Obama's Plan To Disarm The Usa

[ruffryder]

Ok, I see your point, but lets look at a realistic hypothetical situation.Iran gets close to having a nuclear arsenal. They start threatening Israel, making demands and threatening to blow them off the face of the earth.Israel decides that it cannot any longer take the risk of Iran getting nuclear weapons, and goes in and invades Iran.The rest of the nutjob muslim countries join in on the side of Iran. So it is now Israel and the U.S fighting 2 million troops.
Present military scenario:
We have the technology to employ battlefield multiplyers. Meaning we can out gun 2 million or their troops with lets say 50,000 people on our side by using drones, fighter air cover, intelligent tanks, smart bombs, etc. Most of our people can kill the enemy without a direct line of sight. The enemy has to see us to kill us.
Ruffyrider military scenario:
The US has 1950's era tanks, machine guns, mortars, land mines, all line of sight technology.Through lack of technology, we need 1.5 million troops to battle the enemy. The local draft board calls Ruffyrider "We need you over in Iran ASAFP"Ruffyrider has a great liklihood that he will be casualty of war, either injured or killed. But wait, there will be 100's of thousands more just like Ruffyrider.
Now, which scenario would you like to be a part of? Ruffy Rider's army or the present military scenario?

Sweet, I get my own army? That would be so much cooler than Company of Heroes....

On a serious note though, I am not saying to use old technology, all I am stating is that the ever increasing need for better technology weapons will never stop. You will never have good enough weapons, as both sides change and upgrade, hense why I called it self-defeating.

Thanks for giving me a high probability of death in your make believe situation. If you call that realistic..... I don't know...it just wasn't.

 

[Meatman]

you argued above with weetee about the movie

From the standpoint of the arguments I was making they are interchangeable. The both remove humans from the battlefield.

then reply to my quote.

Dang the whole I, Robot thing was a fraudian slip I guess... I was going for "a robot".

...looks like a good ol fashioned liberal back peddle

 

[Meatman]

its just like anything else...newer better stuff is possible, computers for instence, the technology is only good for 3 years tops. cell phones, newer and better every year and breaking off into PDAs which also get better and better by the year. Software: there are always updates and newer better versions....welcome to the world of technology

 

[maluchm]

On a serious note though, I am not saying to use old technology, all I am stating is that the ever increasing need for better technology weapons will never stop. You will never have good enough weapons, as both sides change and upgrade, hense why I called it self-defeating.

Don't use old technology
Don't use new technology

You've gone from one extreme to another and aren't happy being in the middle either. Get off the merry-go-round... you're making me dizzy.

 

[ruffryder]

you argued above with weetee about the movie



then reply to my quote.



...looks like a good ol fashioned liberal back peddle

I didn't realize we were talking about I, Robot till I went back and saw your post stating the movie...

so not only do you need to replace "I" with "a", but now also replace "a robot" with drone....

So much for consistency in a discussion.

 

[ruffryder]

Don't use old technology
Don't use new technology

You've gone from one extreme to another and aren't happy being in the middle either. Get off the merry-go-round... you're making me dizzy.

I never stated what technology to use... just that it seems that it is never good enough and never will be. Seems like a waste of resources, but unfortunately it seems to be necessary.

I got enough words put in my mouth from this thread that there isn't room any more for my foot!

 

[maluchm]

I never stated what technology to use... just that it seems that it is never good enough and never will be. Seems like a waste of resources, but unfortunately it seems to be necessary.

I got enough words put in my mouth from this thread that there isn't room any more for my foot!

It's necessary if you truely value your freedom! And you did state what technology not to use. Not old, Not new and Not current technology.

 

[Jeff C]

Sweet, I get my own army? That would be so much cooler than Company of Heroes....

On a serious note though, I am not saying to use old technology, all I am stating is that the ever increasing need for better technology weapons will never stop. You will never have good enough weapons, as both sides change and upgrade, hense why I called it self-defeating.

Thanks for giving me a high probability of death in your make believe situation. If you call that realistic..... I don't know...it just wasn't.

Ruffy:

What makes you think that if we stop developing more advanced weaponry, that everybody will stop?

Answer: They won't. It has been this way since the start of time. It is in human nature to make things better and get rid of a threat and reduce the threat to your own life.

The first human battle probably was a giant fist fight. The losing side probably said to themselves "Gee, you know if we would use some rocks and throw them at those guys we might have a better chance.

After the next battle, the other side, having lost to the superior technology, says to themselves "Hey we had better at least get some of thos rocks for ourselves. Oh and I have a thought, what if we sharpened up some of those rocks and attached it to a stick and throw it at them, that might be good right?"


On and on it goes, each side improving their weapons and tactics, to where we are today......Incidentally, those not directly in the conflict will be thinking to themselves, what if we were in the fight, we need to get some of those same weapons so we will be ready.

This will never end, until the ideas of improving military weaponry end (Which it will never end)....

 

[Meatman]

I didn't realize we were talking about I, Robot till I went back and saw your post stating the movie...

so not only do you need to replace "I" with "a", but now also replace "a robot" with drone....

