The Military

[Commissar]

well, they can tap my phone lines 24/7, i don't give a crap. i am not dealing nuclear arms in the blackmarket, nor do i think they will take a simple personal conversation of mine and disclose it to everyone in the nation simply because they heard it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What an attitude to have.

[Blank]

well, they can tap my phone lines 24/7, i don't give a crap. i am not dealing nuclear arms in the blackmarket, nor do i think they will take a simple personal conversation of mine and disclose it to everyone in the nation simply because they heard it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What an attitude to have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he said it like it was some deep dark secret that was soooo bad and everybody should hate the US cabinet right now just because of that. i was just putting in my opinion that nobody who is innocent should care.

[Commissar]

well, they can tap my phone lines 24/7, i don't give a crap. i am not dealing nuclear arms in the blackmarket, nor do i think they will take a simple personal conversation of mine and disclose it to everyone in the nation simply because they heard it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What an attitude to have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he said it like it was some deep dark secret that was soooo bad and everybody should hate the US cabinet right now just because of that. i was just putting in my opinion that nobody who is innocent should care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the police are allowed to hold you indefinitely before a trial. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the government is allowed to randomly search your home without probable cause. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your internet connection is monitored twenty-four/seven. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your driver's license has an RFID chip implanted in it, so that your movements can be tracked at all times. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if Big Brother's watching.

[Blank]

I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the police are allowed to hold you indefinitely before a trial.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the government is allowed to randomly search your home without probable cause.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your internet connection is monitored twenty-four/seven.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your driver's license has an RFID chip implanted in it, so that your movements can be tracked at all times.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if Big Brother's watching.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you. But if you are innocent, and they have evidence that you conspired to something, i am guessing that you probably conspired to something or you sounded a lot like you did, especially since the jury (hopefully reasoning and logical people) will be sitting in on a case.

 

If they searched my home for no reason i think that'd be just fine. i'd leave cookies for them or something. seriously though, i doubt they would take the effort to bother with me or other innocents like that unless they have a probable case against us and want more evidence. even then an innocent would comply and allow them to investigate the house anyway, i mean, why not? would it take more than a few days to inspect somebody's house? i think not.

 

Sveet, an RFID chip implanted in my driver's license. now if i ever get lost in the wilderness you guys will be able to find me. what a great christmas present

Edited December 19, 2005 by Blank

[kirottu]

You have consistently overlooked the fact that every last one of our guys is a volunteer, as opposed to a system that required conscription due to the lack of intestinal fortitude amongst the native population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm... Scandinavian countries have conscription system, because of amount of people living in each country. Finland has 5 million people and to keep believable army force conscription is needed. And since every one in scandinavian countries has a choice to take civil service instead of army service when that time comes, you can say that they are as good volunteers as those who serve in US troops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the point of that, exactly? Name any conflict that Scandinavia gets involved in which the US is not going to fight for the region. The majority of European defense planning is based around the idea that the evil United States will be doing all of the heavy lifting, so why bother with the pretense of a national military?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point probably is pride, national dignity and be able to protect your own culture and values. Depending on someone else to protect such important stuff sounds bit wierd to me. That said I

[Commissar]

I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the police are allowed to hold you indefinitely before a trial.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the government is allowed to randomly search your home without probable cause.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your internet connection is monitored twenty-four/seven.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your driver's license has an RFID chip implanted in it, so that your movements can be tracked at all times.  I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if Big Brother's watching.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you. But if you are innocent, and they have evidence that you conspired to something, i am guessing that you probably conspired to something or you sounded a lot like you did, especially since the jury (hopefully reasoning and logical people) will be sitting in on a case.

 

If they searched my home for no reason i think that'd be just fine. i'd leave cookies for them or something. seriously though, i doubt they would take the effort to bother with me or other innocents like that unless they have a probable case against us and want more evidence. even then an innocent would comply and allow them to investigate the house anyway, i mean, why not? would it take more than a few days to inspect somebody's house? i think not.

 

Sveet, an RFID chip implanted in my driver's license. now if i ever get lost in the wilderness you guys will be able to find me. what a great christmas present

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, in other words, we can throw the Constitution out the window, in your opinion.

[Commissar]

Point probably is pride, national dignity and be able to protect your own culture and values. Depending on someone else to protect such important stuff sounds bit wierd to me. That said I

[kirottu]

You have consistently overlooked the fact that every last one of our guys is a volunteer, as opposed to a system that required conscription due to the lack of intestinal fortitude amongst the native population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm... Scandinavian countries have conscription system, because of amount of people living in each country. Finland has 5 million people and to keep a believable army force conscription is needed. And since every one in scandinavian countries has a choice to take civil service instead of army service when that time comes, you can say that they are as good volunteers as those who serve in US troops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you can say the guys who chose the civil service instead of army service are as good as US volunteer troops... but i am guessing more of the people over there choose army service? especially since it would make you look victimized and your families who hate war wouldn't judge you as much then.

