" Mad Dog " on Warrior Ethos

[HamPhan]

Doesn't matter which side of the isle you're on, you want this type of man as ANY country's Defense Chief.

 

[lecter]

Ted always sounds like a conman when he speaks.
edit: Mattis will be a great secretary of defense

 

[HamPhan]

Ted always sounds like a conman when he speaks.
edit: Mattis will be a great secretary of defense

He is...he's a lawyer.

But he can definitely make a good argument, smart as a whip...he's just so fucking smarmy.

 

[RighteousWar]

@seiger

 

[NewGuardBjj]

Agreed.

Good thing this dude won't put up with Trumps bull shit.

 

[uncommon]

im not sure i like the idea of the f35 being shared globally.

as a tax payer i would rather the countries who need the defense capabilities of the f35, fund us militiary in a mercenary capacity as opposed to gaining their own independance to american reliance.

the f35 research and development i would assume is largely if not entirely made possible by the us taxpayer. so to offer the final product to another country is not only a theft of intellectual property of us tax payers, we are allowing independace of allied countries in terms of defense. which comes at a cost to the philosophy of the us constitution.

we should allow more dependance on the us constitution, not enable countries who do not abide by inalienable rights like free speech and self defense.

im all for defending the united kingdom, but they dont swear oaths to what make those defense capabilities possible. the fact that they dont swear oaths to the constitution and then gain the ability to defend something different to it (albiet similar) opens up the door to tyranny.

the sole primary mission of our domestic and foreign policy should be to close the door of tyranny.

 

[bmasters1993]

im not sure i like the idea of the f35 being shared globally.

as a tax payer i would rather the countries who need the defense capabilities of the f35, fund us militiary in a mercenary capacity as opposed to gaining their own independance to american reliance.

the f35 research and development i would assume is largely if not entirely made possible by the us taxpayer. so to offer the final product to another country is not only a theft of intellectual property of us tax payers, we are allowing independace of allied countries in terms of defense. which comes at a cost to the philosophy of the us constitution.

we should allow more dependance on the us constitution, not enable countries who do not abide by inalienable rights like free speech and self defense.

im all for defending the united kingdom, but they dont swear oaths to what make those defense capabilities possible. the fact that they dont swear oaths to the constitution and then gain the ability to defend something different to it (albiet similar) opens up the door to tyranny.

the sole primary mission of our domestic and foreign policy should be to close the door of tyranny.

Theft? The taxpayers of other nations are paying for the F-35. The DoD isn't giving that shit away.

And how is the independence of other nations in contravention to the US constitution?

Would you rather they buy off the Chinese or Russians and make their governments and industry executives rich instead?

 

[seiger]

@seiger

warrior ethos gets ridiculed by a lot of people.

brits dont have "warrior ethos". they just do their job for queen and country.

and also stop acting like im isis, you loon.

 

[uncommon]

Theft? The taxpayers of other nations are paying for the F-35. The DoD isn't giving that shit away.

Is it proportional to usa spending? highly doubt it considering usa spends more than the entire world combined. How does lockheed get funding from multiple countries on a single contract? i honestly would like to know how this works

And how is the independence of other nations in contravention to the US constitution?

We are arming people who dont abide by our laws, that comes to a threat to our laws plain and simple. wasnt very long ago usa was fighting uk for starters. diplomacy changes thoughout centuries.

Would you rather they buy off the Chinese or Russians and make their governments and industry executives rich instead?

it depends. foreign companies shouldnt be allowed to control usa defense contractors. allowing contractors off the leash to play with other countries is dangerous to the united states. it seems like the dog is walking the owner so to speak as opposed to the owner( usa) walking the dog(lockheed)

what happens if the dog doesnt need our leash anymore? how do you know lockheed is loyal to american way of life and will stay loyal?

 

[HamPhan]

warrior ethos gets ridiculed by a lot of people.
.

Name 5

 

[bmasters1993]

For starters:

what happens if the dog doesnt need our leash anymore? how do you know lockheed is loyal to american way of life and will stay loyal?

How do I know military hardware contractors will stay loyal to the USA?

usa spends more than the entire world combined

That's how.

Everyone is loyal to the American way of life as long as they're getting paid.

And back to your position on exports. I'm Australian, and we're paying up the wazoo (relative to our annual budget) for 72 F-35s to make sure we can be responsible for our own safety. If Indonesia starts something, is America really gonna commit boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend us?

Let me put it this way, are you pro 2nd amendment? Would you rather have no option but to wait for the cops, or have a means to defend yourself until they arrive (if they arrive)

Or are you so concerned by the prospect of Australian tyranny that you'll deny us that

 

[uncommon]

That's how.

Everyone is loyal to the American way of life as long as they're getting paid.

