What is Digg?40 Comments
- deltaechoromeo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12And then we outsource our troops to South Korea and Japan.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Greyhaven7
I really doubt that everyone your brother talks to in the army supports the war. You're also implying that the war in Iraq is related to terrorists attacking the U.S. There are still no weapons of mass destruction, and no links between Al Queda and Saddam. Almost all of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia anyway, so it doesn't make sense to go to war with Iraq on the basis of fighting terrorism when none of the terrorists who attacked America were even from Iraq. - dementedcrabs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7One man drives like a lunatic, while another in the turret shoots your team mates and the driver runs you over claiming he didn’t see you... *Points to battlefield 2*
- toastgodsupreme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Eventually wars are just going to be people in bunkers playing what appears to be video games. There will be no soldiers, just robots remotely opperated. One man "drives", a few others control the turrets on the vehicles.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6At that point, wouldn't it be better just to simulate wars and let the winner take over the loser's country, it'd certainly save everyone alot of grief, not to mention dying.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Here I was thinking that these "new technologies to protect soldiers" would include some type of automated system to remove G.W. Bush from office... Seems to me that might be a good first step in protecting soldiers.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Since when did the iraqi regieme threaten us? They could hardly even feed themselves. Oh, and everything I hold near and dear about this country includes murder being illegal, for the terrorists and the soldiers.
- Yupp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Call me a luddite, but I still find diplomacy to be the best technology for protecting soldiers.Saved my ass!
/vet - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Droids make for very expensive cannonfodder. Especially remote-controlled ones. How long before Iraqis are sporting $5 Chinese-made droid jammers? They're going to be disabling these things and selling them as spare parts at the Basra black market.
"Pssst, hey, hey you. You want to buy droid? I give you good deal, only $30 Dinars. Ok, ok. I throw in free classified USB drive from US base. It have 512mb real internet porn! Hey where you going? Cheap infidel son of bitch! Ptooey." - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So first we invade a country and then we check to make sure that we should have. Meanwhile thousands of people are dead. I'd suggest we instead kill people like you to save ourselves the cost of going to war, but I fear your brand of ignorence is rather widespread in this country.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I refuse to accept state sponsored murder be it the electric chair or the preciscion guided bomb. True national self defence might be something different but i'll consider that bridge when its necessary, as for now we have more money in defence than the next 10 nations combined.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was in Iraq in 04-05, and most people I talked to were against the war. They did, however, appreciate the higher pay and lax garrison rules. I firmly believe that supporting the troops is to bring them home and defend our own country, not send them to unjustified wars and incite even more hatred towards the west. If Canadian troops did the same thing to us that the U.S. is doing to Iraq, I'd be hitting Canadian convoys and patrols too. I wouldn't call myself an insurgent, I'd call myself a freedom fighter.
Need a refresher as to why some Iraqi's might hate us? http://tinyurl.com/famn8 - passion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2(Greyhaven7) - isn't this just the abstraction of war, much like currency, checks and credit cards allowed for the abstraction of wealth? I mean, when I buy my next CD on ebay, I'm not going to actually exchange a pound of sterling silver for this dude's music.
Why can't a similar thing happen in the metaverse? Isn't that the point behind chess? - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wish wars were still fought with pointy sticks, hard to do much damage with one of those.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's if you're limited strictly to bullets. Bombs are nasty stuff.
- Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4pointy sticks are worse than guns... I'd take a bullet to the chest before I'd take a spear to the chest anyday. Believe it or not, war is a lot "cleaner" now than ever (not that it's good... you know what I'm saying...).
- jimbo92107, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have an even better way of protecting American troops: Get them the ***** out of Iraq.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've got a peice of evidence here that you're a terrorist, it must be true. I know that we'll never know whether or not you were connected to 9-11 and now that i've bombed your house I guess that we never will.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2of course greyhaven is right that no one would even submit to losing based on a simulation, I was trying to make a point about how rediculous advances in military technology are. Who needs more ways to ***** up the world. However, if the game reflected real military assets and the simulation was accurate to the T on who would win in a conflict two sides enganging in conflict would be an anacronism, sun tsu would be proven right beyond his own imaginings. The battle is over before it has even begun.
To an extent of course its already true. The perception of threat makes one react more conciliatory in the face of potential invasion. - tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Greyhaven7
Last time I checked, everything we were told by Dear Leader about Iraq was a complete and total LIE. Down to the last letter.
Furthermore, "protect(ing) everything we (and you) hold dear in this country" is a noble idea, but hardly why most people join up. If that were the case, recruiters wouldn't target the autistic to reach quota. The military wouldn't have to offer more and more incentives to entice people to join. Afghanistan was one thing. I was behind that move 100%. Osama who? Iraq, well, that's just a huge steaming pile of lies and ***** mixed with squandered lives and money. I can sit and listen to nonsense talking points all day long, but I've spoken to my friends who have returned from the hell that is Iraq. It's all about staying alive till you come home. The vague notions that they were protecting our freedoms here at home were tossed as soon as they set foot to sand and the first IED blew their friends ***** face off. Literally. - DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While the devices doing the killing my be robotic, I doubt their victims will be. There will still be death and destruction, its just that only 1 side is experiencing it now.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm supposing that with comments like that you have never seen an exit wound from a pistol shot. Believe me, its messy. Besides its harder to kill tens of millions of people with pointy sticks. All we gotta do now is enter a code into a computer somewhere.
