Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The USA is threatning world peace!!!


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1    odinsupreme

odinsupreme

    Odin

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

  • Yes.

Posted 11 March 2002 - 08:22 PM

I am very concerned lately about the actions of the USA. The are now even making plans to thorw some nukes if something would happen (ok, not so easy as I wrote it down, but still.) The declared a kind of war against Northern Korea, Irak, Iran and other "bad" countries and the support of Bush is still growing. Am I the only one who sees that this isn't heading in a nice direction?

Bush is tearing down all the political bands that Clinton had built up. Wth his actions he is starting a new Cold War. I hope that when his 4 years are over a better president comes that is concerned about the future of our planet and out people.

Odin Supreme


#2    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 March 2002 - 09:01 PM

Odin,

One cant threaten what doesnt exist. World peace has never existed, therefore cant be threatened. The nukes you are referring to are against targets that wouldnt be phased by conventional weapons, and only if the U.S. was the victim of another attack equaling or surpassing the destruction of Sept.11th.

Im not critisizing Clinton or praising Bush when I say that the "political bands" you refer to that Clinton had built are a travesty, and I challenge you to give me one example where I'm wrong, and that Bush tore down a valid reliable "political band" worth anything.

The question was clearly whether or not we feel Bush is threatening world peace, and not how we feel about the use of nukes.

So my statement literally cant be argued with when I say there was no world peace to threaten. So my answer is no.

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#3    odinsupreme

odinsupreme

    Odin

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

  • Yes.

Posted 11 March 2002 - 09:39 PM

Homer,

I have to admit that you are right about the fact that there is no world peace, I asked why question wqrong.. I meant to say that they are firing up violonce and wars and that is something they are really doing.

And about the political bands, one of the things that Clinton achived was that Russia slowly began to talk with the USA and also China. China was the first thing that Bush chnaged when he became president (the affaire with the microphones in the airplane).

I hope that you now know what I mean.

Odin S.


#4    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 March 2002 - 10:00 PM

Odin,

First of all your, what you meant to say is a good question, and I can understand your point of view.

Secondly, thank you for responding so quickly with an actual example. Are you suggesting that the standoff with China and the U.S. over the microphone on the plane incident is the first attempt for the U.S. to eaves drop on China?

The U.S. have been eaves dropping on China for decades and that won't stop. The Chinese sent fighters(clumsy ones at that ;D) to intercept the surveillance aircraft over international airspace and you say President Bush is changing it's policy on China? I'm afraid that won't fly as valid example of Bush changing Clinton's policy.

Since you rephrased your question, and I feel it poses an intersting debate, I will post my reply shortly

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#5    Althalus

Althalus

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 11 March 2002 - 10:07 PM

I have put yes, but i took th question as if it was is america ripping at the balance of world power in the war they are fighting, and also making hostilities worse? the answer to this is yes, they are making hostilities worse with the inncessant bombarding of there enemies with everything they have.

America is scaring a lot of the war mongers, such as the middle east and they are stepping up the attacks so they can be ready to fight when the americans come, without having to fight each other.

"We make choices everyday, some of them good, some of them bad. And - if we are strong enough - we live with the consequences."
David Gemmell

#6    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 March 2002 - 11:01 PM

I think the U.S. is doing what President Bush said they(we) would do, and that is to "bring them to justice, or bring justice to them".

So far the targets have only been those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. It is my opinion that to end the war without COMPLETELY eliminating(or attempt to)Al Qaeda would be a failure.

The war on terrorism has spread outside of Afghanistan because the terrorists are outside of Afghanistan. Nobody thinks that terrorism will end, but to let it go unpunished would be a global catastrophy. Outside of Afghanistan, the U.S. is ASSISTING some nations to eliminate terrorists on their own.

The only specific area where the balance of power is even remotely questioned, (at least until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) would be the deployment of U.S. forces in Georgia, where Russia has shown it's displeasure.  For anyone that understands Russian history, it is understandable that the Georgian President didn't seek the Russian President's assistance, especially since the Russian government have recently tried to overthrow the Georgian government. And Georgia is in fear of total collapse, in a large part due to the terrorsists(including Al Qaeda). The balance of power really won't be a valid point there.

