QuoteAre drones a technological tipping point in warfare?
Debates are growing at home and abroad over the increasing use of remotely piloted, armed drones, with a new study by the British Defense Ministry questioning whether advances in their capabilities will lead future decision-makers to "resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously."
Active and retired U.S. Air Force officers involved in developing drones stress that the aircraft brings in more decision-makers, better targeting data and more accurate delivery systems than fighter jets.
But use of the unmanned aerial vehicles has drawn growing public scrutiny based on their lethal attacks in Pakistan against al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan against the Taliban, in Yemen against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and most recently in Libya, as announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
The British study noted that drones are becoming increasingly automated. With minor technical advances, it said, a drone could soon be able to "fire a weapon based solely on its own sensors, or shared information, and without recourse to higher, human authority." It cautioned that the Defense Ministry "currently has no intention to develop" such systems.
Nonetheless, the aircraft, piloted by people far from the battlefield, represents an approaching technological tipping point "that may well deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs," according to the Joint Doctrine Note, which was conducted under the direction of the British Chiefs of Staff. Titled "The United Kingdom Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems," it was first disclosed last week by the Guardian newspaper.
The British study said it was essential that military officials not "risk losing our controlling humanity and make war more likely" by using armed drones. It also asserted, however, that the laws of war call on commanders on both sides of the fight to limit loss of life and that "use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified."
At a Washington conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last week, the issue of drones was also widely discussed.
Lt. Col. Bruce Black, program manager for the Air Force Predator and Reaper aircraft, noted that some 180 people are involved in each drone mission. The result, he said, is that "there is more ethical oversight involved with unmanned air vehicles than with manned aircraft."
At the same conference, former CIA director Michael V. Hayden described how, with a Predator circling overhead, those involved in ordering use of its missiles from thousands of miles away can call up computer maps that show the potential effects of each weapon.
Before any of the Hellfire missiles are launched, he said, the backup team asks for the "the bug splat" of the attack — a readout of the impact the missile would have on its ground target. Nothing comparable can be done with ground-supporting manned aircraft, he said.
But the drones have become part of the propaganda war where they are used. Without referencing the Taliban or al Qaeda, the British paper noted that insurgents have cast themselves as the underdog against a "cowardly bully . . . that is unwilling to risk his own troops, but is happy to kill remotely."
Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, acknowledged that the use of drones comes with potential problems with public perceptions. "Our adversaries have interjected this as a question in [people's] minds, as an attempt to limit the use of what is very, very effective," he said.
At the IISS conference, participants were asked whether drone operators had been desensitized to killing, because they were so far away from the battlefield.
Col. Dean Bushey, deputy director of the Air Force Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center, pointed out that the crews that run Predators in Nevada go through the exact routines that airplane pilots do prior to a mission. They go through a restricted area, wear brown flight suits, receive a mission brief and are put into a "warrior ethos" before ever stepping into a ground control station. "You are executing a mission to save lives," he said.
Black said that when a Predator operator is connected to a fighter on the ground in Afghanistan, "you can hear his voice and you can hear the bullets whistling over his head. You feel that pressure." He vividly described an operator in Nevada, sitting at a computer console and listening and looking at his colleague thousands of miles away through a micro-picture view.
"My situational awareness of what he is going through at that time is probably better than a guy that showed up at 10 minutes on station and dropped a weapon and left," Black said. "I see my effects, I watched, I listened, I was with him the five hours prior to that. . . . I'd say we are very much in the fight."
The United Kingdom Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems which, apparently, is not to have one, can be read here:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DDE54504-AF8E-4A4C-8710-514C6FB66D67/0/20110401JDN211UASv1WebU.pdf
You people are such unbelieveable pussies sometimes. And to think, this is the nation that once spawned such real warrior douchebags like Kitchener and Monty.
I'm all for the US using more automated drones. It might actually prevent them bombing allied troops and the side they're supposed to be defending.
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones. It might actually prevent them bombing allied troops and the side they're supposed to be defending.
Assuming the operators will not also be hopped up on meth like the pilots.
Quote"questioning whether advances in their capabilities will lead future decision-makers to "resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously."
Well, gosh, I hope so.
