

As long as they don’t try to turn us into a communist country.

But after they own it, they can do what they want. That's why America has to be owned by Americans.

Not a hard one.