It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the world stop America's War on Terror?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Military scenarios come up a lot. "Can _____ hold off America". Just for a change, how about a political scenario. If a few key nations decided it was time to throw all of thier weight into using the UN to stop the war on terror, perhaps because they feared the alternative was a large regional war in South West Asia, do you think they could force America to choose peace?

The UN security council has the ability to make binding decisions which can be backed by sanctions, use of force, etc. A vote of no by any permanent member (America, Britain, France, Russia, China) vetoes any such action. This means that America would have to be expelled from the UN for UN nations to be placed under a binding order not to support/deal with America, or to deploy separating forces to prevent an American attack somewhere. Expulsion from the UN requires a 2/3s vote in the general assembly, and this means 128 of the 191 member nations must vote for expulsion.
The question then is, who will stand with America? Without 63 friends in addition to their own vote, America would be gone.

Although I have to admit I don't know every detail of the politics and economics of every minor nation I do know this, much of Africa is Islamic and influenced by France, and China/India are fast becoming the economic honchos in the world.

The way I count it, if France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Brazil all threw their economic and political weight against us in Africa and South America there would be almost no saving us. Our only prayer at not facing crippling sanctions, siezures of assetts, or even military intervention would be a British veto of actions against future Security Council actions against us, and if 2/3s of the UN voted us out I'm not sure Britain could afford to do that.

What will America do if the world made it clear that our assetts abroad will be siezed and an international separating force will have to be attacked if we are to undertake a war on Iran?
More importantly, does anyone believe that it is even remotely possible for this to happen at anypoint in the next 5-10 years (past 2020 it almost becomes a certainty in my mind).




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Look how the would reacted after Germany invaded 3 countries....

1. Afganistan

2. Iraq

3....?????



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
If memory serves the world pretty much allowed it until they invaded France, to whom several nations were formally allied. The world handed Czechoslovokia over on a platter and tolerated the invasion of Poland too.

I'm of the opinion that a UN stand against America, although it is the logical next step for "new world order" (not in the conspiracy sense, but in terms of setting the stage for an "econo-cratic" world government dominated by a few large spheres of influence such as China, EU, Russia, African Union etc), however I do not believe it will be easy, or even that it is 100% possible. If this next round of diplomacy is well played by the US, which is possible now that the Department of State is going to be on board with the hard-line agenda pressed by DoD, there is a chance that we can continue to tell the world "just one more" where Germany failed.

I know I have flak coming for endorsing the comparrison to Germany so I'll offer my explanation in advance. I'm not saying we're evil, racist, imperialist, or any other such thing. I am saying that we are pressing an agenda by military means and are opposed by a large number of militarily less capable nations whom do not really want to fight if they can help it; this supports the use of Germany as an example.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Russia has been fighting an Islamic Extremist insurgency for hundreds of years. So have India and China. See this link for details. I really don't think Islamic Extremism has any friends outside of the Islamic world, and I think as long as America is taking out the trash free of charge, no one is going to seriously challenge them (especially since virtually none of the soldiers wants to stay over there once the fighting is over).



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
You could stop the U.S. by making billions of counterfeit dollars and then giving it to people, but they must be perfect. That was how Hitler was going to cripple allied countries. But nobody will hurt us because you hate living with us, but you can't live without us.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Prince_Machiavelli]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Granted nobody really likes Islamic terrorists, but Islamic governments with large oil reserves and/or caspian sea coasts are a little better appreciated, especially those which can serve as controls over what would otherwise be a very unruly mass of extremists.
What if Russia, China, etc though that a bunch of well to do religious extremist governments were just what the doctor ordered for keeping terrorism in check and gaining access to resources in the region?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Geez, that’s a tough question. Honestly, I don't know if the US can be stopped by outside forces. Rather, I think the rest of the world may have to wait for the US to self-destruct.

Unless you can drag it out long enough for China and Russia to get enough new stuff (I know nothing of weaponry) built, so they can get to you, you probably don't have to worry about an overt attack. They can however, fund lots of terrorists and cause you no end of trouble. They can use your own cold war tactic against you. Force you to spend yourself into the ground, especially with the new policy of allowing no country to be stronger than you.

