US Army likely to ban smartwatches
-
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
-
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
When murdering one person is the goal of an entire war, you've lost already.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
When murdering one person is the goal of an entire war, you've lost already.
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
-
@IRJ said:
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
No other government has yet resorted to killing people and mailing the bill to the family for the bullets they used.
Edit: or forcing them to attend the execution and applaud afterwards.
Edit2: The interesting thing about Sadam is that we actually have video of his take over of the government. I won't go into details but the man was just.... despicable. I've watched the video & would not recommend.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
No, Hitler was one of the most admired people in the world at the start of the war. The US entered the war primarily against Japan, not Germany, and not until after the war was Hitler a hated figure. Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and was implementing policies that came from the US, not from Germany, and many Americans thought very, very highly of him even during the war. The impression that you have of the American impression of him is a product of history books and doesn't reflect the time period.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
No, Hitler was one of the most admired people in the world at the start of the war. The US entered the war primarily against Japan, not Germany, and not until after the war was Hitler a hated figure. Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and was implementing policies that came from the US, not from Germany, and many Americans thought very, very highly of him even during the war. The impression that you have of the American impression of him is a product of history books and doesn't reflect the time period.
Many similarities between Hilters Government and peoples approval of it and current US government.. Just saying.
-
@thecreativeone91 "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."~Hermann Goering
-
@MattSpeller said:
@thecreativeone91 "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."~Hermann Goering
And tell them they are being attack and "we are protecting you" then you get the NSA and anything else you want. legal or not.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ said:
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
No other government has yet resorted to killing people and mailing the bill to the family for the bullets they used.
Edit: or forcing them to attend the execution and applaud afterwards.
Edit2: The interesting thing about Sadam is that we actually have video of his take over of the government. I won't go into details but the man was just.... despicable. I've watched the video & would not recommend.
I never praised Sadam as a good leader, but he kept the region in check. He was alot more predictable than ISIS and was not the kind of person to worry about affairs or attacks in the US.
Those people obviously don't want a western government. The only type of government that works over there is totalitarian. Look at the entire region.
-
@IRJ said:
Those people obviously don't want a western government. The only type of government that works over there is totalitarian. Look at the entire region.
Not just today but historically. As John Green puts it: As you look at history, empires have been far more stable and reliable than democracies.
Modern democracies are modeled on a country that we would be appalled to be attempting to emulate. One of the most famous quotes from Athens: "The powerful do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." Spoken before the complete genocide of a peoples who did not want to be enslaved by Athens.
-
I think there is a generational problem, too. Every generation looks at government differently. So governments like America keep getting bandaids and changes every generation until the system just breaks.
-
Alot more people would be happy if the US was run like George Washington had well aside from having slaves. But a lot of corruption has gotten into government it was suppose to be normal people, now it's only the rich.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Alot more people would be happy if the US was run like George Washington had well aside from having slaves. But a lot of corruption has gotten into government it was suppose to be normal people, now it's only the rich.
That's not really true. The US was set up only to be for the rich - it was only very wealthy, white, male landholders. We've actually gone away from the "rich only", not towards it. It was almost like British nobility system with the landed gentry controlling everything.
Democracy was never an intent. Republics are still about the elite being in control. Democracy was a derogatory governmental term when the US was founded - akin to saying anarchy.
-
One could easily argue that it is allowing the poor to be involved in government that has skewed it so heavily away from the founders' vision for the country. And, of course, each founder had a different vision with several of them envisioning themselves as emperors (Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
Not the first time. Sadam is the one who declared victory after the first one.
That wasn't the goal the first time, reclaiming Saudi Arabia's oil/land.
-
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
You're not wrong there! If not for his expansionist policies, he probably would have been left alone for the rest of his life.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
No, Hitler was one of the most admired people in the world at the start of the war. The US entered the war primarily against Japan, not Germany, and not until after the war was Hitler a hated figure. Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and was implementing policies that came from the US, not from Germany, and many Americans thought very, very highly of him even during the war. The impression that you have of the American impression of him is a product of history books and doesn't reflect the time period.
Sadly we can't ever look upon the loser of a war as anything but a bad guy.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
Not the first time. Sadam is the one who declared victory after the first one.
That wasn't the goal the first time, reclaiming Saudi Arabia's oil/land.
Kuwait?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
No, Hitler was one of the most admired people in the world at the start of the war. The US entered the war primarily against Japan, not Germany, and not until after the war was Hitler a hated figure. Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and was implementing policies that came from the US, not from Germany, and many Americans thought very, very highly of him even during the war. The impression that you have of the American impression of him is a product of history books and doesn't reflect the time period.
Sadly we can't ever look upon the loser of a war as anything but a bad guy.
I don't have that problem. I have a hard time seeing the person who starts a war as anything other than a bad guy
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
Not the first time. Sadam is the one who declared victory after the first one.
That wasn't the goal the first time, reclaiming Saudi Arabia's oil/land.
Kuwait?
sorry.. bad morning.. yes Kuwait.