It's odd how so many people who get antsy America's about propensity to drop bombs on people will also complain about the First World's lack of response to Rwanda or other problem locations. It's easier to respond to bad people doing bad things when it's politically easier to kill them.
Quoteinsurgents have cast themselves as the underdog against a "cowardly bully . . . that is unwilling to risk his own troops, but is happy to kill remotely."
To understate severely, it's a little sour grapes.
The only way it could be better is if we could reanimate dead Taliban to use as Deathloks in the ongoing War against Cavepeople.
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones. It might actually prevent them bombing allied troops and the side they're supposed to be defending.
Indeed. I think it incredibly rude of the USAF to intervene in the traditional British Army practice of shooting one another. Accidentally killing one's fellow-countrymen soldiers is simply tradition; killing allies is Bad Form.
Re: the US reputation for bombing our own troops/allies, does anyone know if the friendly fire incidents dating back to US involvement in WWII are really statistically much different from our allies' when you calculate based upon the # of incidents divided by # of ground attack sorties flown?
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2011, 08:21:09 AM
Re: the US reputation for bombing our own troops/allies, does anyone know if the friendly fire incidents dating back to US involvement in WWII are really statistically much different from our allies' when you calculate based upon the # of incidents divided by # of ground attack sorties flown?
No, they are not much different, from what i have seen. It is just that no one flies much in the information age except the US.
Having said that, the incidence of FF by US lieutenant colonels in fighter/attack helicopter cockpits is apparently off the scale.
The Brits used to accept without all the whining that FF was a hazard of war. For example, the RAF started off WW2 with two Spitfire kills.... of two Hurricanes. Insofar as I know, not a single Brit outside of the slain pilot's family burst into tears.
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
The first warship ever sunk by the Luftwaffe was a German destroyer.
Ah, another American Super Power. Making Excuses.
You Americans really excel at everything. :frog:
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:35:07 AM
Ah, another American Super Power. Making Excuses.
You Americans really excel at everything. :frog:
You must either stop hating brown people, or hating America, because it is only the latter who kills the former, and vice versa as a matter of fact.
Choose your side, son
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2011, 08:21:09 AM
Re: the US reputation for bombing our own troops/allies, does anyone know if the friendly fire incidents dating back to US involvement in WWII are really statistically much different from our allies' when you calculate based upon the # of incidents divided by # of ground attack sorties flown?
No, they are not much different, from what i have seen. It is just that no one flies much in the information age except the US.
Having said that, the incidence of FF by US lieutenant colonels in fighter/attack helicopter cockpits is apparently off the scale.
The Brits used to accept without all the whining that FF was a hazard of war. For example, the RAF started off WW2 with two Spitfire kills.... of two Hurricanes. Insofar as I know, not a single Brit outside of the slain pilot's family burst into tears.
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
The first warship ever sunk by the Luftwaffe was a German destroyer.
In perspective, though, the tolerance of peoples and governments for friendly casualties and even deaths in general has reached allergenic proportions at this point in history. I mean, the USAAF
alone lost thirteen the total number of American deaths in Iraq. And they killed at least an order of magnitude more.
There's been this weird moralization, and pacifization, of the West since WWII and Vietnam.
Quote from: Tamas on April 26, 2011, 08:37:33 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:35:07 AM
Ah, another American Super Power. Making Excuses.
You Americans really excel at everything. :frog:
You must either stop hating brown people, or hating America, because it is only the latter who kills the former, and vice versa as a matter of fact.
Choose your side, son
My relationship with AmeriKKKa can very much be described as a love-hate relationship. It IS the land of extremes, after all. There is no loving all of it, no matter how hard one tries.
I laughed when they invaded Irak.
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan made me teary-eyed with joy.
The first 30 minutes of the news footage from 9/11 was a source of grief for all western peoples.
There's simply no single answer.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:44:58 AM
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
Man, I remember that. It was so great. The wailing and gnashing of teeth as Belgrade wintered without heat or water.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:44:58 AM
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
Man, I remember that. It was so great. The wailing and gnashing of teeth as Belgrade wintered without heat or water.