The UN, gosh, so many variables there. #1, at this point in time the UN is seriously flawed. I think it should be saved, because it's a place where if even you don't get what you want, at least they have to hear you out. The vetos have to go, in order for it to be of any use. I can't see them kicking the US out, but I could see the US storming out.

#2, at this point in time, I think it might be better if the US isn't in the UN. The States is one of the only countries to have enough clout to actually make some changes, and get it working better. The countries with the veto power cause the deadlocks, and then nothing ever gets done. And it always seems to be about the US vs. someone. If you weren't there, it wouldn't get politicized quite so much, maybe.

The US just has too much economic power. Sure the world could cripple you with sanctions, but then we'd all be crippled too. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, kind of. Anyways, I can't see the UN doing anything about the US. Realistically, whose troops would they send to give the States an 'attitude adjustment'?

I'm not going to give you flak for the Nazi reference, and I expect that I'll be right there with you taking it, after what I write next. But, I think it is important to point this out, because it is scary, I think.

In the recent past, I worked with several Germans, some who were in Germany during WW2. It's not a subject they discuss easily, but some are close friends and it has come up over beers. What they see happening south of the border scares them. To them, it is very reminiscent to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. One fellow was in the youth Nazi party. He said he had no idea what they really stood for. They were young patriotic men, who followed the crowd, because not to do so was 'unpatriotic'. It was the 'cool' thing to do. He joined because, as he put it, that's what everyone was doing.

Another co-workers father is in the process of fighting extradition as a war criminal. He was convicted in absentia in Italy. Google Michael Seifert or the Butcher of Bolzano, if you're curious. I won't debate whether he is innocent, as he states. I wasn't there. What I know is that, 60 years later, this is destroying his children and grandchildren’s lives, and they are the ones who will have to live with it, while never having done anything themselves.

The point is, these were normal people, just like anyone. They either weren't monsters, or certainly didn't start there. The people in Germany had no idea what the Nazi's were like, till the end. The party played on National pride, and taking away rights for the good of the people. And once they get momentum, it's hard to stop.

So, I think the only ones that can stop the US's policies is the citizens of the US.


[edit on 21-1-2005 by Duzey]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   


I got this game shortly after it came out, that was in the mid-late eighties, amazing concept. Not completely unexpected of those times, anyone notice Saddam on the box cover, if this game came out in 1986 and Iraq invades Kuwait, Aug 2 1990, prompting the USA to get directly involved. Hmmm, neat game isn't it. Alright who here remembers or has seen it?

For those who have not, here is a link;
F.A.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Wow, obvious deliberate propaganda by the war machines. I haven't seen it that blatant in a long time, thanks.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prince_Machiavelli
Wow, obvious deliberate propaganda by the war machines. I haven't seen it that blatant in a long time, thanks.


Or a game made by a company that knows what the customer wants? I mean, it's a board wargame sold in comic book shops, the average American is never going to even see it.

But, oh yeah, this is ATS, everything's a conspiracy



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Okay, fine. Its just a coincidence, right? Prove it, how many did they sell? What were the profit margins for that game? Who was in control of the product development or who was the CEO of the company, and did he have any political ties? Did they do a marketability analysis before sending the product to development? I bet, not.
I would place a 100 dollar bet that a CEO has political ties and sometimes it can influence the company. How about reading the articles below:
www.ranknfile-ue.org...
alexconstantine.50megs.com...

All the evidence can be corroborated with an encyclopedia, i've done my research on all of the above, the articles that is.

Read about Henry Ford from an encyclopedia and his Nazi involvment:
en.wikipedia.org...

Source: Wikipedia.org

Info on Henry Ford:
There is some evidence that Henry Ford gave Adolf Hitler financial backing when Hitler was first starting out in politics. This can in part be traced to statements from Kurt Ludecke, Germany's representative to the U.S. in the 1920s, and Winifred Wagner, daughter-in-law of Richard Wagner, who said they requested funds from Ford to aid the National Socialist movement in Germany. However, a 1933 Congressional investigation into the matter was unable to substantiate one way or the other that funding was actually sent.

