It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Not a Veteran. Don't own property. You are not permitted to vote.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sargeras

Well considering after 1812 no one really bothered us at all and we had a really weak military up til WW2 I'd say no.


Since WW2 industrial military might has gone world wide.

Since WW2 Russia would have likely invaded us if not for our nukes and military.

Only our military strength stopped Stalin from going after the world.

Hence settled for all of East Europe, because we wouldn't let him take more.

That is what caused the cold war.

How exactly would Russia have invaded the US? I'm curious how you think it would have been possible at all.

Once we developed the first nuke, our country became that much more untouchable. No troops needed, just scientists and engineers.



That makes perfect sense, which is exactly why every country that has nukes has no military right?

Oh wait, that isn't true, in fact every nation with nukes also has a very good military.... Hhmmm
I wonder why.

Is it because if you got invaded you would have to nuke yourself?

Nukes are for the enemies homeland, not their soldiers.

As to how they would invade us, probably the same way they would invade Europe, with tanks and soldiers.

The 15 miles seperating Alaska and Russia is not really that hard to cross for a military as powerful as the Soviet military was back then.

To this day, European countries know they can't stop a Russian invasion with nukes, that is why they have militaries, and Russia could still overrun most of it in a couple weeks without US military intervention.

Because nukes aren't for the enemies soldiers, they are to destroy their homeland.

Unless you believe nuking your own country to stop enemy soldiers is wise, I don't think it sounds very wise, but I am not very smart, or very well educated in military matters.

You seem to know much more than me, and every military strategist on earth, so I will just defer to your expansive and well thought out strategy of nuking your own lands to keep them safe from enemy invaders.




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

My brother Inlaw hits me with the " You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you didn't serve in the military " comment and many others sayings almost every week. He does not care that I spent a whole career as a Firefighter/Medic and Nursing.

He is what is considered in around here as the typical south western Pennsylvania hunter. Bible in one hand, rifle in the other. Quick to make a racist joke.

Generally I can tune him out. But last night was just to much. 😝



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Being a veteran, in most cases, means one either didn't know any better, couldn't find a job, thought war was a video game type thing, couldn't afford to go to college any other way or was just a bored and young dingbat.

I was in the 82nd Airborne and a decorated combat vet with all kinds of medals and action guy badges on the uniform and it doesn't mean # because I didn't know any better.

There are a lot of socially retarded retarded people in this country who couldn't figure out what is going on here if you drew them a picture and wrote words to explain what the pictures mean....

Like a comic book.
edit on 13-3-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: asef



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Being a veteran, in most cases, means one either didn't know any better, couldn't find a job, thought war was a video game type thing, couldn't go afford to college any other way or was just a bored and young dingbat.

I was in the 82nd Airborne and a decorated combat vet with all kinds of medals and action guy badges on the uniform and it doesn't mean # because I didn't know any better.

There are a lot of socially retarded retarded people in this country who couldn't figure out what is going on here if you drew them a picture and wrote words to explain what the pictures mean....

Like a comic book.


I was young, bored, and wanted to go to college.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CoBaZ

He's very proud to have served. And I'm thankful for everyone who has. He did his 4 years back in the 80's. Back then he hated it. But he turns 50 in the summer and he's getting more crotchety, and suddenly has a change of heart. Those are now the best years of his life.

But the guy has charm when it comes to voicing his option to crowds. And that's what happend here. Even got the sweet little lady next door mad at me. 😁



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

And what about those who wanted to join the military, that could not do to hearing, Vision not correctable by glasses or another issue the individual was born with. It's not their fault.
What if the military was not their calling and opted to go straight to college?

As far as the owning land. He and some others feel it shows responsibilty and proof of paying taxes. But never mind being a renter or anyone with a Job that has taxes removed from a pay check.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Proper Irish weekend indeed..😁
If i'm not here on ATS. I do get out with the dogs or anything else with little human interactions.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sargeras

Well considering after 1812 no one really bothered us at all and we had a really weak military up til WW2 I'd say no.


Since WW2 industrial military might has gone world wide.

Since WW2 Russia would have likely invaded us if not for our nukes and military.

Only our military strength stopped Stalin from going after the world.

Hence settled for all of East Europe, because we wouldn't let him take more.

That is what caused the cold war.

How exactly would Russia have invaded the US? I'm curious how you think it would have been possible at all.

Once we developed the first nuke, our country became that much more untouchable. No troops needed, just scientists and engineers.



That makes perfect sense, which is exactly why every country that has nukes has no military right?

.

Pakistan?

They sure have a great military....no, they have nukes.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Not all of them. My father was in the first Gulf War. The other 4 uncles served in the Navy. From Korea all the way up to the first Gulf War. They like helping others. And are not of this sort of oppinion.

Granted they had a tough mother. And left pittsburgh decades ago. 😊



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

In Isreal, they have a spot in the military for everyone. But here in the U.S.. if you can't pass the physical, you are not accepted.

In my close knit of friends. One works for the local waste management or refuse collector if you will. He makes $9 an hour. That's not a living. He has to work 12 hour days 6 days a week. Legal born citizen. For the crap he puts up with. He has every right to vote.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: Sargeras

And what about those who wanted to join the military, that could not do to hearing, Vision not correctable by glasses or another issue the individual was born with. It's not their fault.
What if the military was not their calling and opted to go straight to college?

As far as the owning land. He and some others feel it shows responsibilty and proof of paying taxes. But never mind being a renter or anyone with a Job that has taxes removed from a pay check.


