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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Yes, another interesting and largely unknown fact was that Russia was also fighting the Japanese in 1939 in an undeclared war over Mongolia and defeated them causing Japan to re-orientate it's war towards the south. Which lead to them having to get into a war with Britian and it's allies than the US.

Speaking of the Japanese they would be the most important country for the US to try not to anger because they are currently about the 2nd most powerful country, in terms of real power sustained over a long period of time... not just a huge build-up of existing military units.

"...Japan advance with extraordinary rapidity to the rank of second most technologically-powerful economy in the world after the US and third-largest economy after the US and China."

www.cia.gov...

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Trent]




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
No, you are all dreaming. No one would dare seriously take on the US. No coalition, no single nation (not even China) would dare to. It's the nukes, stupid. Nice try though. Fact is the world would have to wait out the 'war on terror' or join to hurry up its threat to them by helping the US get rid of the Islamofascists.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustng66
No, you are all dreaming. No one would dare seriously take on the US. No coalition, no single nation (not even China) would dare to. It's the nukes, stupid. Nice try though. Fact is the world would have to wait out the 'war on terror' or join to hurry up its threat to them by helping the US get rid of the Islamofascists.


If nukes were all that is needed the Soviet Union would have conquered the world because when they fell they had more nukes than anyone else. Didn't really help them...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Prince_Machiavelli
Irrelevent


You made the claim of a grand conspiracy to create the board game.

[edit on 1-21-2005 by Esoterica]


Its more of a hypothesis with good reasoning considering the history leading up to wars, if you haven't intensely studied history and especially the history of government, war, and politics, then I guess it is hard to understand that conspiracy's do happen and they are very real. Rhetoric, pro-cultural films, it is all neatly packaged to gain your confidence and tell you what is 'culturally right'. When war happens it is a product and the financiers, indirectly or directly, are corporations, politicians, etcetera. The only people who stand to profit from war are those that create war. Ethics is a virtue and in politics & greed, ethics are irrelevant. I suggest reading the Art of War and the Prince by Niccolas Machiavelli. I am not challenging your ego or anything, its just concern for the knee-jerk reaction that was given.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Well, worry about that when it comes, right now lets get things done in Iraq first. Why look so far into the future, it is here and now, live with it. We will face it as it comes. Simple theory, not complex.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustng66
No, you are all dreaming. No one would dare seriously take on the US. No coalition, no single nation (not even China) would dare to. It's the nukes, stupid. Nice try though. Fact is the world would have to wait out the 'war on terror' or join to hurry up its threat to them by helping the US get rid of the Islamofascists.


Beggin your pardon, I know you didn't just call stupid in the same breath as using the made up word "islamofascist", which is most commonly used to represent a fallacious comparisson between American objectives in the WoT and American objectives in WWII. If anything American objectives can be compared to GERMAN objectives in WWII, although too would be just a slight stretch.

So let me explain a little something about your precious nukes, but before I do let me thank you for providing such strong support for my belief that there should be an IQ test involved in voter registration. You make it hard for me to proclaim myself a conservative with a straight face. Just because you believe in a strong America doesn't mean you have to make idiotic claims about just how strong you think (or wish) we were.

1. America isn't the only country with nukes. This isn't the wild west where we can strut around twirling our pistols at people and shooting down anyone who looks at us wrong. If we launch there's going to be a fight and we're going to get hit too. Are we gonna take it to that level just because the UN has taken purely defensive measures to defend Iran from us? Let me put it another way; will it be profitable either for America of for the government (read Halliburton) to lose entire cities and millions of lives in exchange for a little natural gas and some extra defense contracts? Nope. You say "it's the nukes stupid". I say -still- the economy, stupid!

2. When a nation's survival is threatened in scenarios not involving nukes, nuclear options become acceptable. Iran's survival is directly threatened. Russia's long-term security and prosperity are threatened. Unlike the US, some of our potential enemies just may have the motive to go to the mat over this, and as Sun Tsu says, wars are won in the temple before the battle ever begins. For us this would just be another corporate raid on the US treasury thinly veiled by another attempt at bullying a weaker nation. For our enemies this would be a fight for their ideals and their future. Not only might they stand up, but if they did we'd probably back down- and we should.

