Slashdot Mirror
Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear
nxg125 writes "Wired is running an article about a seven-year, $250 million revamping of the US Army's uniforms. One of the major obstacles is going to be how to power all the electronic devices that the soldiers will use. 'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run.'"
"We're stripping the soldier down to his skin, and ..." said ... De Gay,
2) Get shot in the chest by an AP round. Play taps, or a user designated song like, " Stairway to Heaven"?
3) They run away from a fight. Will their back turn yellow?
I'm sure they will have some way of tracking the people that go awol eventually. Like a permanent tracking device in the base of the skull.
Inquiring minds want to know.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
The armed forces don't care if a solution is proprietary or open. They can get whatever budgets for technology they want ("Senator, you'll be a traitor if you don't approve our stripped-down trillion dollar clothing budget for our new RoboMilitia!")
More likely, the government simply puts Microsoft OS products on par with Gnu Hurd and Amiga OS: "Not quite ready for our needs." There are still many other proprietary OS options available considering the levels of money the war mongers are willing to throw around.
the US is a nation that obeys the Geneva Convention
I've yet to see any proof of this. Recently, US tactics seem to say that attacking civilian targets is fair play in "shock and awe" tactics as long as you claim it was an accident. And torturing innocent civilians is perfectly acceptable as long as its an outlet for frustration or they might have useful information.
> The US (and most other nations) is a nation that obeys the Geneva Convention
> Part of that is that deliberate attacks on civilian targets aren't allowed.
I understand that you are explaining a specific example of the hows and whys of the Geneva convention. However it should be pointed out that it is false that the US obeys the Geneva Convention.
The US evokes the Geneva Convention to give its populace a sense that it is acting morally when it is waging war. It's not even ostensibly true anymore that the US obeys the Geneva Convention, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo being the most recent examples - in addition to the then-secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos and the attack on Panama being others - never mind war by proxy in greater Israel and Afghanistan, and passivity in the face of other human rights atrocities since the inception of the GC.
Given that the US doesn't even follow these rules, I don't see how it makes any sense to bother having a discussion about why the other guys should not use certain tactics. That being said, I don't see how it makes any sense to talk about rules, fairness, or morals on the battlefield. Once two groups decide to kill each other, all (or nothing) is fair.
One, what they have been doing is just willy nilly picking people up and calling them "al queda"- a far cry from actual true identification. And the origins of al queda go directly to the CIA, and some rich connected oil and construction people in the US with rich connected wahabists in saudi arabia. People with serious financial ties to the current administration. Then these alleged "al queda" "detainees" can be beaten to death, have glo sticks shoved up their ass, be forced to jack off into other "detaines" mouths, and other sorts of righteous "let's roll!" US army goodness.
I don't want to hear about it. I've handled a necklace made from human finger bones, bones that primarily came from vietnamese citizens who weren't communists,who certainly didn't invade the US, who never threatened the US,who just happened to be living in a vill that was declared a "free fire" zone.
The US is run by a fascist cabal,has been since before world war 2, with political front men who represent those fascists. These are called "politicians" and the media (that they own and control) and the public schools (that they own and control) insist you become brainwashed and "vote" for one or the other of these front men, election after election. The military (and now most of the domestic police force) is it's organized muscle, it's mercenary wing, who just follow orders, and very few ever say no, because it's a career killer. You go along to get along. Torture, abuse of prisoners, raping civilian women have always been part of the scene. Same as in other nations militaries. There is nothing glorius or "honorable" about it.
Iraq was not a threat to the US, but it was an embarrasment to the US, and saddam had announced he was no longer going to be accepting US dollars as payment. He also was a credible supporter of the palestinians who are on the third generation of being prisoners in their own lands, being persecuted by the radical likudnik zionists, another group of lying thieves who also like inflicting pain, and then crying foul when their victims fight back.
Chikenhawk israel firsters in this administration wanted to establish a beach head in the middle of the oil fields in the middle east, 50% to get ownership of the oil, 50% as a proxy army for israel. This is fucking obvious, so get over this notion that this was any sort of righteous war against some dicator, or that we were "getting" the people responsible for 9-11. We got dictators all over the place, it's only the ones sitting on the oil or drugs (like noriega) or any other very valuable property who get any attention. Wake up will you?