Ford Motor Company was active in Germany's military buildup prior to World War II. In 1938, for instance, it opened an assembly plant in Berlin whose purpose was to supply trucks to the Wehrmacht. In July of that year, Ford was awarded (and accepted) the Grand Cross of the Order of the German Eagle (Großkreuz des Deutschen Adlerordens). Ford was the first American and the fourth person given this award, at the time Nazi Germany's highest honorary award given to foreigners. Earlier the same year, Benito Mussolini had been decorated with the Grand Cross. The decoration was given "in recognition of [Ford's] pioneering in making motor cars available for the masses." The award was accompanied by a personal congratulatory message from Adolf Hitler. [Detroit News, July 31, 1938.]

Henry Ford Quotes:
"The international financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the International Jew -- German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all these countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme... Here, the Jew is a threat."



======================================================
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
History shows us that CEO will develop products to stregthen political ties. But then again, "the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."--Somebody's quote....I forget who.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
======================================================




[edit on 21-1-2005 by Prince_Machiavelli]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The UN security council has the ability to make binding decisions which can be backed by sanctions, use of force, etc. A vote of no by any permanent member (America, Britain, France, Russia, China) vetoes any such action. This means that America would have to be expelled from the UN for UN nations to be placed under a binding order not to support/deal with America, or to deploy separating forces to prevent an American attack somewhere. Expulsion from the UN requires a 2/3s vote in the general assembly, and this means 128 of the 191 member nations must vote for expulsion.
The question then is, who will stand with America? Without 63 friends in addition to their own vote, America would be gone.

You say this like it would be a bad thing. The UN needs us more than we need them. They'd be crippled for well over a year finding a new home, which would give us plenty of time to react.


What will America do if the world made it clear that our assetts abroad will be siezed and an international separating force will have to be attacked if we are to undertake a war on Iran?

It would never happen. Who would seize our assets? Who would cut off their nose to spite their face?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
We kinda contradict ourselves when we make a case to the U.N. that we should invade Iraq because they are violating U.N. laws and the WMD, then we go and violate U.N. laws. Ironic, wouldn't you say?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prince_Machiavelli
We kinda contradict ourselves when we make a case to the U.N. that we should invade Iraq because they are violating U.N. laws and the WMD, then we go and violate U.N. laws. Ironic, wouldn't you say?


Not when the security council was comprimised. The whole thing is a big mess, from the European media to the American media, our government, the middle east, BS propaganda on all sides, and a nice little social war to boot.

This isn't a one sided situation, and it's one that would take much more to explain it that a blurb.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If memory serves the world pretty much allowed it until they invaded France, to whom several nations were formally allied. The world handed Czechoslovokia over on a platter and tolerated the invasion of Poland too.


Britian, France and Australia all declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland. Anyway back to the topic. The world has no problem with the US fighting a war on terrorism but going around installing pro-US puppets in startegic locations e.g. oil rich countries is something else (not saying that is what the US is doing but anything is possible and we must be vigilant). That's why everyone will be watching what happens in Iraq very closely. Iraq and Afganistan can be justified but Iran is a whole other question and it would also make many question your intent...



[edit on 21-1-2005 by Trent]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Thanks for pointing that out, KrazyJethro. I was using a one-sided approach.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Prince_Machiavelli]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prince_Machiavelli
Irrelevent


Ok, well, I don't see what Nazi ties have to do with the discussion at hand, except as an easy way for you to post info without starting your own thread. But, anyway, here's a simple response-

You made the claim of a grand conspiracy to create the board game. The primary information you would need to answer the same questions you asked me is contained in this thread, if you're able to find it. Then, since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls upon you to provide evidence of this conspiracy. You could easily have done this, but you didn't...

[edit on 1-21-2005 by Esoterica]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
First and foremost thanks to trent for pointing out a more than slightly embarassing mistake on my part: namely that the allies were in the war long before Russia and then America decided to get off their arses. Thats the price I pay for being educated in California and not going to college though; if I didn't read on my own or see it on TV I probably don't know it. That one's gonna sting for a while.

Anyway


Originally posted by jsobecky
You say this like it would be a bad thing. The UN needs us more than we need them. They'd be crippled for well over a year finding a new home, which would give us plenty of time to react.