I think that everyone should be able to serve, the military needs all kinds, they have every type of work imaginable.

Bad hearing, so paper work or some job that doesn't require hearing.

No matter the physical handicap, there is necessary work that one could accomplish.

Just my thoughts though, I don't make policy.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sargeras

Well considering after 1812 no one really bothered us at all and we had a really weak military up til WW2 I'd say no.


Since WW2 industrial military might has gone world wide.

Since WW2 Russia would have likely invaded us if not for our nukes and military.

Only our military strength stopped Stalin from going after the world.

Hence settled for all of East Europe, because we wouldn't let him take more.

That is what caused the cold war.

How exactly would Russia have invaded the US? I'm curious how you think it would have been possible at all.

Once we developed the first nuke, our country became that much more untouchable. No troops needed, just scientists and engineers.



That makes perfect sense, which is exactly why every country that has nukes has no military right?

.

Pakistan?

They sure have a great military....no, they have nukes.


Pakistan has a great military!
www.globalfirepower.com...

Ranked 17 in the world!

But ya they have sticks and rocks for both their soldiers right?

You do know that they fight with India every year over kasmir right?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
since the person being elected doesn`t have to be a land owner or a veteran then why should the people who vote for that person have to be?
I think who is being elected is more important than who is electing them.
considering that only a little over half of all eligible voters even bother to vote it seems that a lot of veterans and home owners don`t care too much about the right to vote.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt

Indubitably πŸ‘



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
since the person being elected doesn`t have to be a land owner or a veteran then why should the people who vote for that person have to be?
I think who is being elected is more important than who is electing them.
considering that only a little over half of all eligible voters even bother to vote it seems that a lot of veterans and home owners don`t care too much about the right to vote.


It isn't a lack of caring.

It is a lack of worthy candidates.

A lot of folks won't hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don't want.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

There are those who would gladly join if they could. But the gate keepers are picky. They want passing test scores and the physically fit.
My situation was very furtunate. Having been in ROTC in high school. Then getting a college degree. And working first hand with an Emergency Room Doctor who was a Col. At the Army National Guard. He signed off on my medical chart.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sargeras

Well considering after 1812 no one really bothered us at all and we had a really weak military up til WW2 I'd say no.


Since WW2 industrial military might has gone world wide.

Since WW2 Russia would have likely invaded us if not for our nukes and military.

Only our military strength stopped Stalin from going after the world.

Hence settled for all of East Europe, because we wouldn't let him take more.

That is what caused the cold war.

How exactly would Russia have invaded the US? I'm curious how you think it would have been possible at all.

Once we developed the first nuke, our country became that much more untouchable. No troops needed, just scientists and engineers.



That makes perfect sense, which is exactly why every country that has nukes has no military right?

.

Pakistan?

They sure have a great military....no, they have nukes.


Pakistan has a great military!
www.globalfirepower.com...

Ranked 17 in the world!

But ya they have sticks and rocks for both their soldiers right?

You do know that they fight with India every year over kasmir right?


Not sure if sarcasm. If not for nukes India would invade and annex Pakistan faster than Putin could say good job.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sargeras

Well considering after 1812 no one really bothered us at all and we had a really weak military up til WW2 I'd say no.


Since WW2 industrial military might has gone world wide.

Since WW2 Russia would have likely invaded us if not for our nukes and military.

Only our military strength stopped Stalin from going after the world.

Hence settled for all of East Europe, because we wouldn't let him take more.

That is what caused the cold war.

How exactly would Russia have invaded the US? I'm curious how you think it would have been possible at all.

Once we developed the first nuke, our country became that much more untouchable. No troops needed, just scientists and engineers.



That makes perfect sense, which is exactly why every country that has nukes has no military right?

.

Pakistan?

They sure have a great military....no, they have nukes.


Pakistan has a great military!
www.globalfirepower.com...

Ranked 17 in the world!

But ya they have sticks and rocks for both their soldiers right?

You do know that they fight with India every year over kasmir right?


Not sure if sarcasm. If not for nukes India would invade and annex Pakistan faster than Putin could say good job.


But nukes aren't the only reason.

India would lose a significant portion of its own forces in the attempt.

This is what is known as a pyric victory.

You win but you still lose.

No it wasn't sarcasm, Pakistan is a middleastern powerhouse as far as militaries go.

And nukes have nothing to do with it other than MAD.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

If Pakistan didn't have nukes it would be part of India despite what you think. No, Pakistan is NOT a powerhouse in any way shape or form. They exist because they have nukes, and only because of that reason.


This kind of thinking is why the idea only veterans can vote is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Abysha
Jesus... we'd live in a nightmare if that were the case. I'm thinking feudalism pre-Crusade Franks or just a
straight up military aristocracy if that happened.

I really doubt he would be saying that if he were found unfit to serve when he enlisted.


I'm a firm believer that everyone, regardless of disability, can serve some role in the military.
Even if it is only answering phones or stapling papers.

Everyone should serve, and nobody should be denied if they wish to.

It takes more than soldiers to make it all go around.


That may work in small European nations where their compulsory service is for literal national defense (not the "if we don't kill them there, they'll kill us here" type of defense mentality).

But in the US, our military actions are ethically questionable for most Americans. To actively participate in a machine which they find morally reprehensible is nothing short of torturous. I would rather die than go overseas to kill strangers and wouldn't even feel like a decent human if I stapled the reports of those deaths for those who profited from them.

I'll happily file and staple papers in the Norwegian military or patrol the woods in Sweden but I won't participate in war profiteering just to vote.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join