Obama's Plan To Disarm The Usa

[khaddon2110]

these are his own words....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfwKKxVC7_o

I didn't do a snopes check though... my bad

 

[Meatman]

i've always wanted to glow in the dark

 

[bonz50]

these are his own words....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfwKKxVC7_o

I didn't do a snopes check though... my bad

i'm pretty sure you don't need snopes to verify what you see him actually saying no??

 

[khaddon2110]

i've always wanted to glow in the dark

Yah, I can see all the wackjobs giving up there's because we set the example

i'm pretty sure you don't need snopes to verify what you see him actually saying no??

just a jab at the snopes police on here

 

[jsledder]

Do you have any facts to support your claim that the person on that video is really Obama and that's really his voice???? (laughing my *** off!!)


These future weapons he talks about is what saves lives, the military is always coming up with new weaponry that takes the human risk nearly out of the equation and now he wants to "slow the development of future combat systems".

Wont it be nice to have a world where everyone gets along and there is no more terrorism??? It's going to be such a friendly, peaceful planet after he gets elected....

 

[ruffryder]

These future weapons he talks about is what saves lives, the military is always coming up with new weaponry that takes the human risk nearly out of the equation and now he wants to "slow the development of future combat systems".

They don't save lives, they just continue the escalation of weaponry. We get better guns, then they get better guns, then we need better guns and so on and so forth.

Defense is a huge part of the government and there a lot of jobs, you know the guys that are all for socialism and the like... Selling weapons and ammunition is big business in this country, unfortunately.

 

[H2SNOW]

USA + OBAMA = HELL in HANDBAG

 

[Jeff C]

They don't save lives, they just continue the escalation of weaponry.

I really wish you would actually think about what your going to type before you actually do........


For example, lets take Afghanistan........

If you had your way, we would be over there fighting these guys with rifles, and that is about it. They have rifles, we have rifles, that is a fair fight......


War is not about a fair fight. Fair fights cost American lives. We want the fight to be as one sided (our side) as possible.....

So having superior weapons, both save American lives because it keeps the enemy unable to "see" us on the battlefield, and end conflicts that we get into faster, thus saving American lives.


I need to stop typing as I am going to write something I will regret........

 

[cmantle1]

I really wish you would actually think about what your going to type before you actually do........


For example, lets take Afghanistan........

If you had your way, we would be over there fighting these guys with rifles, and that is about it. They have rifles, we have rifles, that is a fair fight......


War is not about a fair fight. Fair fights cost American lives. We want the fight to be as one sided (our side) as possible.....

So having superior weapons, both save American lives because it keeps the enemy unable to "see" us on the battlefield, and end conflicts that we get into faster, thus saving American lives.


I need to stop typing as I am going to write something I will regret........

i think ruff was referring to nuclear bombs more than close combat weapons....

 

[ruffryder]

i think ruff was referring to nuclear bombs more than close combat weapons....

Somewhat. I am not talking about a fair fight. But Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples. We come over there in armored vehicles, they start using IED's. We build a large army capable of beating anyone else, and they use gorilla tactics. The solution is never better weapons, it seems to only change the other groups tactics.

With all our superior technology why isn't the war over? Is it because we don't have good enough weapons?

On another note, where do you think all the technology comes from that they are fighting with? Were do you think it was developed? Most of the weapons in this world are from developed nations, like the US, Britain, USSR,

Wiki arms industry

 

[jsledder]

I was referring to close combat weapons, missile's, jets, etc.. Not Nuclear technology. Back in my day..... 8" Howitzer, there would be a lot more casualties then there are in today's war of laser guided missiles and all the fun stuff they have to work with and can fire from a desk or miles up in the air out of sight and guide the rockets right where they want them. Even the handheld weapons are a lot better today and continuing to be a lot better, if we are going to be putting American sons/daughters/fathers/wives out there in the battlefield (and regardless of who is President there will always be the need for an advanced military) I would like to know they have the best weapons available and our government isn't taking away funds to keep making those weapons available and developing newer, safer weapons.

