It's interesting to note...

[Shram]

I am an old ATG member =]

You are an idiot..

Go do research on Military strategy in terms of continent and country spectrum followed by location differences.

then go research Economic differences in the world and what place is affected how.

then realize that Europe has heavy focus on specialty groups so it is accounted for.

when done come back to us.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

 

[lazycommie]

Shram

I am an old ATG member =]

You are an idiot..

Go do research on Military strategy in terms of continent and country spectrum followed by location differences.

then go research Economic differences in the world and what place is affected how.

then realize that Europe has heavy focus on specialty groups so it is accounted for.

when done come back to us.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
I am not a Mod but I am a regular and will always answer if you ask =]

Ah, really weak-a** ad-hom. I missed ye.

Military subjects, especially strategy, unit tactics and military capabilities of various nations (is) a hobby of mine. I study them in my off time.

Europe's flaw when it comes to military capability is that they lack manpower. Specialty groups(who's capability is rather untested, given that they tended to come into being during the Cold War and saw little to no actual combat) are nothing without something to actually hold the line. Big nation with strong airpower comes, blows the capitol to all hell and then just marches on. On the modern (conventional) battlefield, air and armor rule the day. On an unconventional battlefield, untested "specialty" groups are still bogus because they lack significant experience. About the only European groups worth a damn is the SAS and French Foreign Legion.


You can divide the world into buyers and sellers, economically. The US is a big buyer. The biggest, in fact. When something is in demand, because there aren't enough places making it, then people will cash in and producing more because it makes money. However, when there is little demand for certain things, nobody wants to make it because there isn't much money in it. Europe is not a big buyer, nor are they a big seller of anything significant(expensive trashy cars nobody in the US or China is buying don't count, neither does H&K's garbage). Everything Europe makes, China makes cheaper. The US buys a lot,and China has cashed in on making a lot of things and selling them to everybody. However, when your biggest buyer up and quits, now you have a lot of stuff worth little, and you can't sell it all fast enough to offset the costs. You have to lay off workers. That on a large scale means high unemployment. China and the US also "feed the world", although China was passing us on that. US falls, then China takes a hit. What happens to the food supply? Food shortages across the world.

Big s**t sandwhich...take a bite of it.  

[Erverain]

Good sweet Christ in Heaven, would you all stop this pointless bitching? We all knew this was going to happen regardless of who was elected. We all know that the world is swirling down the bowl of that is the universal toilet. And we all know that the real reason this started happening so quickly was because of welfare. Especially multi-generation welfare. But this is OUR mess, and WE have to clean it up, not b***h about it like some Frenchman. (My apologies to France, it being a lovely country)  

[Taeryyn]

Although I don't think necessarily think McCain would have been a better choice, I've been very, very hesitant to throw myself on the Obama bandwagon. When my American friends rave about how great he is and how good he'll be for the country, my only response is, "Well, that remains to be seen."

The man isn't a miracle worker, and whatever he does is likely to piss off at least half the country. People are putting him up on a pedestal. He isn't so much respected as a politician as he is worshipped like some kind of action hero. So when he inevitably fails or does something unpopular (he's only human, and he can't possibly please everyone all of the time), he's going to face twice the backlash. People tend to be pretty resentful and angry when their expectations aren't met...

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when things start to go downhill...  

[lazycommie]

Erverain

Good sweet Christ in Heaven, would you all stop this pointless bitching? We all knew this was going to happen regardless of who was elected. We all know that the world is swirling down the bowl of that is the universal toilet. And we all know that the real reason this started happening so quickly was because of welfare. Especially multi-generation welfare. But this is OUR mess, and WE have to clean it up, not b***h about it like some Frenchman. (My apologies to France, it being a lovely country)

Like I said, I'm just saying "I told you so", and will continue as he continues to ******** up, while working towards making things as secure as possible for me and mine.  

[lazycommie]

Taeryyn

as he is worshipped like some kind of action hero. So when he inevitably fails or does something unpopular (he's only human, and he can't possibly please everyone all of the time), he's going to face twice the backlash. People tend to be pretty resentful and angry when their expectations aren't met...

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when things start to go downhill...

You just hit the nail on the head. Although I'd replace action hero with "deity".  

[Taeryyn]

There isn't a Holy Church of Barack yet. sweatdrop I feel bad for being so pessimistic. I really and sincerely hope that his presidency is a success, and that he has a positive impact on your country and my own, but I don't want to get my hopes up this soon.

I just feel that caution (or even just hesitant optimism with a good dose of realism) is a better approach than being blinded by personality and pretty ideals, what with the economy being so ...well, scary these days. sweatdrop  

[lazycommie]

Taeryyn

There isn't a Holy Church of Barack yet. sweatdrop I feel bad for being so pessimistic. I really and sincerely hope that his presidency is a success, and that he has a positive impact on your country and my own, but I don't want to get my hopes up this soon.