Upon the overthrow of Iraqi President Hussein is where the question remark lies. If he's ousted from power, then what, and where will that leave the other factions of the Middle East? As far as making hostilities worse, it is my opinion that it will only be worse for the terrorists, and those that protect them.

This is a long winded reply, but I feel the global stutus quo isn't working, and change is needed. Even if that change COULD BE for the worse. For the record, I am biased in favor of the U.S., but this is how I really feel.

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#7    PurpleStuart

PurpleStuart

    Goth

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • The Most Purple Haired Gothic Hedonistic member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 12 March 2002 - 11:49 AM

I voted yes, because i believe American military action is not condusive to world peace. That said i support the attempts that have been made to take the threat of terrorism away - because i don't believe that would bring peace either - it has been a no-win situation for a great many years and if you look back in recorded history peace is the exception NOT the rule.

Bush is saying the "it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it" line and if everyone is behind him, the situation will be solved all the quicker. If there is major discent and Bush has less power to deal with it, then the half measures used will only preserve the status quo, leaving the possibility of another sept 11th or worse.

Yes i'm worried, but i'm also not surprised.
Two related links:
Doomsday Clock
Nuke plans

never take me too seriously

#8    ScaryD

ScaryD

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2002

Posted 12 March 2002 - 12:59 PM

I'm actually very impressed with the Bushman!  I think he's been very 'fair' with his response to September 11th.  He could've just reduced Afghanistan to a carpark  that same day but he's continued to exercise some restraint.  

Clinton was a w*nker (quite literally).  I could'nt believe he got away with the things he did.  Purgory? Adultery?  Fair enough, I understand not all Presidents are faithful to their wives, but he brought nothing but scandal to the Whitehouse.  I do think it's important for a head of state to set some moral standards, of which he had none.  And his final push to get peace in Ireland during his last 3 months in power (just so he'd have one big accomplishment under his belt.  So that he's the president who restores peace, NOT commits adultery with anyone who'll have him and purgory in the highest court in the land) was an insult to the years of negotiations that had taken place before he'd even heard of the troubles there.

I'm more pissed off with Israel and Palestine, as they've used the war on terrorism to kick off their own scrap again.  It's THERE I think we should be concerned about.  Although, it does seem we are being prepared for all sorts of sh*t to go down with Iraq any time now.   I think when Saddam is finally taken out, the people of Iraq will celebrate their socks off.  

Anyway...oops...didnae mean to rant.   ;)

Every time a child says 'I don't believe in fairies'  there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead.J.M.Barrie | Peter Pan

#9    odinsupreme

odinsupreme

    Odin

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

  • Yes.

Posted 12 March 2002 - 05:57 PM

I have seen another "problem" of the American policy. They shoot at people that are not there friends. I mean with that: "If it isn't with us, it is our enemy" that is wrong. You see it in Northern Korea. Why is he affraid of them? That country is finally after years of isolament talking eith other natuions and then there comes Bush and says that they are evil and that they can be compared with Iraq. Now do not think that I agree woith the things they did but they have never done things like Iraq.

ScaryD,

I can understand that you say the a president or a leader needs good moral standards but he is still a human and humans aren't perfect.

The thing about Northern Ireland, I think that it woul be wiser to invest some time into that to get the western coubtries like the should be rather then yelling at underdeveloped countries that they are doing everything wrong.

Odin S.

PS,

Has anyone of you heard of Pim Fortuyn? Check BBcC or so, they will surely talk about him..


#10    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 12 March 2002 - 06:17 PM

Odin,

You have taken the "If it isn't with us, it is our enemy" completely out of context. "If you are not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" specifically refers to the war on terrorism. Rooting out terrorists is a global problem, and not an American problem(or at least it should be).

