Miscellaneous > The Lounge
So let me get this straight. 15 insepctors
voidmain:
Maybe I read more into what people write than I should. But it also bothers me that people think we have radical people with their finger on the button. We do have a lot of checks and balances that prevent any sort of radical activity like that, in fact almost to a fault.
Another thing that bothers me about general anti-American discussions typically bring up (you haven't that I recall) is there are some sort of alterior motives for the actions that the US takes. For instance I still constantly hear people say the Gulf war was entirely based on oil and not to free Kuwait. If this were true the US (and friends) would not have stopped just at the liberation of Kuwait. They would have pressed on into Baghdad and taken over the country, claimed the oil for their own and be done with it. But no, the goal was to liberate Kuwait and that's exactly what happened, nothing more. Maybe more should have been done and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now, but that would have been beyond the scope at the time.
I'm sure I'll get flack over this one from many so I should have stopped while I was behind.
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by void main:
Maybe I read more into what people write than I should. But it also bothers me that people think we have radical people with their finger on the button. We do have a lot of checks and balances that prevent any sort of radical activity like that, in fact almost to a fault.
--- End quote ---
if you didn't, the world would have been blown up when nixon was in power.
however no human designed system (in my opinion) is sufficient to hold the full power of such a military power in proper check. the only possible justification for its existence is to stop lunatics like these dictators of which we are talking from excercising their power over helpless individuals. This purpose obviously should not be in the hands of only one nation, but instead should involve the whole world as a proper democracy.
as for ulterior motives, who knows? who truly knows?
the english went to war in the falklands in the early eighties purely so that margaret thatcher could win the 1983 general election, for instance. the english don't vote for the opposition in times of war, so many innocents died under the guise of protecting the borders of the empire when what was actually happening was that thatcher was being helped over possibly the rockiest part of her career as prime minister. allegedly.
What i have just said is libel of course (or it would be if i hadn't said 'allegedly' at the end there). none of this has ever been proved. that's how it is though.
If people aren't given the facts, they generally assume the worst, which is often worse than the truth.
lazygamer:
quote:its called bush 2.0 is out for war.
too bad hes making a terrible statigic error, we are fighting a war in afgahnistan, but we are starting one in iraq. didn't we learn anything from hitler, or his defeat, the fact that two front wars don't work.
--- End quote ---
Ok I could be very wrong here. I've always thought of the American military as very very very powerful. Powerful enough to take on any 1st world country's army and win, yet still be beatable if a variety of 1st world countries ganged up on America.
So I don't see how the two fronts rule applies when your enemy is vastly inferior to you. In addition, Afghanistan is not a true war or enemy. combat operation. As for a war with the arab world, I still think the US would pull through.
Still, I could be grossly misinformed about the US's strength...
Calum:
well if iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction' then the 'my guns are bigger than yours argument is totally moot. we reached the point long ago where destructive capacity was saturated, in the same way that you cannot make a cup of tea taste any sweeter after the seventh teaspoon of sugar. Let me make an example:
say iraq has managed to create a nuclear arsenal with the capacity to depopulate the entire planet, and let's say for argument's sake that the US has the power to depopulate the planet 29 times over (a figure i pulled out of my arse). Who's side is more powerful? the US of course! and what's more they are 29 times more powerful.
H O W E V E R . . .
If Iraq happens to push the button first then the US will have nothing but some lethal bookends and a whole lot of dead citizens. Whoever says 'fire' first wins. that is the essence of mutually assured destruction. One wonders if the US needs a cold war simply to justify it's own huge nuclear capabilities.
Also, this is the reason why any 'our army's bigger than yours' rationalisations are outdated and irrelevant.
dot.this:
quote:by chaosforages:
besides the first thing i thought after 9/11, is to take a cruise missile, and blow up that shitty holy rock in mecca. call it an attack on their "symbols", becuase, well they said that the world trade center's were a symbol of the U.S.'s power.
--- End quote ---
Imagine if someone hijacked a Royal Saudi jetliner and flew it into Mohammed's house in the midst of Hajj. (That big black box in the middle of Mecca is supposedly Mohammed's house; Hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca all good Muslims must make.)
Seeing that happen would make all Muslims stop and rethink terrorism. Remember, they have seen only their success at the terror game. If they saw what terrorism can cost them, they would have second thoughts about preaching Jihad, Wahhabism, and terrorism.
Of course, simultaneous with the destruction of Mohammed's house would be a message taking responsibility, and saying, "THIS is terrorism. Go tell your Mullahs and Imams that terror breeds terror. If they want to keep preaching Jihad, this is the result they will get."
Maybe then, the surge in violent radical Islam will settle down and we can get back to living in peace.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version