NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2005
- 9,711
- 6
- 76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Originally posted by: Deeko
ahhhahahahahahah
This is a joke, right?
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Deeko
ahhhahahahahahah
This is a joke, right?
No, but you are![]()
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:
huh?
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, these were the biggest issues in his campaign. :roll:
His stance on abortion is that the Federal government has no jurisdiction, and as someone who wants to give education back to the states, his religious beliefs become irrelevant at the federal level (and I say this having never heard Paul talk about "creationism").
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:
huh?
Your inference is that because he believes those things that he will implement or back government intervention along those lines. Simply not true.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I generally agree with Paul, but I disagree with him here completely. I don't think we want to get into the habit of hiring mercenaries as a country. Hiring security is one thing, paying people to go out and kill is another.
Originally posted by: her209
Blackwater USA 2.0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ron Paul is a huge pro-life guy. He's also a creationist.
Yeah, and he believes that government has the right to dictate lifestyles. :roll:
huh?
Your inference is that because he believes those things that he will implement or back government intervention along those lines. Simply not true.
Wrong, my inference was that when JSFLY thought Ron Paul lost the Republican primary it was due to his stances on certain social conservative issues that Ron Paul bucked Republican orthodoxy on. I was correcting his mistake on abortion, and mentioning how Ron Paul goes even further than that one some issues, like creationism.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.
Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.
Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
I think the same. It might start as pirates and then just be some black fisherman who had a fishing pole that looked like a rifle. I suppose it could require video footage, though, as a rule.Originally posted by: zephyrprime
How could you trust that the bounty hunters would only go after real pirates? They could just trump up some somalis and claim they were pirates. Also, it's not in a bounty hunters own interest to get rid of all pirates since that would put them out of a job. They would only want to keep a few pirates around to keep the issue alive.
Same vein as what i said in the other thread. The key requirement here is the ability to take these pirates out and given the huge area covered, it can only meaningfully be done with airborne vehicles. It's not feasible to have enough fighters in the area at all times or carriers, so UAVs are the ticket.A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.
Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.
Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.
Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.
Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
How much area can a Predator scan?Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.
Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.
Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
Are you aware that Somalia's coastline is more than 2000 miles long?
Multiply that by the 200+ miles offshore target area.
I think you get the drift?
Originally posted by: Skoorb
How much area can a Predator scan?Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A way to deal with this would be to have a Navy vessel which is dedicated solely to carrying and deploying large numbers of armed high speed UAVs. There would be 24/7 coverage of an area with quick launch capabilities. Shipping in the area would have a "hot button" which would alert the ship of impending danger, along with coordinates.
Once activated, drones would immediately investigate and if the situation warrants attack.
Costs of such a program would be far lower than equipping pilots in such a role, and the technology exists today.
Are you aware that Somalia's coastline is more than 2000 miles long?
Multiply that by the 200+ miles offshore target area.
I think you get the drift?
Quick wikipedia read indicates that a half dozen UAVs could survey much of the coastline, including going out quite a distance.
That wouldn't matter if the pirates covered themselves in mud.
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: bamacre
This man should be our President.
I cannot believe that I think that I am slowly becoming a Ron Paul bot.
Resistance is futile.
Originally posted by: Thump553
Somalia pirates frequently disguise themselves as ordinary fishermen. Does Paul contemplate authorizing attacks on all Somalia boats and ships, regardless of what they are doing? Does he want the US to essentially declare war on Somalia?