Since when are we shooting at N. Korea? Can you give some examples of that nation joining the global community? Let's see, they are currently developing weapons of mass destruction, and this is something that they ADMIT! They are starving their own people, and it's the U.S. who is their largest donator of humanitarian supplies. They launch at will new missiles over the Japanese Islands. They have about 1 million troops, most of which are stationed along the demilitarized zone with the border of S. Korea. America, by the way, has only 38,000 troops there.  Given the FACTS that I have just stated, tell me why again they shouldn't be labeled an "axis of evil"? And again, when did we start shooting at them?

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#11    ScaryD

ScaryD

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2002

Posted 12 March 2002 - 06:32 PM

Odin,

Yes, you're right; no one's perfect.  

However Clinton abused his position first as Governor and then as President.  Women are attracted to powerful men - he has a face like a sack of tatties, and yet he still shagged around with woman after woman.   AND while monica wasn't exactly an angel herself, I can understand why she was won over by him - the most powerful man in the world wanted to be with her furgawdssake!  

Lori-fitsherface won her action against him for his 'behaviour' whilst he was Governor long before he even got to the Whitehouse (I need to refresh myself on these facts, but I'm pretty accurate I'm sure)  and I dread to think how many tax paying dollars went into paying off his other lady-friends.  Must've been a nice little earner to sleep with the President!

ALSO, a good man does not lie or ask someone else to lie under oath.  

Some moral icon he was!

As for Hilary - what kind of lame arsed bint hangs around with a man who treats her like that?  Oh yes...the ambitious kind...

*GASP!*  I'm so controversial!   ;)

p.s.  I am an illiterate arse.  I should've spelt it perjury in my last post, but apparently I canna spell for toffee.  oops.
:s03

Every time a child says 'I don't believe in fairies'  there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead.J.M.Barrie | Peter Pan

#12    GIZZIE

GIZZIE

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2002

Posted 12 March 2002 - 07:23 PM

So Odin

What are your World Peace Plans then?

Would you like to share them with us?

Swallows are the dolphins of the sky

#13    PurpleStuart

PurpleStuart

    Goth

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • The Most Purple Haired Gothic Hedonistic member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 13 March 2002 - 12:47 AM

I don't believe there is any solution - there will never be 'true' world peace, just 'acceptable' levels of violence at best.

Acceptable on a global scale (according to governments) not a personal scale (according to a singlular person).

never take me too seriously

#14    Sorcerer

Sorcerer

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined:01 Mar 2002
  • Location:Limburg

Posted 13 March 2002 - 11:00 AM

With the actions that the USA is taking, the worldpeace can be in a great danger. I even read something in the newspaper that USA is concidering about using A-bombs.
Some people even think that the USA is trying to take over the world. But I think that is all some big gossip.
But I think that the USA could better stop her actions.  >:(

Cogito, ergo sum[SIZE=7][COLOR=green][FONT=Times]

#15    ScaryD

ScaryD

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2002

Posted 13 March 2002 - 12:29 PM

pssst.  The US is the worlds only remaining 'superpower', with one of the biggest slices of the economic cake.  I'd say it has already 'taken over the world' - a statement in itself which is pretty laughable.  (Who are they? 'Greys'?!)

I've been a bit brassed off with how hard Europe is on the states.  All this uproar about the steel tax for example - I don't blame him for putting a tax on steel imports.  If 40k of our population had lost their jobs overnight you can bet Crony Blair would be bumping EXTRA tax on ours.  The Bushman has to look after his own country first. If there was a recession in America you can bet your backsides that the UK/EU would feel it.  The global economy would be phucked - especially after Sep 11th when consumers are extra cautious.  

America physically occupies a HUGE chunk of earth, with a HUGE chunk of the worlds population.  We (UK/EU/ASIA) are HUGELY dependent on them both financially and militarily - we can't leech off of them forever without giving them opportunity to keep themselves healthy now and then.  

Support works both ways.  Perhaps if Crony got his heid oot of The Bushmans arse for 5 minutes he'd be able to see what's painfully clear to anyone with half a brain.  

Oops.  ranting again...

;) :su

Every time a child says 'I don't believe in fairies'  there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead.J.M.Barrie | Peter Pan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users