3. And this one's important so I hope you're still reading... Nukes have never favored aggression. There has never been a war between nuclear armed nations because nobody is nuts enough to directly back a nuclear power into a corner. So you tell me, will America continue as an aggressor when Russia has nuclear-armed SS-N-22 Sunburns in Iran (which they do right now)? I'm not saying we absolutely won't do it- I'm just saying there is a reason nobody has ever done it before.
My DI had a saying for when everyone knew what not to do but he still knew one of us was bound to screw it up... "Be the one!" Well here's your warning Neo-cons... BE THE ONE! Be the one to find out why nuclear powers never attack eachother!


Last but not least- If I hear the word Islamofascist one more time I'm going to throw up on the person who used it. The media, especially the rightwing media as embodied by FNC and a few Neo-con talking heads has done everything in its power to turn the war on terror into a re-run of WWII. We INVENTED an axis that wasn't actually formally aligned and dubbed them fascists even though the Ba'ath party was actually socialist/communist leaning- making them traditional enemies of the more right wing fascist idealism to which thin parallels can be drawn from the current American regime.
Call it semantics if you like, but I believe that the recycling of language from wars past in an effort to dictate how we ought to see this one is insulting to people's intelligence.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I see I worded that wrong. I meant Russia fought 'with', as in were allied with, Germany during the initial invasion of Poland, but quickly backed out.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prince_Machiavelli
Its more of a hypothesis with good reasoning considering the history leading up to wars, if you haven't intensely studied history and especially the history of government, war, and politics, then I guess it is hard to understand that conspiracy's do happen and they are very real. Rhetoric, pro-cultural films, it is all neatly packaged to gain your confidence and tell you what is 'culturally right'. When war happens it is a product and the financiers, indirectly or directly, are corporations, politicians, etcetera. The only people who stand to profit from war are those that create war. Ethics is a virtue and in politics & greed, ethics are irrelevant. I suggest reading the Art of War and the Prince by Niccolas Machiavelli. I am not challenging your ego or anything, its just concern for the knee-jerk reaction that was given.


Ego-stroking aside, there's a few problems with your conclusions. Firstly, no one cause or driving force can be applied to anything, including war. If you want to look at World War II (since it's come up in this thread)-

Who would have profitted from Germany's planned conquering of Europe? Yes, the corporations and politcians would have. But so would the German people. A good economy means a higher standard of living, and having the resources of Europe at your disposable allows that. Of course, there's always a risk involved, but the German people were just as willing to take that risk as much as Hitler was. It was a group effort.

And Britain, what did they stand to gain from a war with Germany? They made no significant gains in land or power, yet they still took part in the retaking of Europe when they could have bowed out and handed it to the Americans. But they were fighting for their very survival. You could see that as a 'proft' of war, but not in the insidious sense you are suggesting.

Of course the arms manufacturers profit when war occurs- they make the freaking tools for it. Hardly means they create war. You think they enjoy getting the crap bombed out of them?

You've got some good ideas, but you've fallen into the trap of applying your ideas to everything you see.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The classic battle between good and evil, has taught us one thing, that evil always loses. There have been evil people throughout history, and they have always fallen, because their own evil consumes them and then destroys them. An evil person rules no one, but himself, is ruled by evil.

And the Western Empire, American Empire, European Empire or NWO, call it what you will. Is taking every right action to ensure it's destruction and it will be destroyed. The men-god elites have forgotten that mother Earth is still alive and kicking and while they hide in their underground bunkers, while we perish in nuclear holocausts, Mother Earth will physically pull the ground from under their feet.