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:44:58 AM
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
Man, I remember that. It was so great. The wailing and gnashing of teeth as Belgrade wintered without heat or water.
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
You know what else was great? Dresden. We did that, with a little help from our friends. And then we let the Soviets have what we didn't set on fire. Good times.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:44:58 AM
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
Man, I remember that. It was so great. The wailing and gnashing of teeth as Belgrade wintered without heat or water.
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
You know what else was great? Dresden. We did that, with a little help from our friends. And then we let the Soviets have what we didn't set on fire. Good times.
Thankfully, the racially pure retain the capacity to rise above your petty and barbaric taunts, you filthy mongrel.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
Do neo-Nazi tears taste as sweet as they look? 'Cus they look sweeeeettttt!
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
Do neo-Nazi tears taste as sweet as they look? 'Cus they look sweeeeettttt!
What saddens me most is how indifferent you are to human suffering. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:50:13 AM
You know what else was great? Dresden. We did that, with a little help from our friends. And then we let the Soviets have what we didn't set on fire. Good times.
:lol:
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:56:27 AM
What saddens me most is how indifferent you are to human suffering. :hmm:
Suddenly you claim to be human? :hmm:
'Fraid I will need proof; otherwise your claim is
rejected.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:56:27 AM
That saddens me most is how indifferent you are to human suffering. :hmm:
Doesn't seem like he is indifferent to your suffering at all. :)
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
Do neo-Nazi tears taste as sweet as they look? 'Cus they look sweeeeettttt!
His tears are MINE. Oh, those oh so delicious tears.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 26, 2011, 09:10:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
Aside from the crime against the Serbian people, it meant another influx of Yugo untermenschen. Thanks a lot, you fucking ass holes.
Do neo-Nazi tears taste as sweet as they look? 'Cus they look sweeeeettttt!
His tears are MINE. Oh, those oh so delicious tears.
You sons of bitches. :lol:
My only regret is we didn't pacify Somalia so there could be more emigration to Sweden. :(
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 26, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
My only regret is we didn't pacify Somalia so there could be more emigration to Sweden. :(
Won't be necessary. It's one of our quickest growing minority groups. They breed like rabbits and family reunion bull shit will swamp us within a decade or two.
Thanks for the well wishes, however. :mad:
You have to understand Slargos. He comes from a nation of Nazi collaborators who didn't have to suffer any of the consequences of WW2. It's clear that he sees the Third Reich through as rose tinted glasses as CSA fan boys outside the old Confederacy.
Quote from: Syt on April 26, 2011, 10:35:01 AM
who didn't have to suffer any of the consequences of WW2.
:lol: How about next time
you try living next to a Germany that's had its balls cut off.
I remember some years ago when the Germans complained that German Nazi bands made so many records in Sweden for distribution to the home country.
We got their criminals and
they wanted an apology? Richer than rich.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 26, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
My only regret is we didn't pacify Somalia so there could be more emigration to Sweden. :(
Won't be necessary. It's one of our quickest growing minority groups. They breed like rabbits and family reunion bull shit will swamp us within a decade or two.
Then Sweden can finally return to its ancient traditions of piracy and raiding.
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 04:16:36 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones. It might actually prevent them bombing allied troops and the side they're supposed to be defending.
Assuming the operators will not also be hopped up on meth like the pilots.
Oh yeah, quite the drug den. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warisboring.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2FFE_DA_080609combat_12312.jpg&hash=002b19a90ce354e5d6d2ead2088f5316130d6bbf)
Is it real or is it a game?
THEY'LL SEE THE BIG BOARD!!!!
Lanparty. :lol:
I wonder if they're sponsored by coke. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on April 26, 2011, 01:25:05 PM
Is it real or is it a game?
Call for Andrew Wiggin. Is there an Andrew Wiggin here?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2011, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 26, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
My only regret is we didn't pacify Somalia so there could be more emigration to Sweden. :(
Won't be necessary. It's one of our quickest growing minority groups. They breed like rabbits and family reunion bull shit will swamp us within a decade or two.
Then Sweden can finally return to its ancient traditions of piracy and raiding.