 

[GODEEP]

Please, I Beg Of Us As Americans With Common Sense! Do Not Vote For This Guy!!!

 

[ruffryder]

I was referring to close combat weapons, missile's, jets, etc.. Not Nuclear technology. Back in my day..... 8" Howitzer, there would be a lot more casualties then there are in today's war of laser guided missiles and all the fun stuff they have to work with and can fire from a desk or miles up in the air out of sight and guide the rockets right where they want them. Even the handheld weapons are a lot better today and continuing to be a lot better, if we are going to be putting American sons/daughters/fathers/wives out there in the battlefield (and regardless of who is President there will always be the need for an advanced military) I would like to know they have the best weapons available and our government isn't taking away funds to keep making those weapons available and developing newer, safer weapons.

I guess my point was that the difference between weaponry seems to be a constant. We get better advanced weapons, then they get better weapons similar to what was replaced by our advanced weapons. That or they change tactics and start using suicide bombings.

I do agree with safety. I would like to see more money spent on actually active or dynamic defense stuff. I can't wait till force fields come out.

 

[khaddon2110]

With all our superior technology why isn't the war over? Is it because we don't have good enough weapons?

The war is not over for a very simple reason..... actually the same reason vietnam ended the way it did.....

the military is designed to do two things.....kill people and break things..People like you start putting boundaries on how they achieve those goals, and then we have a problem....

If we would let them do there job, it would have been over long ago, and the outcome in SE asia would have been much different as well, with far fewer casualties.

 

[ruffryder]

The war is not over for a very simple reason..... actually the same reason vietnam ended the way it did.....

the military is designed to do two things.....kill people and break things..People like you start putting boundaries on how they achieve those goals, and then we have a problem....

If we would let them do there job, it would have been over long ago, and the outcome in SE asia would have been much different as well, with far fewer casualties.

You talking about just nuking the whole area? Guess I should have told the president something else when he called me up for military advise and I gave him all those boundaries.

I am curious what restrictions being lifted would greatly change the speed at which the war is being fought?

 

[khaddon2110]

You talking about just nuking the whole area? Guess I should have told the president something else when he called me up for military advise and I gave him all those boundaries.

I am curious what restrictions being lifted would greatly change the speed at which the war is being fought?

Don't need nukes, at least not yet....

Did I say you called the pres and put boundaries on him personally? You can't deny that the leftward leaning window lickers..... Sorry for that, but I had to use that one. Just struck me as really funny in the other thread I was just reading... anyway, You can't deny that there are those people in this country that would enjoy, .. I will go one step further and say that there are people that would get off, if we were to lose in Iraq.

Let me change that from boundaries to rules... A soldier can't fight as effective if he has to think about what rules he might be breaking by pulling the trigger.

 

[ruffryder]

A soldier can't fight as effective if he has to think about what rules he might be breaking by pulling the trigger.

Could you be specific? I do not know so that I why I am asking.

 

[khaddon2110]

The one in particular I'm thinking of is the malitias in Iraq... The US is suposed to be hands off when what needs to happen is they need to be dismantled and killed.

they don't touch them because of what it might look like back here.

 

[xrated]

Could you be specific? I do not know so that I why I am asking.

like in vietnam or even airport security...soldiers are not allowed to "profile". GIs got in trouble for killing civilians in SE Asia because the NVA dressed like and hid among the civilians...thus the GIs didn't know who would kill them and who wouldn't, so to stay alive it's easier to shoot first. Course that didn't go over well and now the Army has more restrictions like waiting to be fired on(not sure if that is actually how it works, having never served, but that's the best I can explain)

 

[jsledder]

If a group of soldiers get fired on from a set of bushes or from behind a wall they just can't open fire on said bushes or wall without identifying their target as the enemy.