If there is an NWO person reading my reply, let me tell you something, bask in your glory today, because tomorrow, you will not win. We, the people are waking up, so is our mother Earth, and we will remove the ground from under your feet and you will come down like a house of cards, because that is what you really are, weak, powerless, unstable and pathetic.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
yes, all the good for nothing, self-righteous, do-nothing, ungrateful SOB's who call themselves countries should go after America to stop America's war on terror. Are you people high? What in the hell purple-tinted world are you living in??? Do you have magical frogs and unicorn's there with you??? You sit in your little homes, dorm-rooms, top floor apartments, and welfare boxes with no knowledge of what the real-world is. You think you have some knowledege of how the world workd becasue you watch it on CNN, or becasue Tim Robbins said it was so. Mother Earth is going to save the world???? Seriously - where did you people learn about history? The world is not filled with loving people who want peace. Terrorists want you dead. They don't care where you live, who you are, or what you think. They care whether or not you're an infidel, that's it. If you think differently you're living in a dreamworld. The United States is the best thing that has ever happened ot this planet and I don't give a rat's ass if those of you who think differently can't see that. The US has to be the world's police because the rest of the damn planet can't handle their own affairs - and it's leaking into ours! France - you've got problems of your own - pretty soon your whole country will be Islamic - Germany you're next in line. Think that's not a problem?? I pitty you. We (the US) have nothing against Islam or people of any damn faith, color, creed. We have a problem against those who would kill us and you... you meatheads. Without us not only would you have been speaking German, you'd be speaking Russian too. Truly, as far as I'm concerned we should ONLY protect ourselves - and leave the rest of you to rot, which is exactly what you would do. Your militaries are weak, your people are weak, and you'd be conqured by whichever country got one more tank than you. It's easy being a tough guy when your big brother (the US) is their to protect your sorry, skinny ass. But - that's how it's always been and probably how it will be in the future. You'll rant and scream and cry like a small child who isn't getting his way and the US will have to hold you and comfort you and tell you it will be alright. Hopefully, someday, big brother will tell you to go f yourself.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
"Mother Earth is going to save the world???? "

Mother Earth IS the world. I don't think the rest of your post warrants a response. Enjoy your pink flying unicorns.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Yes, mother Earth is the world, but mother Earth doesn't care a damn thing about either side.
Was that it? Tyical of someone with nothing to say to say "I don't think the rest of your post warrant's a response." No - to you it wouldn't. Go crawl back under your Lexus SUV.

...oh - you're one of the psychopaths who think's Bush flew the planes into the trade towers. That's right. Go with that. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.... except in your case.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by spec24]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I will respond to the topic first.



Can the world stop America's War on Terror?


Well considering more and more countries are leaving America's side in this 'Coalition of the willing', I can personally see the World's anti-war position in this situation becoming stronger. As the resentment for America's activities grow, the countries that maintain the bulk of the world’s population will create more and more political pressure on America for their actions

Countries supporting America's coalition shrinking
Can you say 'Abandon Ship'?

Oooh and I love history.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
If memory serves the world pretty much allowed it until they invaded France,


The world 'allowed' this to happen because they knew how utterly devastating war was (WWI) and would do anything to avoid it again.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The world handed Czechoslovakia over on a platter


Yes the Sudetenland fortifications and mountain area in western Czechoslovakia was signed over to Germany by the democratic allies in Europe in return for Germany's promise of no further imperialistic conquests in Europe. Soon after this, Germany marched on the capital of Prague.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
and tolerated the invasion of Poland too.


Referred to as the phony war, Britain and France etc declared war on Germany after it did not meet a deadline to withdraw from Poland.
Unfortunately Britain did not lift a finger to help defend Poland physically in that time. France however launched a limited offensive against Germany's western front but pulled back even though they met no resistance. Seeing as the bulk of Germany's forces were in Poland, they later admitted they had no tank's or offensive material on the Western front during that time and could not have defended a French attack for longer than two weeks.



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).


Originally posted by The Vagabond
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?


The German's and the Russian's signed the non-aggression pact before the invasion of Poland and did not fight there when they met. Germany toke the west of the country including Danzig (its former province taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles) so it could link up with their Prussian province. The Russian's claimed the East side of Poland which it claimed was 'rightfully theirs' anyway. The first major conflict between Germany/Russia waited until Operation Barbarossa in summer 1941. However before this Russia attempted to attack the Fin's (Germany's ally and one of it's resource suppliers) but received a blood nose when the fin's destroyed their supply lines and forced a Russian retreat.


