This topic contains 81 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Rommel 7 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5887

    Princey
    Participant

    Jeremy Clarkson for prime minister?? What you think??

    #45179

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Hm…. I’d say either there aren’t many Brits here, or they don’t have an opinion. Now mention something about Bush, and you’d have a riot!

    Generally, though, I think most try to stay away from politics in Scorched.

    #45180

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic. : ) Jeremy Clarkson. I’m not quite that old yet.

    If I ever met George Bush, I would spit in his face (and/or beat him up).

    I heard some teenaged american girl got paid a visit for saying she’d kill him on a b-log.

    Bit out of the FBI’s due restriction here. I don’t know if I’d kill him. His offspring on the other hand…

    Pretty sure it’s international consensus.that his seed should be wiped from the earth.

    #45181

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Now, in all fairness, this war did not go well in ways that are outside of Mr. Bush’s control. Once we opened up this can of worms in the Middle East, we destabilized the area. We can’t pull out now without threat of further shifting power around. He simply didn’t think through the long term.

    Actually, in Desert Storm, the military considered killing Saddam Hussein. But it was determined that it would cause a power vacuum, allowing (most likely) the Iranies to gain control. So it was scrapped. Whats that saying….. Learn your history or you’re bound to repeat it?

    And then with our wonderful gas issues, it comes down to the simple fact that the Bush family makes their wealth off of Petroleum.

    Oh no, it wouldn’t be the FBI, It’d be the Secret Service. I’d suggest locking your doors…… lol.

    Ironically enough, the Secret Service itself admits that assassinating the president (or any local dignitary) wouldn’t actually be that hard for a normal American. As long as you don’t have a criminal record and can keep your mouth shut (the latter always seems to be the hard one). But escaping is entirely impossible.

    Yep, I do agree overall. I can’t wait for his term to end.

    Crap, sorry for stealing your thread, Princey.

    #45182

    DireWolf
    Participant

    @KTM Rider wrote:

    Hm…. I’d say either there aren’t many Brits here, or they don’t have an opinion. Now mention something about Bush, and you’d have a riot!

    Generally, though, I think most try to stay away from politics in Scorched.

    Im not a Bush hater or lover, it’s Hillary that scares the crap outta me!

    #45183

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    Invasion of Iraq. Pretty scary.

    Actually, my personal distaste for Bush lies mainly with his open religious discrimination.

    In the UK, a prime minister touting “God be with us” would be removed from power. 21st century developed countries are defined by ethnic diversity and acceptance of alternate culture. You just can’t have World leaders appearing non-impartial.

    Some interesting numbers (if you believe internet statistics):

    In the UK, 55% of teenagers purport to have no particular religion.
    In the US the figure’s apparently something like 10%.

    I would suspect that if you tested the remaining 45% in the UK, most would fail to conform beyond “choosing a label”. And I’d suspect most American “Christians” can barely spell it, let alone conform to orthodox Christian doctrine*.

    I don’t think a lot of people realise how close we came to war in 2003. Fact is, the US is nowhere near as untouchable as US internal propaganda would lead you to believe. Anyone who thinks the Iraq thing wasn’t a risk militarily could be in for a very rude awakening.

    Lets hope Bush will be gone for good.

    * I’m just kidding, Americans are alright : /

    #45184

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Personally, I don’t agree. The United States of America was founded under a Christian (did I spell it right? lol) religion. It was the main idea not to discriminate. But for a person to demand that we not recognize (on a national level) the religion that we were founded upon because it offends them, my response is for them to leave.

    I’ve actually studied the founding of our country, while not in extreme detail, with a strong fascination.

    Now, I’ve heard several arguments that by stating “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill, or by stating “May God have mercy on your soul” after a trial sentencing, etc., that it violated the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It shows that the U.S. government prefers the Christian religion. It is my response that yes it does. We were, are, and shall always be a Christian Government. Irrelevant of our population’s religious lean. We allow practice of any religion as long as they do not endanger or threaten other peoples’ welfare. That is what the Framers of our Constitution were trying to accomplish. And we (according to the Establishment Clause) will not support a specific religion without equal support to others in every way but morally. No law controls our morals or ethics.

    Actually, I’d bet that there are quite a few atheists in America. I’m not one of them. 🙂

    Yeah, I find that laughable. We have one of the most well trained (through NATO cross-training) Militaries in the world. The only real danger to America’s livelihood is our politicians. They have no business in controlling our military.

    This is becoming an intriguing discussion.

    #45185

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    : ) I like intriguing discussions. Hope you like reading…

    Regarding United States heritage, I don’t deny the Christian foundation. Things were very different in the 1770’s. (Side note, 200 years isn’t much of a heritage by international standards. Did you know America was first colonised by Vikings in the 11th century?)

