general media US Airforce doing Nuclear Bomb Drop Test

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

If it's not happening and it's not going to happen why does it even matter? I am certain that soldiers would stand against such orders if they knew they were wrong. Not to mention the UN would have quite the ordeal if the US approved just murdering its own citizens for more or less no justifiable reason. Sure some stuff slips through the cracks, but I think you're exaggerating the size of the cracks. You're acting like the US can literally do ANYTHING it wants with no chance of retaliation, which is totally not true.

 

If we were caught mass murdering out citizens, the UN would team up against us and whip us 3 ways to sunday.

Or you know, it just won't happen.

Number one, who says it won't happen? They tried (and are still trying, I might add) to pass a bill that would make it legal to detain a US citizen indefinitely without just cause. Number two The UN would be in on this, the UN can't stand people with their own free will (like how they tried to ban guns with the UN backed Arms treaty). They all want a one-world government! 

[Guest]

Number one, who says it won't happen? They tried (and are still trying, I might add) to pass a bill that would make it legal to detain a US citizen indefinitely without just cause. Number two The UN would be in on this, the UN can't stand people with their own free will (like how they tried to ban guns with the UN backed Arms treaty). They all want a one-world government! 

 

But if it did happen, you won't know about it. And you now act as if it would "never" happen, when really nothing will "never" happen everything has the possibility of happening. If you're saying this now it only means that, Yes you will commit crimes against your people without knowing it, so you've chosen to follow blindly under the impression "oh dear, they'd never do that".

There comes a time when a man must know when to walk away from a debate, this is definitely one of those times.

 

I am not going to insult either of you, but I will say that I refuse to continue to respond seriously to comments like this where I am being accused of being willing to commit crimes against humanity and being happy to do so, and being given "what-if" arguments. That's essentially what you're both doing, is a bunch of "what-ifs".

 

Well mutant sloths from Mars can invade tomorrow, but I'm not about to prepare for that.

 

I concede on the grounds of I do not even wish to discuss this any further because I do not see any legitimate resolution coming. Good day to both of you.

[Sky Knight 1,172]

I am under the impression that a lot of people here don't actually know how the military works or how the chain of command works... Judging by some of these comments... There are far more rules, regulations than people are assuming, and people seem to be under the impression that you can be given orders to do just about anything and if you refuse they can kill you or something. The military can not give you orders that violate certain rights. They can not order you to rape someone, or something like that. And you CAN deny a commanding officer without punishment if you can prove that the command was unjust. They DO have court cases when you get court marshal or the threat of discharge. They don't just discharge you and call it a day, they have to build a case against you.

 

If you can prove your commanding officer was giving orders that were completely a violation of basic human rights, they are not going to punish you for it. If your CO just decided "hey, I want you to go and murder this upcoming village for no real reason" and you disobeyed, you are not going to get in trouble. You can even be awarded for detaining your CO if they are breaking rules of engagement, and other policies.

If you honestly believe they would not break regulation then you're dead wrong. The Army can do whatever they freely choose to do, if the Government gives the go ahead, it'll happen. You'll just be fed incorrect information and fantasy about we're doing this under the section of this that or the next thing so don't you worry about it. This wall of being honorable, respectable and for the people is all smokes a mirrors to brainwash you into doing the very things you've said you would "never do because of how much the Army has changed and become very well lined to absolute perfection to avoid all possible flaws that the people say we do". I'm sorry but I REALLY do not buy into any of that.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,224]

If it's not happening and it's not going to happen why does it even matter? I am certain that soldiers would stand against such orders if they knew they were wrong. Not to mention the UN would have quite the ordeal if the US approved just murdering its own citizens for more or less no justifiable reason. Sure some stuff slips through the cracks, but I think you're exaggerating the size of the cracks. You're acting like the US can literally do ANYTHING it wants with no chance of retaliation, which is totally not true.

 

If we were caught mass murdering out citizens, the UN would team up against us and whip us 3 ways to sunday.

Or you know, it just won't happen.

 

But if it did happen, you won't know about it. And you now act as if it would "never" happen, when really nothing will "never" happen everything has the possibility of happening. If you're saying this now it only means that, Yes you will commit crimes against your people without knowing it, so you've chosen to follow blindly under the impression "oh dear, they'd never do that".

In my opinion, the US has so much power and influence that they could get away with quite a bit without suffering any real international consequences (or at least be given notably more leniency).