Originally posted by Trent
Yes, another interesting and largely unknown fact was that Russia was also fighting the Japanese in 1939 in an undeclared war over Mongolia and defeated them


This was most likely because of Russia's small but elite 'Siberian division' (all weather troops) equipped with all the latest Russian weaponry were defending Russia's eastern front, and were ready for any Japanese incursion. The Japanese attack was repelled to fast and harshly that Japanese never attacked Russia again during the war.


Originally posted by Esoterica
And Britain, what did they stand to gain from a war with Germany? They made no significant gains in land or power, yet they still took part in the retaking of Europe when they could have bowed out and handed it to the Americans. But they were fighting for their very survival. You could see that as a 'proft' of war, but not in the insidious sense you are suggesting.


Major countries positions at the end of the war can be described as the following:

Britain and Russia were exhausted.
Japan and Germany were destroyed.
America was rich.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
The German's and the Russian's signed the non-aggression pact before the invasion of Poland and did not fight there when they met. Germany toke the west of the country including Danzig (its former province taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles) so it could link up with their Prussian province. The Russian's claimed the East side of Poland which it claimed was 'rightfully theirs' anyway. The first major conflict between Germany/Russia waited until Operation Barbarossa in summer 1941. However before this Russia attempted to attack the Fin's (Germany's ally and one of it's resource suppliers) but received a blood nose when the fin's destroyed their supply lines and forced a Russian retreat.

Ah, that's it. Oh well, I was close



Originally posted by Trent
Major countries positions at the end of the war can be described as the following:

Britain and Russia were exhausted.
Japan and Germany were destroyed.
America was rich.

I wouldn't call Russia 'exhausted'. Battered and bloody, yes, but they weren't falling apart. All things considered, they were not in too bad of a position at the end of the war. Not an envious one, but alot better than some.

As for America being 'rich', well, they were really the only nation that didn't have it's infrastructure bombed to kingdom come during the war. Had the US been in range of bombings and land invasions like Russia, Britain, Germany, and (later) Japan, then they would have suffered damage just like everyone else, and would not have been in the position to become as strong of a superpower.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Esoterica: Thanks for restoring my self confidence. I was almost sure that the Germans and Russians had pretty much agreed to split Poland and that Russian troops had trained with the Germans but after feasting on my own foot earlier I wasn't about to try and correct what I thought you were saying.



What in the hell purple-tinted world are you living in???


I live in a dangerous world where America needs to knock this John Wayne BS off and start thinking about how to live in peace and prosperity as citizens of the world rather than rulers of it. This is because in my world America can't control all 6 inhabited continents, but America's rivals have the ability to expand their influence significantly. We can lose a little peacefully or we can lose a lot violently. If we do it peacefully we wont lose anything that was ever rightfully ours to begin with.



The world is not filled with loving people who want peace.


Dang right. The world is full of people who want to profit for themselves and impose their views. America is not an exception. You say that America is the best thing that ever happened. I say that nation states in general are the worst thing that ever happened. America was great in the beginning because we did no represent the oppression at home or abroad that so many other governments did. Now with our constant wars and threats of war and our surrendering of liberty in exchange for security here at home we are becoming just like every would-be master we ever fended off. If our forefathers were here there would be a revolution.


France - you've got problems of your own - pretty soon your whole country will be Islamic - Germany you're next in line. Think that's not a problem?? I pitty you.


America- you've got problems of your own too. Pretty soon your civil liberties will be gone. You are becoming just like every tyrant you ever fought. Your ancestors would never call you there own.



Without us not only would you have been speaking German, you'd be speaking Russian too.

Yes, America won a couple of fights once upon a time. We'd be speaking French or German if Mexico hadn't stopped the French or if they had accepted the Zimmerman note's proposal. Mexico could hand us over to China on a silver platter if they wanted. Get over it- everyone helps everyone; we're square.