    Any 21st century government aligning itself with any one religious group is totally irresponsible.

    Discrimination and encouraged religious ideology is one thing within US national borders (seems archaic by British standards), but in the United States role as an international police force, it’s practically criminal (especially when the countries being “policed” right now are something like 99% muslim).

    Regarding military dominance, there’s no denying United States offensive prowess. Defensive forces though, are a very different matter.

    The most developed countries are much more dependent on the infrastructure and technology that separates them. In the UK for example, piss on the wrong power pylon and it’ll effectively end the lives of a couple of thousand people for a few days. Any damage to infrastructure can be catastrophic. Whole cities would grind to a halt if denied petrol for even a day or two.

    Had Iraq chosen to retaliate/make pre-emptive strikes against US home territory (they easily could have), US economy as we know it could have crumbled overnight. Obviously Iraq would have risked indiscriminate obliteration in return, but people can do crazy things when they’re backed into a corner.

    More internet facts if you’re interested:

    If you take military expenditure per area (km2), the UK spends more than any other country, twice as much as Japan (second highest expenditure), and 5 times more per km2 than the US.

    If you ask me it doesn’t mean a lot. There may be some technological advantage when bullying 3rd world “rogue states”, but any one of the developed countries could have secret weaponry that could change everything.

    (Plus technological advantage doesn’t always mean a lot. Vietnam/WW2 were proof of that. Infact, I myself routinely massacre squadrons of funking sand-hogging square counters using nothing but baby missiles : )

    #45186

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Heh, I actually shortened my previous post, thinking it was too long, and that it would bore people. I like to talk/type and listen/read. So this one is gonna be loooong. Holler if you get bored. There might be in-read peanuts.

    Yeah, we are a young, stupid country. But we’ve already perfected the art of creating an aged bureaucracy to slow down our decision making process. That took most other countries much longer. 😀

    I’d say that everyone has a different interpretation of Christianity (and other religions). Mine differs from ‘the norm’ and is constantly evolving as I am exposed to new things. Many people are locked into religious particularities that were invented in the 1200’s. Not to say that mine, or their faith is stronger/weaker, just slightly different, yet overall compatible.

    seems archaic by British standards

    Heh, you guys were on the forefront of Religious establishment when our revolution came about. Glad to know you aren’t anymore. Maybe we should move back. 😆

    Now, to put this in a different light, there was a news article a year or so ago about a Michigan (well, most of my news is Michigander news) National Guard unit involved in training an Iraqi police force. They both shared religious holidays together. On (The American) Thanksgiving, the Iraqis ate turkey side-by-side our troops and Thanked God with ’em. And then on other Muslim holidays, our troops were invited (and did) to celebrate theirs (although I’d bet they had no idea what was going on. They were still accommodating).

    There was a show on the history channel awhile ago, Shootout, about a specific conflict over in Iraq. A rebel sniper had an Army unit pinned down, picking off anyone he could see. But when whatever the particular religious prayer at the time (I won’t hide that I have no particular knowledge of the Muslim faith) came about, and the sniper stopped to pray, the unit evacuated their injured instead of advancing onto the sniper (interestingly enough, later speculation realized that the time it took them to evacuate their injured took longer than the prayer time. The sniper didn’t shoot at them until they were finished). Later, the battle raged on with it ending when a M1-A1 Abrams blew up the building. The unit mounted the sniper’s rifle in their barracks in respect and thanks.

    Tactically, taught since the time of Sun Tzu, there cannot be a defense that is stronger than any offense. Its impossible. Offensive tactics and weapons simply evolve quicker. And as it is, terrorism is a relatively new form of offensive warfare. No one is prepared for it. That is why our doctrine teaches preemptive strike.

    Oh yes, our civilian infrastructure would grind to a halt. Our military is at least together enough to function in a worst-case scenario. Russia would probably be best off; they have massive stores for emergency situations. Yes, their technology is obsolete, but they’d have it.

    they easily could have

    How? Iraq’s navy was laughable, and their ability to go intercontinental was nonexistent (which was a major issue for Mr. Bush. Where are these WMDs (heh, sorry WMD, not you) that he swore they had?) They could have invaded the local countries, but nothing more. The only other option was terrorism, but Iraq itself only provided for the terrorists, they did not control them. And as it is, we were so keyed up after 9/11 that our own people couldn’t get through customs, let alone outsiders.

    The larger threat is someone like Iran or N. Korea. They have the ability to affect outside of the immediate. I personally feel that we should be constantly prepared for preemptive strike against them, if not take that strike to set an example.