 

However at the same time, I highly doubt US would start genocide on its own citizens... just because (how would this benefit USA anyway?). As for killing civilians in war, I think in most cases militaries will focus on dealing with actual threats. Of course in war, there are many ambiguities and mistakes will inevitably be made, but ultimately they're not the main targets in war unless your objective is something like ethnic cleansing or something. Other than morals, killing civilians would only be a waste of military supplies and would cause unwanted international criticism; it's better to focus on whatever is strategically important. And the US is in no way the only country committing any sort of atrocities; I expect all militaries globally has at some point broke the rules.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Luna the Great

[Guest]

If you honestly believe they would not break regulation then you're dead wrong. The Army can do whatever they freely choose to do, if the Government gives the go ahead, it'll happen. You'll just be fed incorrect information and fantasy about we're doing this under the section of this that or the next thing so don't you worry about it. This wall of being honorable, respectable and for the people is all smokes a mirrors to brainwash you into doing the very things you've said you would "never do because of how much the Army has changed and become very well lined to absolute perfection to avoid all possible flaws that the people say we do". I'm sorry but I REALLY do not buy into any of that.

You're free to do that and think that way, but I respectfully disagree and I shall leave it at that.

[Ochre_Dust 329]

If the governement ever tries to fire a nuke at us little people in America, they better use their entire stock and destroy the entire United States doing in, because the people that survive will be going to the Washington D.C. with guns in their hands ready to shoot any and all people who say otherwise.

 

Ever wonder why the right to bear arms is a thing? It's so that we have a method of defending ourselves so that the government doesn't get too grabby and overbearing- or if they decide to do anything completely unreasonable such as this. A disarmed public is a tyranny waiting to happen.

 

Also, Berlin Airlift. The Air Force kept Berlin alive until the Wall came down. Come on, now. They can't just be a source of destruction.

Just remember to keep this graphic handy when next you find someone who is an ardent opponent of the right to bear arms.

 

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

Government assistance programs are a conservative thing.... They want people to be dependent on these services so that the gap between rich and poor will get even bigger, and they can control more money. Same with the unemployment rate.

 

Gay marriage is legal, racism is finally getting the admonishment it deserves, the wage gap between male and female workers is declining, and religion is not an all powerful barrier against government anymore. All liberal baby.

Number one, why do we have more people on food stamps in the last seven years under Obama then since the food stamps program was created? Why is the unemployment rate higher under Obama then ever before? The debt has sky rocketed higher in the last seven years then ever before! Don't forget the democrats controlled the senate until the last election. Now about gay marriage, I don't think that 5  justices should be able to redefine marriage for the whole country. So racism stopped just because a flag was taken down? I don't think so!, and about Christians, our rights are being taken away under the guise of "everyone deserves love" and "it might offend someone" If you want an example, take Sweet Cakes by Melissa, she refused to make a cake for a gay wedding (which under the Constitution, she has every right to do so) she loses her business and maybe her house? Where are her rights? 

Key Sharkz, on 22 Jul 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

There comes a time when a man must know when to walk away from a debate, this is definitely one of those times.

 

I am not going to insult either of you, but I will say that I refuse to continue to respond seriously to comments like this where I am being accused of being willing to commit crimes against humanity and being happy to do so, and being given "what-if" arguments. That's essentially what you're both doing, is a bunch of "what-ifs".

 

Well mutant sloths from Mars can invade tomorrow, but I'm not about to prepare for that.

 

I concede on the grounds of I do not even wish to discuss this any further because I do not see any legitimate resolution coming. Good day to both of you.

I never accused you of being willing to commit crimes against humanity , I asked what you would in that situation, there's a big difference.  

Edited July 22, 2015 by 9th Doctor Whooves

[DormantAccount 308]

Whoever is rightful owner of Crimea is ambiguous. However, it's far more certain that Crimea is strategically important for Russia in terms of controlling the Black Sea.

There's a reason for why Russia is behaving as it is and it's not correct if you simply say "power greed" or "Soviet nostalgia" or something of the sort. Why would the West want to invade Russia? I can think of two reasons: extracting Russia's rich natural resources (perhaps most importantly oil) and removing the biggest rival of the West. I will go as far as to say that if there were ever a time Russia is in a weakened state, the West would ensure that Russia would have no chance of ever re-emerging as a great superpower again.

 

But even if the West has no plans to actually invade Russia (which especially with nuclear weapons would be mad), the West has already went against Russian interests for about two decades by allowing NATO to expand to the point where it borders Russia in the Baltics. It doesn't matter that these countries chose to join NATO, the end result is that such expansion is already perceived as aggressive to Russia and its western border (which is the most vulnerable) used to be in central Europe but now is only a few hundred kilometers in length; Russia today is geopolitically in the most vulnerable position it has been in centuries. The possibility of Ukraine aligning with the West was pretty much the last straw for Russia and it had to do what it could to made best of the situation. Russia appears aggressive but is ultimately being defensive. If the West can't trust Russia, why should Russia trust the West from further going against Russian interests?

 

The US would behave the same way as Russia if it felt it were in geopolitical danger... in fact it already has (though situation somewhat different). USSR was to send nuclear weapons to Cuba as a response to US nukes stationed in Turkey. However, this move struck an extremely sensitive spot to the US. You could say that the US was being aggressive by being involved in something that had nothing to do with them; Cuba wasn't a part of the US, it wasn't an ally of the US, and USSR most likely was never actually intending to preemptively strike the US. However you can obviously say that the potential danger from Cuba increased significantly. For Russia, there's far too much potential danger for comfort. And even with that comparison, USA is in a very geopolitically secure location being surrounded by two oceans and having no other potential threat in North America. Russia doesn't have the same level of security.