Also, starving.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2011, 02:02:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2011, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 26, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
My only regret is we didn't pacify Somalia so there could be more emigration to Sweden. :(
Won't be necessary. It's one of our quickest growing minority groups. They breed like rabbits and family reunion bull shit will swamp us within a decade or two.
Then Sweden can finally return to its ancient traditions of piracy and raiding.
Also, starving.
We're partly there. Rationing in health care is just a skip and a leap away from bread lines. You won't have to wait long.
Is that why all those hungry Swedes came and settled the upper Midwest? Healthcare drove them out?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2011, 02:13:45 PM
Is that why all those hungry Swedes came and settled the upper Midwest? Healthcare drove them out?
Affirmative.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
Other than this, my thread designed to specifically troll Britards has failed to deliver nothing except the usual Scandiweenian bullshit. FOCUS PEOPLE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 26, 2011, 10:19:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
Other than this, my thread designed to specifically troll Britards has failed to deliver nothing except the usual Scandiweenian bullshit. FOCUS PEOPLE
http://www.norway.org/ARCHIVE/News/archive/1999/199904battlefields/
The Scandinavian troops during the ACW were considered dumbasses because they had a reputation for not breaking and fleeing.
As stated by one veteran, "We never took the chance to run when the others broke. We always thought we could hold on a little longer, and a little longer, until it was too late to retreat."
Point is, you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us. :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5060%2F5479463439_c82e8277ca.jpg&hash=3117ef6c1ce4eddd428a634e8aff60318851a558)
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones.
They already do. They are called "soldiers".
Now, the question is whether they should use more intelligent automated drones, like the ones the article is about or stay with the cheaper, less intelligent analog "meat and bones" versions.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 26, 2011, 08:44:58 AM
I cried when they invaded Serbia.
Man, I remember that. It was so great. The wailing and gnashing of teeth as Belgrade wintered without heat or water.
I agree. One of the best interventions in my life. Take that slobodans.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones.
They already do. They are called "soldiers".
Now, the question is whether they should use more intelligent automated drones, like the ones the article is about or stay with the cheaper, less intelligent analog "meat and bones" versions.
To elaborate for the Americans [most of whom will miss the subtle nouances]: You're calling them stupid, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 26, 2011, 10:19:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
Other than this, my thread designed to specifically troll Britards has failed to deliver nothing except the usual Scandiweenian bullshit. FOCUS PEOPLE
I think the problem is that the Brits we have active on Languish are usually quite a calm and reasonable bunch, so not easily trolled.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 12:38:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones.
They already do. They are called "soldiers".
Now, the question is whether they should use more intelligent automated drones, like the ones the article is about or stay with the cheaper, less intelligent analog "meat and bones" versions.
To elaborate for the Americans [most of whom will miss the subtle nouances]: You're calling them stupid, right?
Only the tards who end up in the military. Speaking of which, I listen to a comedy radio show based in Chicago (not a gay one), and their view of American soldiers (retards who can't get a decent job) is the same as mine, so it can't be a "cultural divide". There are many Americans who rightly think that people who go into the military (discounting intelligence corps and the like) are largely human trash - which gives me hope.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi55.tinypic.com%2F2n85ziv.jpg&hash=026642f85b5bb8c635e1529d8fa2ae2ba98871b6)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 26, 2011, 10:19:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
Other than this, my thread designed to specifically troll Britards has failed to deliver nothing except the usual Scandiweenian bullshit. FOCUS PEOPLE
I tried :(
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2011, 08:21:09 AM
Re: the US reputation for bombing our own troops/allies, does anyone know if the friendly fire incidents dating back to US involvement in WWII are really statistically much different from our allies' when you calculate based upon the # of incidents divided by # of ground attack sorties flown?
No, they are not much different, from what i have seen. It is just that no one flies much in the information age except the US.
Having said that, the incidence of FF by US lieutenant colonels in fighter/attack helicopter cockpits is apparently off the scale.
The Brits used to accept without all the whining that FF was a hazard of war. For example, the RAF started off WW2 with two Spitfire kills.... of two Hurricanes. Insofar as I know, not a single Brit outside of the slain pilot's family burst into tears.