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What do you mean holograms don't exist yet?!?!?!
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the US are so interested in their peace officers (you know, soliders), why don't they deploy the mine-sweeping devices that wipe out 90% of mines. I think it's a great innovation, a patriotic and peace-motivated product created by the billion-dollar business market in America, unlike those nasty mines the US has supplied the world with since the Day of Mines.
- moeq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about not sending them to war in the first place? How about that? Would that be alright?
- Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(passion)- It would be nice. I don't like the thought of people dying any more than the next man, but it won't happen. I believe that one day we will remove the direct human element of combat (at least in this country and a couple others), but as long as the human race exists as we are today(with "human nature" as we know it), we will never allow a simulation to decide our fates in wars.
Imagine being the nation of Islam, or the Jewish nation. Let's say the two groups agree to a simulated battle to decide the winner. Imagine you enemy wins the simulation. Do you honestly believe that either side would consent to it and just give up? No... they would immediately declare that it was rigged, or that they other "cheated"... and even if they didn't do that... they'd still fight bitterly (physically) for what they believe is right. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3(TopherT) - That will never happen. Human nature won't allow it. Besides, one of the biggest rules in war is that to claim territory you have to physically put troops there (sounds odd, but unless you are physically on the spot, the enemy could take it just as easily as you can)... I suppose robots might suffice, but it wouldn't work with simulations.
- Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0“Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.” - Will Rogers
I completely agree, but in order for diplomacy to work, both sides have to want it to work. The enemies we're dealing with lately are not reasonable people. They do not want diplomacy. They do not want compromise. - wheelnut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ender's Game!
- Rictamilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS PICTURES
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Have you ever heard of flickr?
http://www.flickr.com/ - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0forgot...
You can not deny that every single person who signs up to join the military, in doing so, acknowledges the risks, dangers, and responsibilities associated with it, including the possibility that they may have to go to war and possibly die. They're not stupid, and no one is MAKING them sign up. You're basically comparing them to a plumber who runs across a clogged pipe and says they don't want to unclog it. You're a plumber, that's what you signed up to do... fix clogged pipes. Just as in the military, they signed up to go to war to defend this country.
I'm not saying they should... I'm saying you shouldn't put words in their mouths that obviously aren't what they're thinking. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0LOL, Well, since holograms don't exist yet... I'd say no. But in the future if we invent some kind of "hard" hologram that can physically interact with it's environment, then I guess that would work too... who knows.
- Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@TopherT -
are you implying that our soldiers are murderers? Any soldier who commits murder is still subject to US laws and is tried according to them. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I have several friends who just came back last month. None of them would agree with your statements. They all hated Iraq, but were glad to have been there, and for the reasons our "Dear Leader" said we were there for.
That's not to say that some people have had a more threatening experience over there than others. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You'd be surprised what people in the military think. I live in the Newport News/Norfolk... one of the biggest military areas in the US. I'd bet talk to a lot more military people than you do.
I'm not implying that the war in Iraq has anything to do with 9-11... but Saddam was a terrorist in his own right, murdering thousands of his own people, testing chemical weapons on his own people... rape rooms, torture, etc. He had invaded a neighboring country in the past, and was threatening to build bigger weapons (nukes, chem, etc...). He was a threat. Maybe not to us, but to everyone around him. He got what was coming to him, and the world is better off without him.
The nationality of the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 is irrelevant and proves nothing about Iraq being involved or not. Financial support, tactical training, providing food, shelter, or safe haven, all make you an accessory, and guilty in one way or another. There is no proof that these things never happened, and there are thousands of Iraqi's who say they did.
I don't know (and neither do you) whether Iraq (Saddam) was involved in what happened on 9-11. No one ever will. BUT, It's an incident where you can't prove it didn't happen, no matter how much searching you do... but even ONE piece of viable evidence saying it did proves it did. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Or remove the people who threaten us from the face of the earth... oh wait... we're doing that.
I don't want to hear it. My little brother (just turned 19) is going over there as an Army Ranger next month. He signed up. He knew the risk. And he, and everyone else in the army he talks to thinks we're doing the right thing, and that Bush's decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power was the right thing to do. Liberals seem to forget that we still have a VOULENTEER army. Our young men and women know, and accept the risks of being in the military. It's a shame that there are people on this earth who require that they do their job (terrorists and the like), but each and every member of our armed forces is ready and willing do what they have to to protect everything we (and you) hold dear in this country. It's why they signed up. - tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3
TESTIFY! - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0It's not evidence if you just make stuff up... Do you not know what the word "viable" means in this context or did you just neglect to read it all together?
Let me rephrase it for you...
"ONE piece of PROVEN evidence saying it did, proves it did."
Webster's defines evidence as "something that furnishes proof". (furnish in this case meaning "supplies", or "fills the need for").
This is where you've gone wrong... you CLAIM you have evidence, yet you can not produce proof, therefore your claim is false since evidence requires proof. My theoretical evidence, stated hypothetically, would actually be something that was able to be "backed up"... or "proven". The entire last sentence of that post was a hypothetical situation (since it's implying future tense). - zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@ Greyhaven7
What about holograms?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is