So much for consistency in a discussion.

no YOU need to replace "I" with an "a"

don't worry though I won't hold it against ya, I mean you can't expect much from a guy who speaks with a 'hillary' tongue

 

[Meatman]

i'll bet that giant fist fight was just plain awesome to see! could you imagine the look on the first guys face that got hit by the first rock ever thrown HAHAHAHAHA priceless

 

[weetee]

You will never have good enough weapons, as both sides change and upgrade, hense why I called it self-defeating.

You will allways have "good enough weapons" if you allways have the BEST weapons available at the time. (at least better than your enemy) That is why it's NOT "self defeating" to "change and upgrade".

 

[Dare-Ya]

In a way, yes, I am concerned that with no costs other than monetary ones, we would use a technological army to fight wars we would not otherwise get involved with. Or to put it another way, I am not necessarily so much worried about what we (Americans) would do with such technology as what others would (could) do with it. If you knew that it would cost you $50 to kill that guy over there (oversimplification) with absolutely no risk to you, and he had something you wanted, what would stop you?

I don't think it is all bad that soldiers are held to a higher standard now than in the past. Shouldn't there be some recompense for shooting the wrong person? Yes, honest mistakes happen, but with no consequences, an entire village could be slaughtered because there are suspected terrorists in it, and you can't tell which ones are innocent. I would think that the morals of our soldiers would prevent atrocities like that from happening, but history does not support that hope. Do you believe in our justice system that says innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe that this is a universal concept, or should it only apply when you like?

Sure, it sucks when you have to confirm that the guy you are about to kill really deserves it, but how do you live with yourself if you are wrong?

Wow, where do I begin. Obviously, I agree with Meatman. I take from your quote, you agree with the supreme court ruling. Do you believe each combatant captured during war deserves a civil trial where soldiers have to testify against said combatants? I have more faith in our soldiers to make the right call, afterall they're willing to give their lives for your freedoms. I do not think that a soldier put in a life or death situation, should have the burdens like I mentioned before, on his mind.

 

[Idcatman3]

No, I don't believe that combatants deserve a trial. Yes, I believe that under ideal circumstances our soldiers are very capable of making the right call. I also believe that a war environment is far from ideal, mistakes are made, and that is perfectly understandable. Soldiers should not suffer from honest mistakes, after all, as has been so nicely pointed out to me as if I did not realize, their lives are on the line also. I totally support our troops, and have the utmost respect for them being out defending our ideals. Our ideals, which I believe should not just apply to us, but to everyone.

Also, my whole point was that it isn't easy to choose between life and death. Am I wrong to want to spare anyone the consequences of choosing death wrongly?

And about Katrina? My point was that that is similar to a warzone for the people that were there. There were warnings that it would be as bad as it was, and people stayed, why? I'm just not sure what your point about it was?

If you are going to call me names, do it by PM please, and get my side first, forums aren't the best place to discuss emotional topics. Emotions don't come across too well in words only.

Don't get the idea that I want less than the best equipment and support for our troops, of course I don't want people to die, my point is that I don't want anyone to think there is nothing to lose about fighting a war.

Unelss you know what it's like and the attitude of the people over there i suggest you stay off this topic cause it makes you sound like an ignorant fool

As far as I know, there aren't that many people here who've been to Iraq, you want to have a conversation with yourself?

 

[Meatman]

If you would read my post again you will see that, unedited, i simply stated it makes you SOUND like an ignorant fool. Not one time did I call you one.

I would think that the morals of our soldiers would prevent atrocities like that from happening, but history does not support that hope. Do you believe in our justice system that says innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe that this is a universal concept, or should it only apply when you like?

Then you go on talking about the justice system, and one is to only assume you are referring this to the battlefield which makes you sound ignorant. The foolish part comes from the remark you made stated above, which is in bold. I can only take this one way, and that is, that today's soldier does not have the morals to prevent 'atrocities' from happening.

 

[sldgy]

make the voices stop

 

[Idcatman3]

Ok, I'm not naive enough to think that we are going to run everyone in a battle area through our court system and then have the army waiting outside to kill the "bad" ones.

I just don't think that it should be "shoot first, ask questions later," and I know 2 people personally, that if there were no rules against it, would be that way. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but that example is what I have to base my worst assumptions on. I do believe that that type of person is the minority, as many of my other friends are/have been in the military, and have better judgment. I'm not saying that every single person in the army is going to go off shooting everyone they see.

Do you think our armies have committed no atrocities in the past?

 

[ruffryder]

You will allways have "good enough weapons" if you allways have the BEST weapons available at the time. (at least better than your enemy) That is why it's NOT "self defeating" to "change and upgrade".

Well I disagree. It is self defeating because the technological improvements that are made to one side, will trickle down to the other side. So in a way one sides technical achievements are the others also. Hence why I call it self defeating because by increasing technology you increase the advancement of your enemies weapons.... though there is a time delay.

 

[ruffryder]

I can only take this one way, and that is, that today's soldier does not have the morals to prevent 'atrocities' from happening.

Well, if soldiers wouldn't have ever committed them you would have a point. Though, I don't think it is an issue of the soldiers moral standing but it is more of an issue of human nature and the stuff that we have the ability to do to other people despite our so called higher moral beliefs.

Check these links out. These were just regular people and look what happened.

Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram Experiment

 

[weetee]

Well I disagree.

Would it have been "self defeating" to let Germany get the bomb first?

 

[ruffryder]

Would it have been "self defeating" to let Germany get the bomb first?

I guess you would have to ask the former USSR.