 

(in the last two sentences i am generalising very badly, please have an easy time refuting me about them, its my gift to you i just wanted to have the idea out there)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, more people take the army service instead of civil service. I think it

[Blank]

So, in other words, we can throw the Constitution out the window, in your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion

 

"i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen.

[Commissar]

So, in other words, we can throw the Constitution out the window, in your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion

 

"i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. 'fraid not. See, the government most definitely does not have the right to listen in on the frequent calls from my household to Russia. And they're made on a weekly basis, with e-mail going a lot more frequently. The current administration claims that it's all kosher with the ol' Constitution, but they have yet to prove it. Sounds like an astonishing violation of the rights to privacy and due process to me.

 

The peripheral civil liberties are always the first to go. Nobody suggests taking away the right to free speech; they suggest taking away the right to speak against the government. Adams, Lincoln, FDR...all good, even great presidents. All horrendously violated American civil liberties under the threat of war.

[kirottu]

Point probably is pride, national dignity and be able to protect your own culture and values. Depending on someone else to protect such important stuff sounds bit wierd to me. That said I

[Blank]

So, in other words, we can throw the Constitution out the window, in your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion

 

"i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. 'fraid not. See, the government most definitely does not have the right to listen in on the frequent calls from my household to Russia. And they're made on a weekly basis, with e-mail going a lot more frequently. The current administration claims that it's all kosher with the ol' Constitution, but they have yet to prove it. Sounds like an astonishing violation of the rights to privacy and due process to me.

i see what you are saying and agree. they say it's constitutional to listen in on international messages from the US, when it is not. i didn't want to throw out the whole constitution, so that is why i disagreed when you asked what i said "in other words". but the next statements imply that i am willing for amendments to be made on the things that i don't think matter. of course, i alone would not be the one deciding, there'd be much deliberation before an ammendment like that.

 

The peripheral civil liberties are always the first to go.  Nobody suggests taking away the right to free speech; they suggest taking away the right to speak against the government.  Adams, Lincoln, FDR...all good, even great presidents.  All horrendously violated American civil liberties under the threat of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree there is always the fear of an eslcalation effect in which freedoms would continue to be lost until the fundamental freedoms of the constitution were taken away. but i really doubt people would stand for that.

 

When it comes to speaking against the government during war-time, you really need to look at their motives. who wants a part of their nation undercutting the rest of it when a situation as delicate as dealing with war is going on? though it "horrendously violates" American civil liberties, i understand and sympathize with those presidents and their decisions. after war though, take it away take it away take it away now, but hopefully they made the law temporary until the war was done or whatever, so you wouldn't have a lingering and no longer helpful to the nation law that is unconstitutional

[Commissar]

When it comes to speaking against the government during war-time, you really need to look at their motives. who wants a part of their nation undercutting the rest of it when a situation as delicate as dealing with war is going on? though it "horrendously violates" American civil liberties, i understand and sympathize with those presidents and their decisions. after war though, take it away take it away take it away now, but hopefully they made the law temporary until the war was done or whatever, so you wouldn't have a lingering and no longer helpful to the nation law that is unconstitutional

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, only Adams did the free speech thing. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR threw thousands upon thousands of American citizens in concentration camps.

[alanschu]

Is privacy actually a right in the US?

 

I live in Canada, a place where most people believe they have a guaranteed right to privacy, but I remember in one of my Sociology classes it was brought up that privacy is not a right granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Blank]

When it comes to speaking against the government during war-time, you really need to look at their motives. who wants a part of their nation undercutting the rest of it when a situation as delicate as dealing with war is going on? though it "horrendously violates" American civil liberties, i understand and sympathize with those presidents and their decisions. after war though, take it away take it away take it away now, but hopefully they made the law temporary until the war was done or whatever, so you wouldn't have a lingering and no longer helpful to the nation law that is unconstitutional

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, only Adams did the free speech thing. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR threw thousands upon thousands of American citizens in concentration camps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, i see now. yes, habeas corpus is pretty unfair, and i don't see Lincoln's reasoning in that, even if there was a war, why not just answer lawfully to people asking why you are holding somebody in custody? (logical explanation: because it was not legal)

 

FDR i think made his biggest mistake as president with the japanese in concentration camps thing.

 

but with Adams, if he only suspended it for a short time due to war, i understand him and somewhat would support him if i was back in the day.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Blank

[Commissar]

Is privacy actually a right in the US?

