Should the U.S be stop?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Frequently,from time to time we have heard numerous tensions rising between countries usually which opposes international law but it really never affected anyone.Well,accept of course one country-United States of America.

The U.S has promised to stop any flow of threat to the human society by invasions/military action(s) against them.

Countries which U.S have problems with(currently):

1.Iran
Threat posed:Nuclear ambition
Sources:
news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_syria_us_7
(Iran urges alliance against U.S plots)
search.yahoo.com...
(Iran nuclear capability still unproven)

2.North Korea
Threat posed:Nuclear capability
Sources:
www.newsmax.com...
(New missile threat:N.Korea)
edition.cnn.com...
(N.Korea's nuclear capability increases)

3.Syria
Threats posed:Haven for terrorist,strong ally for Iran and forming of Common Front with Iran
Sources:
news.yahoo.com.../krwashbureau/20050218/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_bush_wa_1
(Bush vows to force changes in Syria and Iran)
www.woai.com...
(Iran and Syria announce threat Alliance,Common Front)

Do you think U.S should be stop or is it we should give them the green light?

I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The Belling Of The Cat


Originally posted by Heartagram
I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.

Wonderful. Good luck with that project.

Just avoid engaging in criminal acts or such silly stunts as handcuffing yourself to a railroad track, and you just may come out of the experience wiser than when you began.

Once you've stopped the U.S., please be sure to post a follow-up here telling us how you did it.

I know I'll be taking notes.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I dont think so just for having ''problems'' with countries

We aint going to get along with everyone just like the rest of the world. Many countries have problems with other countries. For example the EU dont seem to be to happy with Iran's nuclear ambitions either. Should they be stopped for having a problem with Iran?

Japan and S Korea aint to happy with N Korea having nukes should they be stopped because they have a problem with N Korea?

The world is small nasty and complicated.

As for the UN time and time again they have proven they cant enforce their own rulings. They are a toothless tiger.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
It's a slight bump in the road. This happens throughout history. They always turn out to be a disaster for those who choose that path. They are slowly creating puppets for the next unpopular government. Then somewhere down the road, and another genius will experience another brainflash, "let's invade iraq!!"

If someone would just open a book and read before committing yourself to a disaster. Iraq is the piece of cheese on a historical mouse trap. Tails will be chopped off and yet they keep going after the cheese.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Yup,though the U.N too won't do any good.The U.N's Security Council has U.S in it so what's the point.They'll go veto-ing stuffs just like they did for the Iraq War.Higher intervention?Not a chance.Who's brave enough?

True,I do think some of these countries should be taken down forcefully but don't you think the U.S is way wayyy out of the line?

Majic,you can count on it.I suppose U.S leaving the UN should be a good start though that's impossible because UN HQ is in New York!Nooo!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Yeah they always turn out out to be a disaster. Just look how much of a disaster ''regime change'' in Japan and Germany turned out to be.

What a mess and waste of time that was



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Frankly,I don't think the U.N is good at resolving problems or promoting rearmament.Both U.N and its previous form-League of Nations have one most vital objective which is to preserve peace and stability.Till today the U.N has never lived up to its words.

Anyone here thinks the same as me that some time in the future U.N will be deemed useless other than a-get-together time for countries and just another international aid organisation because they're good at that??



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yeah they always turn out out to be a disaster. Just look how much of a disaster ''regime change'' in Japan and Germany turned out to be.

What a mess and waste of time that was


Most change comes on their own without "outside" intervention.

I was just pointing out a historical fact?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I think the U.N has the same fate as the League of Nations in store for it. The Oil for food Scandal is the beginning of the end for it. When we discover the true scope of the corruption in the U.N it is doomed.

The world something like the U.N but it needs a big time rehaul if its ever going to do what it was created to do.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by IComeWithASword


Most change comes on their own without "outside" intervention.

I was just pointing out a historical fact?


You said this path "always" leads to disaster which is not true. If you said most of the time it leads to disaster that would have been different.

Germany and Japan are two shining examples of the good that come from this type of stuff. They turned out to be Great and peaceful Nations. I dont think anyone would say they are puppets of the US either.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Yeah,you guys heard about the U.N sex scandal some time ago?

www.weeklystandard.com...

I find it a shame having UN peacekeepers doing this sort of stuff.That's why I believe having the UN is a big joke.Anyways,both League of Nations and UN are U.S' idea in the first place but hey we can't blame them.UN has it's flaws internally and that is no secret to anyone.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Arguments Among Friends


Originally posted by Heartagram
Majic,you can count on it.I suppose U.S leaving the UN should be a good start though that's impossible because UN HQ is in New York!Nooo!

The reason the U.S. remains a member of the U.N. is that the leaders of the U.S. consider continued membership to be in the best interests of the U.S.

That's it, basically.

The U.S. has tremendous clout in the U.N., and goes out of its way to disguise that fact by encouraging a public appearance of anti-American sentiment.

Mixed with real anti-American sentiment, such derision serves as perfect political cover for whatever the U.S. does.

Which, apparently, is whatever the hell it wants to do.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I was talking about Iraq being a historical mousetrap. I didn't realize Japan or Germany had anything to do with that?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by IComeWithASword
I was talking about Iraq being a historical mousetrap. I didn't realize Japan or Germany had anything to do with that?


A historical mousetraps in what context that could relate to the US trying to bring democracy to it? Im pretty sure that has never been attempted before.

If your talking about just invading and taking over that happened many times in history and worked.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
If it has worked, why are "outsiders' in their again? Seems to me the trap just chopped off another tail. Then we are back to the proxy, who will eventually be replaced at another time.

Just historical facts.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Outsiders took over Iraq many times. For example Alexander the great did it the Mongols did it, And neither got their tails cut off by Iraq.

Just historical facts



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Iraq has been conquered and occupied throughout history. You are correct, but not for long.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Yes it has

If you want to go really far back you could ask the Sumerians how well they did in that area in the end. They didnt make a come back.

But this all has little relevance to the US trying to bring democracy to Iraq. That was never a goal of any of these historical invasion in that area.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Guys,let's not get carried away from the real topic in the thread please.


Speaking of getting carried away,anybody here thinks the U.S is probably controlling U.N and getting away with it?It terms of structure and organisation of the U.N probably not but it seems U.S is playing SUCH a KEY role in U.N and in the Security Council.

Why the hell does the Security Council never change over time?

Seems the ones in power will always be in power.The veto power is quite useful when you're up to mischief.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Do you think U.S should be stop or is it we should give them the green light?

How in the world would anyone stop the only global superpower and the largest economy on the planet?

The US invests its resources heavily in Power. No other country invests as much in Power. Power gives the US the ability to do these things. Power is what is required to stop the US. But, we already know, no other country invests as much in Power or is interesting in investing that much in Power, so how is any other country going to 'stop' the US?


Icomewithasword
Most change comes on their own without "outside" intervention.

Since when? Invasion and migration has resulted in massive changes. I don't think one can quantify it and has enough information to say most change is internal. The roman empire changed europe by invading it. Alexander changed the world by conquering it. The mongols changed asia by conquering it. The chin made china by warring with their neighbhors. The nationalists and communists in china were supported and to a certian extent directed by outside forces. Japan is what it is today because of brutal and nasty and murderous invasion. The US expanded because of war. England ruled a global empire because of war, heck the Colonial era in general is what brought the world into the modern age, not 'internal' change.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join