well homeland security only buys equipment for use on the home front and DOD buy equipment for the military to fight against other countries (away from home). DHS main purpose is to prepare for civil unrest/domestic emergencies. as most people now know police departments get funding and equipment through homeland security not DOD. the 2,000 small tanks are not tanks but APC's. they are currently used for protests and riots. we also now have drones flying over American skies.
if i had to bet my life on whether we are preparing for ww3 or civil war im going to say civil war if those are the 2 choices. but i highly doubt neither will happen.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------


you say this as if we are separate governments and people. yet both countries don't do anything unless its together. if ones in trouble the other always looks to its brother for some kind of assistance. whether you want to accept it or not were family brother lol

Cause then no one else would be involved and killed.

I think that US is just preparing to wipe out terrorist and to be prepared for North Korea's attack if they do indeed attack. US will not go into another civil war :dumb:

Look at past military conflicts. How many Victors of conflicts have been charged with war crimes ? How many can you actually name ????

Japan didn't have to be nuked, the allied forces already did a great job of firebombing and wiping out large cities and 100 of 1000s of civialians. Vietnam, heard of the country next to it called Laos ? The most heavily bombed country ever... untold civilian casualties and people are still dying and being maimed by unexploded ordinance there. Seriously, saying the US has regard for the geneva convention is a joke.

If they wanted to nuke NK, they'd just have to declare war on them, make up some bullshit that NK launched a nuke and they "retaliated" in self defense. The odds of such a scenario playing out are slim.

Probably for US civil war, because north-korea can't get far with their nukes :p

The problem with what you're saying regarding the United States nuking Japan is this... there was no Geneva Convention until after the Second World War. Even then it only dealt with the treatment of POWs. Operation Menu which was the bombing campaign of Laos and Cambodia, which is what you're referring to... Well again there was no breach there either because Protocol I of the Geneva Convention didn't exist until 1977. Protocol I would have put the United States into the wrong for sure.

Now in 1977 when Protocols I and II came out the United States and a handful of other countries signed it, but never ratified it. And I doubt it will ever be ratified by these few countries. And in regard to ever hearing about the country Laos, yes I have. My father served in the Vietnam War and was in the country of Laos, he can even acknowledge the United States' involvement in Laos and the secret war that entailed.

And before you go spouting off at least brush up on your world history. Oh, I almost forgot, it is safe to say that the United States has a regard for the Geneva Conventions because they do... they only have to regard what they ratified. Now if Protocols I and II were ratified by the United States and we were to nuke a country you can bet your ass the president and those who were involved would be facing charges for war crimes. And the only reason why I mentioned that the president would be charged with war crimes in my prior post is because that the United States as a nation would become public enemy number one unless someone took a fall for the action of nuking another country who ratified the Geneva Conventions and all of it's protocols.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression the convention was ratified earlier, researching I see I am mistaken by "Geneva Conventions" and what is referred to as "The Geneva Convention" and the addition of protocols I-III. I appreciate you pointing this out in your informative post. I look forward to studying this further.

This does not change my mind that both what happened in Japan and Laos are disgusting and unjustifiable acts.

In terms of brushing up on world history. Operation Menu is not the only operation I was referring to. I invite you to brush up on what actually happened in Laos and all the operations that resulted in civilians being indiscriminately killed during what we call "The Vietnam War". Operation Menu ran from March 1969 to May 1970. The US actually started dropping bombs in 1964 and didn't finish to 1973. Off the top of my head reference Operations Steel Tiger, Tiger Hound, Commando Hunt + Barrel Roll for operations that likely resulted in civilian deaths.

Looking at my original post I probably could have presented my thoughts better, I might come across as some anti American whack job of which I am not. I've spent enough time in active and post conflict situations to have fostered extremely strong thoughts on war. I can't not express strongly enough how much I despise the death of civilians in conflicts.

I have a particular passion for the LAO PDR, having spent the best part of two years there working for NGOs primarily dealing with victims of unexploded ordinance. It’s a major bug for me that more people don't know about this issue. It's not only the bombing and pathetic post clean up assistance offered by the US that upsets me. That country has a tragic history over the past several decades. Things like the genocide of the Hmong (The Hill tribe/s recruited by recruited by the CIA) and how there are still veterans being hunted like dogs in the jungles of Laos by the countries army. I could continue for several paragraphs in this vein.

I'm sorry to hear your father served during this conflict. I view that conflict as unnecessary and the negative treatment that many soldiers that served received when they returned home as disgraceful. While I don’t agree with that and many other past and current conflicts, I largely respect what serving men and women do and the reason they do (discounting the minority that behave as psychopaths). I count as friends many Vietnam vets from Australia, NZ and US. It breaks my heart how many of them have struggled with depression and/or PTSD in the decades since. I don't know what your father did, when or where during his service but if he has faced similar struggles, please PM me, I'd like to share some stories with you.

I would argue to a point that any country that hasn't ratified protocols I and II doesn't have a strong regard for the Geneva Convention. What is it within both protocols that they so object to what prevents them from doing this. You appear to have in-depth knowledge regarding this subject, perhaps you can further enlighten me on the US side of this. I can understand why Turkey, Israel, Iran and ****stan haven't with their actions in the recent past.

The scenario you paint regarding the US if it did ratify these protocols and used a nuke is interesting. I can agree this is a possible scenario but I also believe the US could get away with it. Of the countries I know that possess nuclear weapons (UK, France +China) I don't see them listed as not having ratified the same protocols.

This really goes back to my first point of victors of war. In modern warfare democracies generally haven't gone to war against other democracies. So if a democracy was to launch a nuclear weapon against a country that isn't a democracy be it communist, fascist or a nutjob dictatorship, especially in retaliation for an attack I really don't believe that the democracy would be pursued for war crimes, especially if they emerge as victors.