My guess is that America would observe the UN building as a de facto embassy in any case short of the immediate outbreak of war between UN nations and America. Worst case scenario I believe most member states would agree to an emergency session in whatever city France Russia and China called for.
Besides that it wouldn't take a home or even a formal session for the security council to pass an emergency resolution ordering the deployment of UN troops (likely to include almost every NATO member other than America and Britain) to act as a separating force in Iran. Final power to take emergency actions is just with 5 nations, and since this is basically a coup by Russia, China, and France backed by sympathisers and clients who make up 2/3s of the UN it is possible that the security council would go through irregularities which lead to the exclusion of the US and UK without formal proceedure, especially if America upped the ante by expelling the UN.



It would never happen. Who would seize our assets? Who would cut off their nose to spite their face?

What if their nose had cancer and was going to kill them?
American manuevering for control of oil and natural gas deposits, including the Caspian Sea is a clear and present danger to Russia's future- we're trying to neuter them. Every nation in the middle east can afford assett siezures because they've got other clients with plenty of demand.

China pays a heavy price for losing its ability to export to America and they really are the biggest question mark here. China would need an incredibly strong motive to mix it up with America on any serious level, even shy of military conflict. Really the only way I see that happening is if the Peak Oil situation were so dire that monopoly over the energy supply was necessary to make an efficient transition off of fossil fuels in a timely manner. This is probably the heart of the "could it happen" debate- will China have a motive.

The Europeans just might be willing to live without us. It would be uncharacteristically principled of them, but you never know. They object to our actions and would like to make a stand against us. They know we're going to end up second fiddle to Asia and they'd like to do some buttkissing over there. This might be their way of accomplishing both of those ends. Last but not least this would serve to edge out Britain's power in the EU and NATO and leave France and Germany in the driver's seat of Europe.

South America has good motive to turn on us too. We're a threat to them plain and simple. We've propped up more dictators and supported more coups down there than most of us will probably ever know, and we're interfering with the liberal and often socialist leanings of some of them, especially Venezuela. Besides, if America crumbles a little drug use is going to go up and borders are going to soften- it would be good for business for certain groups in South America.

By no means is a UN stand the most likely scenario, but it would be a very interesting one. The primary requirements are
1. That China see an economic or military necessity, or that it somehow be pressured to aid its Russian ally, which is directly endangered by any invasion of Iran.
2. That most of Africa side with the "coup" in the security council.
3. That Iran do an extremely good job at appealing to European citizen's sense of justice before they are invaded. Iran needs the idealistic support of the street in Europe, especially in Britain which is poised to make or break this movement. If the British citizenry wanted to force the issue with their government, Britain could unilaterally bulldog America into a signing a Non Agression Pact with Iran, even without the UN fireworks.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
First and foremost thanks to trent for pointing out a more than slightly embarassing mistake on my part: namely that the allies were in the war long before Russia and then America decided to get off their arses. Thats the price I pay for being educated in California and not going to college though; if I didn't read on my own or see it on TV I probably don't know it. That one's gonna sting for a while.


To be more accurate- The Russians actually fought with the Germans for a very short time, then signed a non-aggression pact (which Hitler always planned on breaking, it's debateable how Stalin felt).

The US government generally knew that we needed to go to war in Europe, but it would be hard to rouse the public to such a cause- it was a European problem, not an American one. We were, however, provding a bunch of war materials to Britain for a long time. This saved the UK from falling like the rest of Europe (well, that and Operation Sealion not having a chance in hell of actually succeeding).



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
To be more accurate- The Russians actually fought with the Germans for a very short time, then signed a non-aggression pact (which Hitler always planned on breaking, it's debateable how Stalin felt).


Well I've already shown how rusty my memory of WWII is so correct me if I'm wrong again, but wasn't the Russian clash with Germany basically a matter of fear because Germany was right on their border, and of course desire to get a piece of Poland at the same time? Although it is not too commonly known, between the world wars poland actually initiated and won a war with the USSR- it's not unthinkable that Russia never would have wanted into that war except to get a share of their former adversaries territory and force a NAP with Germany.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join