But it was in Ukranian borders. Russia crossed the borders and violated Ukraine's sovereignty.

 

NATO is primarily a defensive organization developed to prevent Russian aggression during the Cold War and maintaining peace. I don't think I know anyone in the US who wants to invade Russia. I doubt a president declaring an unprovoked war on Russia would be very successful getting support in Congress. I think you're a little paranoid about Russia being attacked. There are cheaper ways of acquiring resources than by warfare. Frankly, no sane leader in Europe would attack Russia without another Superpower for support. It just doesn't make feasible military sense.

 

 

There wouldn't be all the animosity  and anxiety towards Russia if she wasn't so "defensive" as you call it. 

 

The Cuban missile crisis was different. We didn't annex Cuba.

[Guest]

 

 

I never accused you of being willing to commit crimes against humanity , I asked what you would in that situation, there's a big difference.  

 

 

That part was not directed at your post. Sorry for the confusion.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,178]

Just remember to keep this graphic handy when next you find someone who is an ardent opponent of the right to bear arms.

 

Gun control isn't as communistic as taking all guns away. It's more of trying to keep them out of baddies hands. This is just a pouty straw man of gun control. Good job.

Number one, why do we have more people on food stamps in the last seven years under Obama then since the food stamps program was created? Why is the unemployment rate higher under Obama then ever before? The debt has sky rocketed higher in the last seven years then ever before! Don't forget the democrats controlled the senate until the last election. Now about gay marriage, I don't think that 5  justices should be able to redefine marriage for the whole country. So racism stopped just because a flag was taken down? I don't think so!, and about Christians, our rights are being taken away under the guise of "everyone deserves love" and "it might offend someone" If you want an example, take Sweet Cakes by Melissa, she refused to make a cake for a gay wedding (which under the Constitution, she has every right to do so) she loses her business and maybe her house? Where are her rights? Key Sharkz, on 22 Jul 2015 - 2:38 PM, said:

 

I never accused you of being willing to commit crimes against humanity , I asked what you would in that situation, there's a big difference.  

I never said it stopped. But racism is in decline. The food stamp system is fucked thanks to good old George Bush.... People would be flooding to sue the federal government if any type of change to the system were to be made to try and shade people off of it. Conservatives have poor white trash thinking they are a benefit, when in reality it's a pity handout to keep them from aspiring for greater thing.... It would take many many literalistic presidents to fix what conservatives have screwed up, and with the way republicans have been handling themselves on the road to Election Day... It's fair to say we will have another good democrat in office.

[Ochre_Dust 329]

Gun control isn't as communistic as taking all guns away. It's more of trying to keep them out of baddies hands. This is just a pouty straw man of gun control. Good job.

And liberals are always eager to make the claim that gun control will only ever prevent guns from being in the hands of violent criminals, while making no efforts themselves to show that criminals won't just acquire guns by illegal methods. Sorry, but simply spouting out that someone has made a straw man fallacy doesn't actually mean that a fallacy has taken place, you have to show that it has.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,178]

And liberals are always eager to make the claim that gun control will only ever prevent guns from being in the hands of violent criminals, while making no efforts themselves to show that criminals won't just acquire guns by illegal methods. Sorry, but simply spouting out that someone has made a straw man fallacy doesn't actually mean that a fallacy has taken place, you have to show that it has.

At least we aren't trying to do nothing and pretend it's all hunky dorrey. Nice conservative view: let the people kill themselves... As long as I make my quarterly quota in the stocks I don't give a fuck what happens to common trash folks.

[Ochre_Dust 329]

At least we aren't trying to do nothing and pretend it's all hunky dorrey. Nice conservative view: let the people kill themselves... As long as I make my quarterly quota in the stocks I don't give a fuck what happens to common trash folks.

Not everything is alright, but a conservative's view is that to solve a problem, you have to let people live with the consequences of their decisions, while working to prevent others from imposing those consequences on others. If someone decides they want to kill another person, I want that person to have a chance at defending themselves, and firearms provide an equalizer, just as any weapon has in the past. Weapon control goes back to even before guns. Shogunate Japan made it illegal for non-samurai to carry swords.

 

If a person is ready to dispose of the rights of a person to their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness, then that person is prepared to live in a world where those things do not exist for themselves either.

 

I know I sound callous to you, but letting a person make their own mistakes is part of growing up and learning to be a citizen, as opposed to being a helpless dependent of the state, or anyone else who might decide on a whim that they don't like you enough to try and bring you harm.

 

We're not going to convince each other of anything.

 

Also, I don't invest in the stock market.

[Troblems 5,624]

And now it's time for this thread to be locked. It'll probably get scrubbed, moved to Debate Pit and locked. For now let's give it a rest.