There was a huge British FF incident in the desert, with hundreds of British soldiers killed. I believe this was the worst FF case of its kind (exceeding even the three Canadians killed by two American jets in Afghanistan).
The first warship ever sunk by the Luftwaffe was a German destroyer.
I think the problem arises because many people have an anecdotal approach to deaths in the current wars, rather than a statistical one. If we take the Iraq war as an example, the US component of the coalition forces was by far the largest. Perhaps 80% of the shooting was done by the Americans (likely more); if so then we can expect 80% of friendly fire incidents to be performed by the Americans. This wouldn't raise any eyebrows if one was reading a history of the war; but, as we live through it, for every story about Brits or Canadians perpetrating friendly fire there will be four about the Americans. The evidence is clear to an unthinking person, Americans are four times as likely to commit friendly fire cockups as we are.
Funnily enough I've just finished a feature about counter friendly fire technology and basically came to the conclusion that it's not much cop without support procedures and responsibility throughthe chain of command.
Wiki comes up with the goods detailing incidents from the War of the Roses through to Afghanistan and Iraq. No comparative statistics, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#War_in_Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#War_in_Afghanistan)
What's the complaint? That the British won't develop autonomous drones and will instead remain using human-controlled drones?
That's a weak troll; at least make fun of our bad teeth and obsession with class or something.
Quote from: Brazen on April 27, 2011, 05:51:56 AM
Funnily enough I've just finished a feature about counter friendly fire technology and basically came to the conclusion that it's not much cop without support procedures and responsibility throughthe chain of command.
Wiki comes up with the goods detailing incidents from the War of the Roses through to Afghanistan and Iraq. No comparative statistics, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#War_in_Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#War_in_Afghanistan)
:lol:
It lists the USS Liberty. :lol:
Goddamned JIDF fucktards. :lol:
Cap Arcona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_Arcona
Hadn't heard of that one. What a monstrous cock-up. :D
Neither the Cap Arcona nor the USS Liberty were friendly fire incidents. This is wikipedia, folks. Wiki is the first stop on the quest for knowledge, not the last stop.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Neither the Cap Arcona nor the USS Liberty were friendly fire incidents. This is wikipedia, folks. Wiki is the first stop on the quest for knowledge, not the last stop.
I mentioned
Liberty precisely because it was
not a FF incident as claimed by the article, and the
Cap Arcona because I found the scope of it amusing. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 12:38:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 26, 2011, 04:09:36 AM
I'm all for the US using more automated drones.
They already do. They are called "soldiers".
Now, the question is whether they should use more intelligent automated drones, like the ones the article is about or stay with the cheaper, less intelligent analog "meat and bones" versions.
To elaborate for the Americans [most of whom will miss the subtle nouances]: You're calling them stupid, right?
Only the tards who end up in the military. Speaking of which, I listen to a comedy radio show based in Chicago (not a gay one), and their view of American soldiers (retards who can't get a decent job) is the same as mine, so it can't be a "cultural divide". There are many Americans who rightly think that people who go into the military (discounting intelligence corps and the like) are largely human trash - which gives me hope.
Surprise, you're still a fucking retard. And it is a very small nonvocal minority at that. You see a lot of people at universities getting a degree and going into the military. I'll be making $60,000 starting out in my FIRST year as an army officer, and in three years it will be $84,000+, guaranteed, full benefits. How much do you make in Poland again?
Compared to college graduates now, where 45% of graduates are making less than $15,000 a year, seems like a smart choice to me, though maybe a bit harder than fags like you are used to.
(http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/04/19/higher-education-the-next-asset-bubble/)
TL:DR You're as dumb as ever.
Well, in Eastern Europe what Marty says is probably true. People do their best to escape military service there. In the United States it is not. The problem is simply that Marty doesn't understand the 1st world.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 10:33:22 AM
Well, in Eastern Europe what Marty says is probably true. People do their best to escape military service there. In the United States it is not. The problem is simply that Marty doesn't understand the 1st world.
It is an act though - Marty understands just fine. He likes playing the nutbar barely a lawyer hate the US game though. I don't understand *why* he likes it so much, but there it is.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2011, 10:36:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 10:33:22 AM
Well, in Eastern Europe what Marty says is probably true. People do their best to escape military service there. In the United States it is not. The problem is simply that Marty doesn't understand the 1st world.