They did it, they followed orders like good little boys, the military people over there got faked out, they all got told that saddam = al queda = 9-11, plus, that any second saddam was going to launch WMD at the US unless he was stopped.
And other sorts of fairy tales. What rubbish. Must just suck to be that naieve,to be that stupid, but there you go, that's what you get, that's what you pay for, for drunks mostly, which is "the US military", mostly hard core drunks,the lifers, the kids are just young and stupid mostly, and they are encouraged to get ultra violent, something young men are wont to do anyway.
And now they really have created terrorists, a lot more than there were before. We had some before, that's a granted. Now we have untold millions. Millions and millions who despise the US.
Wasn't that just so clever of a plan.
The bush family was a business partner with both saddam, and with the bin ladens (no, osama was only disowned in the press, inreal life he's always part of the family), and the bush family has a long history of double crossing it's business partners. You can go back, google for prescott bush and see what he did during ww2, see where the grandfather's loyalties really were. Go look where george the elder was on november 21st, 1963. Not the 22nd, the 21st. You can find it. Check out the activities of the current dictators brothers with regards "banks and
> Lumping Chirac in with Usama and Saddam is a bit rich.
Really? Compare the goals and motivations of each. Saddam is really the odd man in the group since he was motivated by the Will to Power more than anything else. He probably only hated the US for slapping him out of Kuwait and supporting Israel.
But Usama, Chirac, Kofi Annon and Kerry are motivated by a the shared desire to end Western Civilization as we think of it, and have as a first goal to end US dominance of world affairs. Chirac wants to restore French "Greatness" and be the leader in bringing about a Socialist world order. Usama wants the US out of the way so they can kill some jews without interferrence and establish Islamic theoracies as far and wide as possible. Kerry wants to solve the embarrasment of being an American by turning the US into a European style Welfare Socialist hellhole no longer able to afford to project power on the world stage.
> There was no way that the USA could have "won" Vietnam, the US were
> just trying to prop up a southern government to block the northern
> communists.
It would have been nice to have made a real try at winning before allowing the pro Viet Cong voices dominating the Democratic party of the day to prevail. And you state our purpose of propping up the South Vietnamese as if it were a bad thing. We were in a cold war with Soviet Russia and Communist China. Of course we were using a puppet on our side just like the NVA and Viet Cong were creatures of our enemy. But riddle me this: Which outcome would have been more desirable?
1. A Korea solution where we drove the barbarians back and kept them at bay.
2. What actually happened.
The question is moot because history has rendered it's verdict on Vietnam and walking away cost millions of people their lives across the region in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. True numbers will never be known because the Communists were not the sort of bookkeepers the Nazi's were, but to say it rivaled the Holocaust would not be hyperbole. And a fair share of the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of each and every 'protester'. Go watch a documentary on the protests, all I have seen are politically cleansed so that you won't hear the narrator say it, but LOOK at the signs and you will see abundant pro Viet Cong sentiment. But none of those fools want to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, including the current heir apparent to the Democratic Party, John Kerry.
Democrat delenda est
Terrans always forget their upgrades don't they? I guess it doesn't matter in this case, since any strategy will work on a money map.
What freaked out our observer from the 505thArty/101airborne, though, was computing a second mission in my head.
So that's what that was. I was a FO for 1/319th FA 82nd Airborne. We just laughed and giggled when we heard about that. See, I usually spelled out the entire divisions motto with the illum. Slacker!
The opinions expressed here are not mine, but those of these dang voices in my head.
OK you seem to have some issues big big issues even rumsfeld doesn't belive this.
Please, as a favor to me, sober up before posting again.
America did exist at this and where a part of the world and would know about this precident in international law
There's no such thing as "international law."
As i explained i have dyslexia hence the grammer etc. it is your ignorance that is unaceptable and your attitude that is incorrect and inability to act like an adult.
You're kidding, right? Dyslexia is a reading disorder. It doesn't have any impact on your ability to construct a sentence or to use punctuation. Please put the crack pipe down.
bizzarley i have above average reading and comperhension
Oh, dear lord. That's either the funniest thing I've read in a long time, or tragically sad. Maybe both.
I write in my journal