Your militaries are weak, your people are weak, and you'd be conqured by whichever country got one more tank than you.

This is incredibly ignorant. Europe is in absolutely no danger of invasion and has reasonable self defense capabilities. If you'd like to discuss this in greater depth there are forums for that, and I frequent them- see ya there.


You'll rant and scream and cry like a small child who isn't getting his way and the US will have to hold you and comfort you and tell you it will be alright. Hopefully, someday, big brother will tell you to go f yourself.

You sit here playing "my dog can beat up your dog" and have the gall to call others childlike? Just re-read the last 3 words of your post for yourself my young friend. Good day.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Fine post Johnny Redburn. I'm impressed with your retention of details on the subject. Despite my interest in military affairs in general I obviously did not retain 100% of what I read about it in years past.

Thanks for all the info =)

Thinking about actually using one of my WATS votes for a change.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Why doesn't anyone so far think the entire premise "stopping the war on terror" is just insane?

Why would anyone even want to stop the war? To continue letting islamo-cowards bullie women, murder innocent children, and wipe out an entire country (Israel).

The qusetion itself indicates support for Terrorism................that is just insane.....



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Why doesn't anyone so far think the entire premise "stopping the war on terror" is just insane?


Its humane, not insane.



Why would anyone even want to stop the war? To continue letting islamo-cowards bullie women, murder innocent children, and wipe out an entire country (Israel).


To stop US-cowards murder innocent children (far more successfully than any terrorists have ever managed), and wipe out several entire countries (Iraq- Iran- Afghanistan- Libya- Korea...).



The qusetion itself indicates support for Terrorism................that is just insane.....


Your question indicates that the lives of Iraqi children are less worth than american lifes. That is just racist.

The "war on terror" is not a war on terror, its a war for money. If it was about lessening any kind of threat it would have had the support of Europe.

Having said that, I dont think it would ever happen. Kicking the US out of the UN would destabilize the world economy to much. One of the few common goal all countries have is to make monney.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko


Why would anyone even want to stop the war? To continue letting islamo-cowards bullie women, murder innocent children, and wipe out an entire country (Israel).

To stop US-cowards murder innocent children (far more successfully than any terrorists have ever managed), and wipe out several entire countries (Iraq- Iran- Afghanistan- Libya- Korea...).


When did everyone become cowards? Suicide attacks aren't cowardly, and I can say that because unlike Bill Maher I don't have a TV show for you to take away. Our troops aren't cowards either- these are friends of mine we are discussing and I know their character.

As for the actions taken by either side of the conflict: Palestinian terrorism against civilians is not justified (but we aren't fighting in Syria or Lebanon so that has no relevance). Al Qaida terrorism against civilians is not justified, but since the most progress against Al Qaida has been made by our efforts outside of the invasions that is irrelevant as well.
American invasions have been highly questionable up to this point primarily because there has been no effort to avoid war, and an invasion of Iran would be outright unjustified as there are not even UN resolutions in place to serve as a thin defense for our actions. This IS relevant because we are talking about restrained efforts by civilized nations to limit our actions to an acceptable and legal level.




Having said that, I dont think it would ever happen. Kicking the US out of the UN would destabilize the world economy to much. One of the few common goal all countries have is to make monney.

This is probably true. As I have said I think the big question related to how long America can get away with this John Wayne act is how long will the US economy be of key importance to the world. If trade between China Russia and the EU came to be the staple of the world economy due to a weakening dollar and strong euro I think that standing up to or just brow-beating America a little might become more of an option.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The coward part was in part a ridicule of the post I quoted, but every jest has a grain of truth. If the US had sent in more ground forces they wouldn't have to rely so much on air strikes. Air strikes = more collateral damage = dead children.

I wasn't slagging off US soldiers as cowardly, rather US policy.

This is why the majority of Europeans feel sick about this administration. It is viewed as greedy and cowardly. I cant see "the world" taking action though. To many countries with to many cowardly politicians.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join