    That is an interesting statistic. But here is an idea (that might or might not hold up). The US has quite a bit of interior land. How the bloody heck is someone going to attack Montana without going over our coast/border line? Therefor we can concentrate our defenses on our borders. So the more important statistic is the relation of dollars (pounds, yen, whatever) relative to border length and local threat. Combined with the amount of exterior defenses (i.e. outside of the country’s territory).

    In all reality, however, the chances of a battalion of tanks to roll over our Mexican border is slim to nil (well, lets see how China evolves in the next 30 years). The real threat is infiltration. Both the US and the UK learned that the hard way.

    Technological advantage is only one variable in determining strength. Size, motivation, training, internal organization, supplies, and whether politicians or generals are fighting the war are only some of the considerations.

    #45187

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @KTM Rider wrote:

    How? Iraq’s navy was laughable, and their ability to go intercontinental was nonexistent (which was a major issue for Mr. Bush. Where are these WMDs (heh, sorry WMD, not you) that he swore they had?) They could have invaded the local countries, but nothing more. The only other option was terrorism, but Iraq itself only provided for the terrorists, they did not control them. And as it is, we were so keyed up after 9/11 that our own people couldn’t get through customs, let alone outsiders.

    Most of us know he did have WMD. He’s used them in the past. I do not think the concern was whether or not Iraq would attack the USA. After 9/11, the concern was whether or not Saddam would supply those that could attack us.

    Now as KTM mentioned before, Bush did not think this through. From his various speeches of the past, and some of our governmental decisions, it is easy to see that much of what has happened in Iraq thus far has been unforseen. Lets also not forget that Bush didn’t just point his finger and say, lets go. These members of the Senate and Congress that voted for this war cannot cry now. Saying Bush tricked us,. Bush misled us. They are big boys and girls, people vote them in for a reason. They are expected to know what they are doing. They need to take responsibility for their votes.

    As far as religeon goes, remember this one line. Freedom of religion, not from religion. Who cares if Bush says “God bless America”? I know I have plenty of more important things to worry about. Like FPS on new S3D.

    As far as Hillary…..Giuliani will defeat Hillary. He will probably be our next President. The only way Hillary can beat him is if the conservatives of the USA decide Giuliani is not conservative enough and vote 3rd party or not at all. That would be a massive mistake. You can’t always get what you want. Sometimes you have to comprimise to get what you need hehehehe……wonder if anyone got that.

    BTW, excellent posts KTM. I find myself agreeing with you on 95% of what you say.

    #45188

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    All very interesting.

    How? Iraq’s navy was laughable, and their ability to go intercontinental was nonexistent.

    I’m making assumptions, but I personally would be surprised if every developing country on the planet didn’t have access to at least a limited nuclear arsenal. (Perhaps bar a few of the smaller countries in Africa).

    Nuclear technology is old news, used routinely and on huge scale throughout the developed world. I find it impossible to believe it’s beyond the reach of any country. (We are talking countries here, not bands of rogue terrorists (despite the propaganda)).

    Our only security is in the threat of retaliatory force and World instability, and I think the fact it hasn’t happened yet (the bomb drop) is further testament to these terrorists’ status as less terrorists, and more disgruntled nations responsible for the lives of millions.

    Different token, this is 2007. Anyone with a 5 dollar a month Internet connection can pretty much tell you what you’re wearing from orbit via satellite linkup. I think it would be naïve to assume there are no armed military satellites, and considering how far technology’s come in the last 10 or 20 years, there’s likely no hiding place on Earth with all cards on the table.

    What d’you think? Lasers? : )

    #45189

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Yes, he did have WMD’s (My jest was more against Bush). But he did not have the means to actually use them against us in a strategic manner. Even the N. Korean’s ICBM isn’t a threat, it uses to obsolete technology which allows it to be intercepted (ahh, such a marvel, our Aegis). The only way for it to be used in a strategic manner against us is it to be smuggled into the country. Many doom-sayers will state that they can and will do this. Yes, I will admit that it can be. CIA led a test that proved that our defenses were inadequate to stop a modern WMD from being smuggled into the country.

    Key word “Modern”. Every known open enemy of the US at the moment does not have the technology required to build a transportation device that can smuggle a WMD into our country undetected. (the issue is through our more open borders, which then our interior sensors should detect it, I hope). Even the USSR wasn’t able to smuggle their ‘briefcases’ into America in the Cold War. Now, our billion dollar scientists in their billion dollar labs with billion dollar resources can. But thats a technological leap that took us many years to create. And in this situation, detecting nuke/bio/chem is offensive, while keeping them hidden is defensive.