 

I live in Canada, a place where most people believe they have a guaranteed right to privacy, but I remember in one of my Sociology classes it was brought up that privacy is not a right granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Supreme Court decided it in fact was in 1965, though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

[alanschu]

I bet that that is probably the situation in Canada as well.

 

 

I find it kind of funny, because IMO privacy is a myth. Unless you're a hermit.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

What's the point of that, exactly?  Name any conflict that Scandinavia gets involved in which the US is not going to fight for the region.  The majority of European defense planning is based around the idea that the evil United States will be doing all of the heavy lifting, so why bother with the pretense of a national military?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the last time we had a war on our hands, you were allied with the people who attacked us. So, yeah.

[random evil guy]

actually. the norwegian(and all of the scandinavian) armed forces are considered to be very good. still, i fail to see how this is even relevant? the norwegian air force is very similar in both structure, equipment and 'mentality' to the us air force. i even spent some time with us forces in a joint nato winter excercise. the difference was negligible...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So let me get this straight. You did a forced year in Norway's premiere coffee-drinking club, and now you're convinced that gives you firsthand knowledge of how the US military works, and what kind of people it has in it? You have consistently overlooked the fact that every last one of our guys is a volunteer, as opposed to a system that required conscription due to the lack of intestinal fortitude amongst the native population. Similar mentalities? Yeah, right. You know how rare it is to find a guy who's in or been in that's willing to call everyone else in the service a moron over here? The vast majority of our guys have a little thing called pride in their jobs - though I'll have to remember I'm talking to a Scandinavian here, so maybe this isn't the path to take. Hades was bitching many moons ago about how he hated the military, and I asked him if he'd seen a few too many captain's masts. That's what we figure about a guy with an attitude like yours; he couldn't hack it and got his ass punted.

 

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, so pretty please, with a cherry on top, shut your mouth and let the grown-ups talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

how clever. *shut up*. you learned that from bill o'reily...? in addition, your reasoning is flawed and infested with ad hominems and strawman arguments...like you said, grow up.

 

first of all, i even spent time with us forces during a joint nato excercise. so i do know what i'm talking about. secondly, the norwegian army is on the same level, in terms of training, tactics and equipment as most other nato armed forces. including the us. thirdly, all of the officers and enlisted men are volunteers here as well and they are the ones who defines the very culture and structure of the organization. the conscripts are just cheap labor ants.

[Judge Hades]

I bet that that is probably the situation in Canada as well.

 

 

I find it kind of funny, because IMO privacy is a myth.  Unless you're a hermit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am a hermit and I like it.

 

I don't get in the business of government and the government doesn't need to get into mine.

[random evil guy]

Point probably is pride, national dignity and be able to protect your own culture and values. Depending on someone else to protect such important stuff sounds bit wierd to me. That said I

[Judge Hades]

Good, you guys can take over for us in Iraq then. That is of course we can get Bushie's hands out of it.

[mkreku]

What's the point of that, exactly?  Name any conflict that Scandinavia gets involved in which the US is not going to fight for the region.  The majority of European defense planning is based around the idea that the evil United States will be doing all of the heavy lifting, so why bother with the pretense of a national military?

Really?

 

Here's some advice for you:

 

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, so pretty please, with a cherry on top, shut your mouth and let the grown-ups talk.

[Commissar]

how clever. *shut up*. you learned that from bill o'reily...? in addition, your reasoning is flawed and infested with ad hominems and strawman arguments...like you said, grow up.

You think I'm anywhere near right of center? You made a ridiculous remark about US servicemen. It's to be expected that US servicemen, no matter their political orientation, will resent it. Speaking of ad hominems, casting aspersions on the mental capacity of well over two million people might just qualify, don't you think?

 

first of all, i even spent time with us forces during a joint nato excercise. so i do know what i'm talking about. secondly, the norwegian army is on the same level, in terms of training, tactics and equipment as most other nato armed forces. including the us. thirdly, all of the officers and enlisted men are volunteers here as well and they are the ones who defines the very culture and structure of the organization. the conscripts are just cheap labor ants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you've convinced me. You definitely know what you're talking about.

[Commissar]

What's the point of that, exactly?  Name any conflict that Scandinavia gets involved in which the US is not going to fight for the region.  The majority of European defense planning is based around the idea that the evil United States will be doing all of the heavy lifting, so why bother with the pretense of a national military?

Really?

 

Here's some advice for you:

 

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, so pretty please, with a cherry on top, shut your mouth and let the grown-ups talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, I forgot that Sweden remains neutral come hell, high water, or genocide. My apologies. I'll change it to, "Scandinavia, sans Sweden."