COMMENTS:
Truth is out there. If we are doing the right thing, we shouldn't be hiding it now should we?
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 10:52am
[+]
Voted : Not practical
I'd rather they spent that money on body armor or something.
Besides which, they do have CNN reporters following them around constantly and trying to portray everything they do in the worst possible light.
yeah right CNN is really out to get our soldiers.
Truth and Honesty will serve and protect our soldiers 100x more than any body armour, and that's the fact.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 11:04am
[+]
Voted : Not practical
As much as I'd love to see this become a reality, it wouldn't work, from both bandwidth and security standpoints. 140,000+ webcams beaming all at once would crash almost any server, and also reveal too many positions to anyone capable of hacking.
technologically not only is it possible, but practical.
first of all, not all 140,000 soldiers are out on patrol. once the safety is engaged, the webcam can go into sleep mode (verifiable by creating secure checksums to make sure the weapon wouldn't be in use)
as for crashing server, there are reliable servers that can handle/archive 1000 cam streams with audio - in fact I have talked with people in Iraq on their laptops. Satellite phone technology (now owned by US government after they declared bankruptcy) has plenty of bandwidth not being used, and even land based bandwidth is out there (plenty of it in fact) and several hundred servers needed to archive the data would cost less than one of Bush's golf trips aboard air force one.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 11:25am
[+]
Voted : Not practical
Combat unfolds a lot faster then the camera on the dash of a squad car. It's just not practical to monitor 100,000 guns. Besides, all you'd see is the blur of the rifle jumping around as rounds pop off.
God, and suppose you're watching as the soldier takes a hit. You watch your son or daughter take fire (may as well be yours, that's all you would think of). 
^^ ah, are you saying that we might actually give a hoot about people dying, if we were exposed to that on a daily basis?
Hey, I agree!
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 3:36pm
[+]
"technologically not only is it possible, but practical."
Um, no it's not. We hook wireless cameras to every gun in Iraq and expect them to actually work in the field? Wireless internet doesn't work that well here, where internet is common and things are pretty much civilized. And you know people like you will be watching constantly and the moment the feed drops you're going to scream that they turned off the cameras so they could murder innocent iraqis and steal their oil. Don't be ridiculous, we can't even make sure all our units are in communication with their immediate superiors at any given moment, that's just part of war, let alone videotaping every second of every day they're in the field.
"yeah right CNN is really out to get our soldiers."
Well the leftwing media certainly hasn't been caught fabricating stories to make the US military look better lately.
" Truth and Honesty will serve and protect our soldiers 100x more than any body armour, and that's the fact."
How? Because the terrorists who chop of womens heads to prove a point are so incensed by potential human rights abuses in some foreign country where they've gone to kill infidels?
Voted : Yes, let's see who we kill
It might be worth a try, just to separate fact from rumor.
Voted : Not practical
waste of money
^Though trying to civilize barbarians is far more expensive.
Well, I sure as Hell Do and I've written my congressman and State reps, Signed Petitions to congress and Encourage everyone else to do the same.
every excuse in the book....
okay let's ignore for a moment that we have heads up display linked to every forward plattoon communicating with the Green zone, and let's also ignore the fact that cell towers are active and operating in all the cities that major incursions are taking place.
simple camera systems, with a video logger that are capable of recording upwards of 3 days, are available right now for less than $1000, and can be logged in and verified by independent party (UN for example) without wireless systems, when and only IF the weapons were fired. Such system will add no more than 1 oz to the weapon itself (and easily counterweighed by modding the finder scope of the weapons) and add no more than 1lb to the total package to the body - and can serve as an integral part of the body armor and can protect the wearer as well as providing storage and cpu.
I know, I work in the industry.
technology is not the problem here. Willingness and aversion to a transparent warfare is.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 5:44pm
[+]
How about this: Instead of accusing Americans as somehow killing innocents and placing them in the same category as terrorists (which your ballot implies), actually place the blame where it lies?
"real-time videos broadcast on the net to prove that what we do is right?"
yeah sure. People who have never been to war, know nothing about it, making snap judgments on a situation that they do not understand or comprehend in the least. Things aren't generally broadcast in real time for a reason. A sense of perspective, history of the target and why it is important. You can show a building being blown up. People being killed. But if you don't inform people that this is a legitimate target they won't understand why the building is being bombed.