So the military industrial complex is real? if americans decide to conserve their taxes (which we need to at some point, taxes are getting insane) the corportations will find the highest bidder thus putting usa liberty in a bind.

And back to your position on exports. I'm Australian, and we're paying up the wazoo (relative to our annual budget) for 72 F-35s to make sure we can be responsible for our own safety.

i would be more comfortable sending constitutionally sworn boots to defend australia, than giving australia the means to threaten usa citizens or influence usa lawmakers with their own incredibly sophisticated machinery.

Let me put it this way, are you pro 2nd amendment? Would you rather have no option but to wait for the cops, or have a means to defend yourself until they arrive (if they arrive)

im pro 2nd amendment, the right to defend yourself via small arms is increasingly inconsequential when a single machine from australia can wipe out a critical peice of infrastructure to a city without being detected.

Or are you so concerned by the prospect of Australian tyranny that you'll deny us that

its not just australia, is globalism. the collective vs the individual.

im not saying there is a clear solution, why cant you guys be happy with superhornets instead of the latest and greatest?

 

[HamPhan]

Name 5

Ok, 3?

 

[bmasters1993]

So the military industrial complex is real? if americans decide to conserve their taxes (which we need to at some point, taxes are getting insane) the corportations will find the highest bidder thus putting usa liberty in a bind.

So instead of spending more than the world combined, you'll just spend more than all of your enemies combined. Even if someone somehow tied you for a bid, the contractor has all their infrastructure, assets and money inside the US. The American government would need to be significantly outbid for them to put all of that at risk.

i would be more comfortable sending constitutionally sworn boots to defend australia, than giving australia the means to threaten usa citizens or influence usa lawmakers with their own incredibly sophisticated machinery.

Would the rest of America be comfortable though? Even if this doctrine was adopted, what if 4-8 years later America gets a change in government and the American people decide they don't want troops overseas fighting someone elses war? We get left twisted in the wind?

im pro 2nd amendment, the right to defend yourself via small arms is increasingly inconsequetial when a single machine from australia can wipe out a critical peice of infrastructure to a city without being detected.

Australian based F-35s wouldn't have intercontinental strike capability. For Australia to fly an offensive sortie against continental United States, we would need more tanker aircraft than what we have, and even if we had the requisite number of tankers, radars would see and intercept them, giving the game up.

its not just australia, is globalism. the collective vs the individual.

im not saying there is a clear solution, why cant you guys be happy with superhornets instead of the latest and greatest?

Do you really have to ask why we would be unhappy with equipment that is inferior to that of those who may intend to do us harm.

Your whole thing was about how you feel unsafe giving other nations the same level of technology as the USA (which isn't entirely true, export F-35s have a couple of the toys left out), imagine if those nations had superior technology, how you'd feel?

 

[uncommon]

Your whole thing was about how you feel unsafe giving other nations the same level of technology as the USA (which isn't entirely true, export F-35s have a couple of the toys left out), imagine if those nations had superior technology, how you'd feel

I think my whole point can be summed up as this.

America has the capability of shooting politicians that misuse weapons of great power.

Our allies cant.

Am i totally out of line for hinting at a potential problem here? im not saying i have a great solution.

 

[bmasters1993]

I think my whole point can be summed up as this.

America has the capability of shooting politicians that misuse weapons of great power.

Our allies cant.

Am i totally out of line for hinting at a potential problem here? im not saying i have a great solution.

I can't go there with you man. I get the second amendment allows the individual to protect themselves, including against a tyrannical government. However, not only does America have the least killable head of state in the western world, but waging an offensive war against your government would either be suicidal (if the military side with the government), or pointless (if the military sides with the people). You'd have the tools to protect yourself from other humans in a EOTWAWKI situation, or from the first team of G men coming from the first black helicopter to land in your street, long enough to make your escape. Saying that the general population would be capable of an unaided revolution against the US government? I just can't get there man.

 

[IppoMakanuchi]

I had to look up atavistic.

 

[RighteousWar]

...stop acting like im isis...

 

[HamPhan]

Ok, 3?

warrior ethos gets ridiculed by a lot of people.

brits dont have "warrior ethos". they just do their job for queen and country.

and also stop acting like im isis, you loon.

Ok, how about you name 1 of the " lot " . I'll give you the benefit of my doubt.

 

[uncommon]

Saying that the general population would be capable of an unaided revolution against the US government? I just can't get there man.

Out of curiosity are you familiar with Eisenhower in Australia? Not sure this speech is close to what we are talking about so i apologize in advance for a "here watch this" clip (2 mins long)



I wonder what his stance would be on the entire globe acquiring these ever increasing sophistication of machines? where does it end? skynet? Do these machines really warrant the threats we face today?