It is an act though - Marty understands just fine. He likes playing the nutbar barely a lawyer hate the US game though. I don't understand *why* he likes it so much, but there it is.
I think he's simply dim.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2011, 10:36:36 AM
It is an act though - Marty understands just fine. He likes playing the nutbar barely a lawyer hate the US game though. I don't understand *why* he likes it so much, but there it is.
Dunno. It could be that the dumb almost-lawyer schtick is the closest he can come to sounding educated and western. people who have met him tend to say otherwise, but they may be just saving his feelings.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 AM
I listen to a comedy radio show based in Chicago (not a gay one)
Is it the Mancow Muller show? :bleeding:
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 27, 2011, 09:38:23 AM
Surprise, you're still a fucking retard. And it is a very small nonvocal minority at that. You see a lot of people at universities getting a degree and going into the military. I'll be making $60,000 starting out in my FIRST year as an army officer, and in three years it will be $84,000+, guaranteed, full benefits. How much do you make in Poland again?
Compared to college graduates now, where 45% of graduates are making less than $15,000 a year, seems like a smart choice to me, though maybe a bit harder than fags like you are used to.
(http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/04/19/higher-education-the-next-asset-bubble/)
TL:DR You're as dumb as ever.
Also, what is he hoping for? Even if most Americans thought that people in the military were stupid - so what?
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 11:25:23 AM
Dunno. It could be that the dumb almost-lawyer schtick is the closest he can come to sounding educated and western. people who have met him tend to say otherwise, but they may be just saving his feelings.
He seemed pretty Western to me. :unsure:
I don't think most Americans think that... in fact, I'd be shocked if it was the case. So I agree with your "so what", but think it's moot.
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2011, 12:18:43 PM
I don't think most Americans think that... in fact, I'd be shocked if it was the case. So I agree with your "so what", but think it's moot.
That's why I said "even if" with which I was attempting to suggest a hypothetical.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2011, 10:36:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 10:33:22 AM
Well, in Eastern Europe what Marty says is probably true. People do their best to escape military service there. In the United States it is not. The problem is simply that Marty doesn't understand the 1st world.
It is an act though - Marty understands just fine.
Ouch. That's harsh, man.
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2011, 12:15:35 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 27, 2011, 09:38:23 AM
Surprise, you're still a fucking retard. And it is a very small nonvocal minority at that. You see a lot of people at universities getting a degree and going into the military. I'll be making $60,000 starting out in my FIRST year as an army officer, and in three years it will be $84,000+, guaranteed, full benefits. How much do you make in Poland again?
Compared to college graduates now, where 45% of graduates are making less than $15,000 a year, seems like a smart choice to me, though maybe a bit harder than fags like you are used to.
(http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/04/19/higher-education-the-next-asset-bubble/)
TL:DR You're as dumb as ever.
Also, what is he hoping for? Even if most Americans thought that people in the military were stupid - so what?
He's stuck in this ignorant belief that the military is scum, and the option of last resort only. It's a very feasible career, and especially given the current economic situation, I don't understand how he can go on about this over and over.
His current assertion is that :
Quote
There are many Americans who rightly think that people who go into the military (discounting intelligence corps and the like) are largely human trash - which gives me hope.
It's as obnoxious to me as the whole blinding Fahdiz God thing was to some of you.
So what if the sky is orange in his world, I guess. :hmm:
I think Marti is right in that some Americans do agree with what he is saying. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 AM
There are many Americans who rightly think that people who go into the military (discounting intelligence corps and the like) are largely human trash - which gives me hope.
Sorry, bolded the relevant parts for you beebs. Font too small on the mac? :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 10:33:22 AM
Well, in Eastern Europe what Marty says is probably true. People do their best to escape military service there. In the United States it is not. The problem is simply that Marty doesn't understand the 1st world.
Maybe you can never leave the Warsaw Pact, after all :(
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 27, 2011, 02:03:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 AM
There are many Americans who rightly think that people who go into the military (discounting intelligence corps and the like) are largely human trash - which gives me hope.