Its a stupid idea.
I for one certainly trust our soldiers FAR more than I do the combatant terrorists in Iraq. LCD, you approach the situation with an inherent bias that somehow Americans are doing as many bad things as the terrorists are.
Sure, lets blow $1000 on trying to implicate US soldiers. Why not use that money to actually support our troops, their health care, some time off for rest and relaxation. All you want to do is find some way that they are guilty.
I think it may be appropriate only if the system could work similar to the Aircraft black boxes, with one exception.
In the event that a soldier is downed, the potential for enemy recovery of the system data would seriously compromise tactical directives and stategic manuveurs forcing the combat units to constantly modify operation routines. If an enemy is privey to the MO, it would mean disaster for future missions.
To incorporate a practical Independent Combat Recording System, I think Real Time Uploading and an Auto-Wipe System on termination of the heartbeat would be fitting for protection of the operation and future missions.
For preformance and evaluation data, I think it's a useful tool, much like combat simulators, but I'm still reluctant to approve of a system like this for evidentiary purposes due to the possibility of discriminate prosecutions of soldiers who are executing orders or errors in preforming combat operations, as oppoosed to premeditated misconduct.
We also could not authorize any independant verifacation of the operations by foreign dignitaries in the UN. That's also a potential security breach.
I've seen similar type devices already being developed and tested on a program called Future Weapons.
yeah fiddle, let's all just trust everyone and drink the cool aid. remebering of course to machine gun everybody who we are told are the enemy.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 10:57pm
[+]
....first.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 10:57pm
[+]
"yeah fiddle, let's all just trust everyone and drink the cool aid. remebering of course to machine gun everybody who we are told are the enemy. "
That's not at all what he said and your crankyesque response is very disappointing.
Look, for whatever reason you believe american soldiers are off torturing and murdering iraqis for no reason. That's not true but you believe it. You also apparently believe in jewish conspiracies, like they control the media and are covering all this up.
So I have to speculate that your concern here isn't the health and safety of our troops.
Voted : Not practical
They are getting paid to follow orders. That's their job.
Hold the government and the (comment censored by the ADL) who write foreign policy responsible. That's who gives the marching orders.
"Instead of accusing Americans as somehow killing innocents and placing them in the same category as terrorists (which your ballot implies)"
how dare you. show me how I implied such a thing.
"yeah sure. People who have never been to war, know nothing about it"
neither do you apparantly.
"making snap judgments on a situation that they do not understand or comprehend in the least."
the contempt for the average human being you displayed here is amazing. So people should be given a blindfold, so they are spoonfed by the people in charge, of those you approve??
"Things aren't generally broadcast in real time for a reason. A sense of perspective, history of the target and why it is important."
True, it wouldn't be news until it was spindoctored by Fox.
" You can show a building being blown up. People being killed. But if you don't inform people that this is a legitimate target they won't understand why the building is being bombed."
Guess what, they will know it's a building being bombed, and people being blown up. that's what they would understand, and people like you wouldn't have the chance to distort what people see with their own eyes with your rhetoric.
"Its a stupid idea."
You are entitled to your opinions.
"I for one certainly trust our soldiers FAR more than I do the combatant terrorists in Iraq."
How does who YOU trust have anything to do with this idea? if you trust people with guns blindly because they are on your side, that's fine. The footage wouldn't be for you.
"LCD, you approach the situation with an inherent bias that somehow Americans are doing as many bad things as the terrorists are."
again, how dare you.
"Sure, lets blow $1000 on trying to implicate US soldiers. Why not use that money to actually support our troops, their health care, some time off for rest and relaxation."
if our troops are beyond reproach, then they would be respected, and not be painted by the same brush as a few psycho killers who make them look bad.
"All you want to do is find some way that they are guilty."
How dare you.
by LCD on Thu Mar 01, 07 11:56am
[+]
Ironic ain't it?
Uh, I recall at one time you told me, and another user (who will remain unnamed), that (we) should just ignore each other.
Touchet, My friend. You're speaking to stones. 
|
