4 ms·
If not for these high tech weaponry, A LOT of us who post on this website would be required to serve in an army. And if unlucky, called upon to try to kill some
by dba7dba 11y ago
If not for these high tech weaponry, A LOT of us who post on this website would be required to serve in an army. And if unlucky, called upon to try to kill someone. And if really unlucky, end up KIA or WIA.
Because of these high tech weapons, wealthy western nations are able to maintain their sovereignty without requiring all fit males to serve in uniform for 2-3 years.
The alternative to not having these high tech weapons is a man shooting another man to death.
War is terrible. But that's life.
- jon-wood 11y agoThe alternative is to stop believing the west has all the answers and should impose them on the rest of the world, by force if necessary. We've been involved in countless wars, and few of them have resulted in the world being a better place to live.
- dba7dba 11y agoNo west does not have all the answers. But war will be with us no matter what.
- jon-wood 11y agoWhy? Your argument at first glance appears to be that there has always been war, so there always will be war. That isn't obligatory. We could decide that we're no longer going to engage in imposing our will by force, and our military will only be used in self defence. How long do you think extremists could keep up recruitment if we stopped pissing people off by killing their friends and family, often for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
- dba7dba 11y agoIt would be extremely naive to think that wars will stop once the conflict with or in ME goes away. Once that ME problem goes away (however unlikely), something ELSE will come up to cause wars to start. It could be water, economy, power.
- atemerev 11y agoSo, female genital mutilation, sex slavery and stoning are all just cultural differences to be ignored? On some occasions, the West has the answers.
- asteli 11y agoOddly enough, these aren't things that we've historically gone to war over.
- jon-wood 11y agoNot at all. They're abhorent practices that we should be campaigning to end. You don't change people's minds by turning up and dropping a couple of Hellfires on them. All that achieves is pissing off their family, and making them less receptive to your arguments. Would you be receptive to someone telling you they know better on matters of morality after they blew up your brother?
- dba7dba 11y agoThere will be wars. Not just over what West has done to ME. It will be over money, water, power, etc etc. And without those high tech weapons, a lot of warm bodies would be required to pick up a gun and shoot to kill. Close enough to see without the aid of zoomed image on a screen. I'm talking beyond just what West has done or not. Or what ME has done. It's terrible. But again, that's life.
- ljf 11y agoAre we are war or considering invading a country that practices fgm? As last time I looked we weren't heading to any African countries with our troops. And fgm is an African issue not a Muslim one... Ethiopia is one of the worst countries for it and is a Christian majority country http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23314088 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23314088
- DanBC 11y ago> sex slavery Non Muslims have considerable involvement in sex slavery and other forms of modern slavery.
- simonh 11y agoWhen Al Qaeda attacked New York nobody was attacking Afghanistan. No western soldiers were moving in on Taliban territory. No American or European drones or bombers were flying over the tribal territories. We'd successfully defended and liberated some Arab lands in the first Iraq war but had launched no wars of conquest against any Islamic nations and only became involved when Arab leaders pretty much begged us to do so. We did not start these conflicts.
- partisan 11y agoWe definitely didn't start these conflicts in the Middle East. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
- simonh 11y agoA list of western abuses in the Middle East would be a very long and bloody one, that's fair enough. We have a lot to account for, and Iran in particular has plenty of very good reasons to be hostile to the west. But we are not fighting wars against Iran, instead we are negotiating treaties and slowly building trust. These terrorist attacks are not because we are in a war with Islamic nations. They are designed to create and draw us into wars with Islamic nations. They are provocations to start wars which ISIS and Al Qaeda want to have. They are as much a response to us withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as anything else. Check out ISIS and Al Qaeda's published literature. If we withdrew completely from the Middle East and all Moslem states the attacks would not stop, they would intensify because by deliberate policy they are dedicated to creating a situation in which conflict with the west is unavoidable. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks we can just walk away from this fight and everything will be fine, just doesn't have clue 1 why we are in this to start with. The Wahabi/Salafist world view is one of inevitable and necessary warfare with all non-Muslims, leading to global conquest and a worldwide Caliphate. It's non-negotiable and inimical to democracy, freedom and liberal values. You either convert or die and they way to achieve this is by provoking as much division and strife between westerners and Muslims as possible.
- 11y ago
- ant6n 11y agoSo drone strikes 'maintain (western nations') sovereignty'?
- dba7dba 11y agoNO. You are misunderstanding my point. If we had no such high tech weapons (jets, drones, tanks), we'd be reduced to maintaining large armies, requiring service of fit males. Wars don't happen because someone is right or wrong. Wars happens because of wealth and desire for wealth.
- mathieuh 11y agoImperialist wars. Who in the West is going to attack another Western state?
- ionised 11y ago> NO. You are misunderstanding my point. If we had no such high tech weapons (jets, drones, tanks), we'd be reduced to maintaining large armies, requiring service of fit males. The US has a fleet of drones and still maintains a large army.
- Jtsummers 11y agoA historically small army for the number of conflicts we're involved in. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html However, I disagree with GP's assertion that the absence of drones would result in mandatory service or a draft. Neither will be politically palatable in the US for at least another generation or two. Vietnam is still too recent in people's memories. Besides, one of the main things that reduces the number of needed troops is not weaponized drones, but improved communication and sensor platforms. This allows for (more) precise and accurate strikes and troop placement. Larger areas of control can be maintained by fewer people.
- effie 11y ago> The alternative to not having these high tech weapons is a man shooting another man to death. The other, much better alternative is to stop aggressive military actions entirely and go home.