Sorry, bolded the relevant parts for you beebs. Font too small on the mac? :P
Many is not necessarily relative to the total amount.
If 1 million American soldiers decide to commit mass suicide over their deeply immoral involvement in American Imperialist wars, then that's
many mongrel deaths, something like 60%, I think?
If 1 million chinks decide to cheer at this news, that's still
many cheering chinks despite the fact that it's just less than 1% of the population.
Thus, the word "many" doesn't in and of itself invalidate Martinus' argument.
No, the fact that Martinus is a histrionic faggot invalidates most of his arguments.
Don't even need to pick at the particulars.
Really.
:D
Well this is why I'm travelling Europe, to try to understand your "culture" and "thought process".
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 27, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
:D
Well this is why I'm travelling Europe, to try to understand your "culture" and "thought process".
It is, I'm afraid, much too late for that.
Your blood has been tainted by interbreeding with the rebellious scum that overthrew their rightful sovereign. No American can ever be trusted to have even the most basic understanding of civilized behaviour.
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
I think Marti is right in that some Americans do agree with what he is saying. :mellow:
Some do. But by & large, Americans tend to hold servicemen/women and military careers in high regard-- I'd say a lot more so than in most other countries. I don't think Marti's mind can grasp that. I'd make a Polack joke if I weren't too tired to bother.
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2011, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
I think Marti is right in that some Americans do agree with what he is saying. :mellow:
Some do. But by & large, Americans tend to hold servicemen/women and military careers in high regard-- I'd say a lot more so than in most other countries. I don't think Marti's mind can grasp that. I'd make a Polack joke if I weren't too tired to bother.
Some Americans also believe in that the Queen of England is a giant man-eating lizard monster. Saying that "some Americans" believe something is kind of useless.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
It is, I'm afraid, much too late for that.
Your blood has been tainted by interbreeding with the rebellious scum that overthrew their rightful sovereign. No American can ever be trusted to have even the most basic understanding of civilized behaviour.
Alas, your "new" schtick is just Neil's old, tired schtick. Nice job of being Neil, for what it's worth. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 06:01:21 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
It is, I'm afraid, much too late for that.
Your blood has been tainted by interbreeding with the rebellious scum that overthrew their rightful sovereign. No American can ever be trusted to have even the most basic understanding of civilized behaviour.
Alas, your "new" schtick is just Neil's old, tired schtick. Nice job of being Neil, for what it's worth. :hug:
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2011, 05:01:29 PM
Some do. But by & large, Americans tend to hold servicemen/women and military careers in high regard-- I'd say a lot more so than in most other countries. I don't think Marti's mind can grasp that. I'd make a Polack joke if I weren't too tired to bother.
I think large parts of the American left still have disdain for service men and women but painted themselves into a corner by playing the "but think about the soldiersoneoneone" card over and over during the Bush administration.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2011, 07:24:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2011, 05:01:29 PM
Some do. But by & large, Americans tend to hold servicemen/women and military careers in high regard-- I'd say a lot more so than in most other countries. I don't think Marti's mind can grasp that. I'd make a Polack joke if I weren't too tired to bother.
I think large parts of the American left still have disdain for service men and women but painted themselves into a corner by playing the "but think about the soldiersoneoneone" card over and over during the Bush administration.
And you base this on...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 07:26:41 PM
And you base this on...
Little things like articles in The Progressive and Mother Jones on how to help high school grads avoid the military, General Betrayus ads in the NYT, wacky shit Kucinich says in hearings, but mostly from a lack of evidence of change in mindset.
A change in mindset from what?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 07:34:26 PM
A change in mindset from what?
From spitting on GI's and calling them baby killers as they stepped off the plane from Saigon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2011, 07:35:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 07:34:26 PM
A change in mindset from what?
From spitting on GI's and calling them baby killers as they stepped off the plane from Saigon.
You know that's a myth right?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 07:39:41 PM
You know that's a myth right?
I have a vague recollection of an attempt to debunk. Can't remember if I found it convincing or not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2011, 08:32:35 PM
I have a vague recollection of an attempt to debunk. Can't remember if I found it convincing or not.
I have seen no evidence that you even pay attention to evidence.