I just feel that caution (or even just hesitant optimism with a good dose of realism) is a better approach than being blinded by personality and pretty ideals, what with the economy being so ...well, scary these days. sweatdrop

Some folks I've encountered around here may as well be members of that congregation.

I'm not going to play the "good loser". I actively dislike the man, and hope he's a complete and utter failure. If the dems and liberal media are going to play dirty, like they have been for years now, so shall I  

[Erverain]

Shouldn't you rather hope that the country will be fixed before the manbecomes a complete failure? If we all go to Hell in a handbasket just becuase he places the straw that breaks the camel's back, I'm blaming you, LC.
We picked him, so we have to deal with it. Well, the majority of Americans picked him, I never voted because it wouldn't matter.  

[lazycommie]

Erverain

Shouldn't you rather hope that the country will be fixed before the manbecomes a complete failure? If we all go to Hell in a handbasket just becuase he places the straw that breaks the camel's back, I'm blaming you, LC.
We picked him, so we have to deal with it. Well, the majority of Americans picked him, I never voted because it wouldn't matter.

No. I hope he fails miserably, so that his followers will be disgraced and marginalized and we can get to fixing things. Until he and his followers are ousted thoroughly from all levels of government, we're not going to see any improvement. The ideals he stands for are ones which are inherently detrimental to any nation, especially one in our situation.

There is no "we". I sure as hell didn't vote for him. It ain't on my shoulders, but on the shoulders of those who do support him. As for the majority, that has no bearing on me. I'm a minority in many ways, this ain't no different.  

[Erverain]

You don't trust politicans much, do you? Not that any sane person does, but it seems a bit more entrenched with you.
Anyway, let's say that, for the sake of argument, he fails miserably and he and his followers are ousted from power. What then? Will the country lead itself? Will there be some sort of maverick old man with the wisdom to lead, and the charisma to gather followers? No. No there won't. We are already leaning precariously close to a national collapse as is. And you want to know the funny part? Nobody wants to pay attention to it. Also, many seem to forget that we aren't "one nation," but a union of fifty individual states.
Sometimes I think we should just start over.  

[lazycommie]

Erverain

You don't trust politicans much, do you? Not that any sane person does, but it seems a bit more entrenched with you.
Anyway, let's say that, for the sake of argument, he fails miserably and he and his followers are ousted from power. What then? Will the country lead itself? Will there be some sort of maverick old man with the wisdom to lead, and the charisma to gather followers? No. No there won't. We are already leaning precariously close to a national collapse as is. And you want to know the funny part? Nobody wants to pay attention to it. Also, many seem to forget that we aren't "one nation," but a union of fifty individual states.
Sometimes I think we should just start over.

No, I don't trust politicians, at all. Even politicians I support, I don't trust. I only support the ones I do because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend until they no longer are".


Keeping with your scenario, if we suffer national collapse you are likely to not see a single politician-leader spring up. You'll see lots of smaller factions too busy fighting eachother to get in the way of the real economic rebuilding, which must not be done by government, but rather by a shift in public opinion away from socialistic policies. The people have to stop supporting bogus socialistic ideals before things will be able to be rebuilt. As we've seen before, the populace, by and large, isn't very bright. They'll see Obama's utter failure and swing to the other extreme for a while, before they burn out and stop caring again, which is just about all the momentum that would be needed to accomplish a real change in this country. The fact that we're 50 states comes into play here. Such a change would enable states to gain more power than the federal government, hopefully ensuring states rights. Think like how Montana and New Hampshire have passed legislation that would over-rule federal firearms laws, but on a larger scale and addressing more issues.

The last thing we need is a single politician-leader who's oozing charisma. Such types invariably become tyrants.  

[Erverain]

Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader...  

[lazycommie]

Erverain

Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader...

Capable, yes. But capable of what? Only of grabbing more power. Tyrants have only one thing in mind, power.

Don't get me started on the failings of democracy...  

[Erverain]

Well, the first "monarch-type" leader would probably work his a** off to stabilize the country. From there, either his appointed successor or equivalent would hammer out the public works. After that, though, we might get the more militaristic or expansionist types. Of course, that's just a hypothetical in ideal conditions, so we'd probably get a crazy b*****d right from the start.
In the link I had posted, the one on Plato's Republic, Socrates goes on about the "degeneration of government" or somesuch. Basically, when a government begins to break down, it goes like so: Best->Bravest(strongest)->Richest->descend to next level. And funnily enough, democracy is ri~ght on the bottom of the scale.