    Yeah, it was not all Bush. It was everyone. I know that I was calling for blood after 9/11. I would have been perfectly fine if we nuked the entire area. I was frazzled. Now, I am certainly glad we didn’t.

    They are expected to know what they are doing

    Yeah, this is my big problem. Politicians fighting the wars. Our Generals should make the tactical (and sometimes strategic) decisions.

    Yeeah, I won’t comment on this coming election. Discussing past actions is one thing, recent stuff is taboo. 😆

    Oh, and many of the satellite “functions” that are so well talked about today is pure Hollywood. As it is, we have to have specialists to determine what color a vehicle is, let alone do stuff like reading a license plate. CIA has printed articles on the subject, and people believe that they are using a cover-up psychology. The sad fact is that all of our government’s spacial activities have to go through NASA, and NASA has to tell the world what they eat for lunch, let alone satellite specifications.

    As for armed satellites, I think it would be highly improbable. Its way easier to repair a plane than a satellite. And our planes can go anywhere. So whats the point of an armed satellite? A laser would be even harder. They’d be way more delicate than a missile, and would use massive amounts of energy.

    Well thanks, Deathbal. I figured I’d make a bunch of enemies with this. So whats the other 5%? 😀

    #45190

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @KTM Rider wrote:

    Well thanks, Deathbal. I figured I’d make a bunch of enemies with this. So whats the other 5%? 😀

    Yep, I do agree overall. I can’t wait for his term to end.

    That is the other 5%. I can wait. When I consider the alternatives on left. I see both parties moving towards the left. Extreme conservatives no longer exist. Or better yet, they exist, but are laughable candidates for President. Yet the left have no issues what so ever of nominating exteme left, almost radical candidates while the Republican party seems to be moving towards the center.

    There is not a single Democratic candidate I would vote for President in this field. And looking back now, I would still not vote for Gore or Kerry. They are the exact opposite of what I love. I am a 100% conservative, anti entitlement capitolist. I’m also a jingoist concerning foreign policy. So I can wait.

    How’s that for making friends? 😆

    #45191

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    : ) best to be upfront dbal.

    KTM,

    You are familiar with the likes of google earth? (Type in your post-code and you can literally download a picture of your house from last week, showing people, cars, pets in gardens. I would think it’s the same everywhere. (I’d expect cutting edge military technology to be significantly more advanced than that available to us little people)).

    I think you’re buying into propaganda. (Obviously, you’re meant to)

    The UK couldn’t intercept a surprise attack from a paper aeroplane. Luxemburg couldn’t, let alone the US. Consider the scale involved here.

    Again, these are countries, with all the resources countries have. Publicised military deterrents are one thing, 5 or 10 prototype MIRVs developed in secrecy are entirely another.

    No doubt there are very few countries worldwide capable of winning in sustained conflict with the US (if any). But with the threat being surprise attacks from an ambiguous enemy…

    I don’t even like to think about it. I do know the more we’re complacent, the more we’re vulnerable.

    #45192

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    Yeah, if I cue in my home, the image is over four years old. You also cannot make out our vehicles, they are just blobs. But that is overall irrelevant. Satellite imaging is (can be) real time (well, minus the delay of the miles for the data packets to travel).

    It is simple physics that holds satellite technology back. Optical zoom gives the best image, but the satellite’s optical focus is limited by temperature (otherwise the lens would freeze and crack). So they have to rely on digital zoom. If you zoom in on an image, you will soon hit a line where the image quality drops off dramatically (Yeah, my family has a history of photography. Although I’ve never really gotten into, it goes back 3 generations).

    France rents out their satellite technology to the highest bidder. Their satellite technology is par to America’s. The specifications can be studied in detail. The detail level stops at 5 inches. Anything past that is too hard to identify at all. So…. we can read some billboards.

    Another issue is angle and weather. Weather is the biggest hindrance to satellites, not much can visually pierce clouds (other than infrared, which is limited in other dimensions) . And angle complicates image tagging massively. They have technology out to 3d render an image based off of different angle shots, but it’s still in a beta stage. If you really want to see the detail level of our spy photo’s, here is a link to a couple of them released by the UN. They should give you a good idea. http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/un_proof/index.html

    Tracking an ICBM isn’t nearly as hard as it appears. ICBMs aren’t an aerodynamic design made for flight (which allows them to free fall so effectively). So they therefor need lots of constant thrust. This is extremely easy to track. There also isn’t much one can do to stealth an ICBM. Thats why over 70% of the US nuclear primary strike arsenal is delivered by plane (mostly by B2’s).

    Yep, the more often we think there is no threat, the higher the threat-level raises. Hence 9/11.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 83 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.