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.

 

Is the USA Seeking World Domination ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
At this particular time, as someone who isn't a U.s Citizen, nor would really want to be at the moment, I would feel that it isn't world domination that is being sought, but more of the situation that the U.s isn't as powerful as they would like to be, and there are other countries that can have a itle as a 'Super Power' and it just seems like they are doing everything that is possible to keep people afraid and keep them on the top of the heap.

Just because your patriotic, don't be fooled into you can't be invaded by other countries and that the U.S its the most powerful. Speaking from an outside point of view, it would see your government would seel your souls just to get what they want...

it is a shame. Since our country is going exactly the same way.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

If you're talking trying to keep nukes out of other nations hands, then every developed nation in the world feels the same as we do. Those natios signed the NPT. We have a right to moniter their technology.


A legal right to monitor it, sure. Bombing them is another story.


I really wonder what you would have said during Vietnam...We weren't exactly loved then, either. Most of our allies didn't agree with Reagan in the 80's.


I probably would have said, "this is stupid, and you're going to lose."
And I'd have been right.

And our allies remained our allies during the Cold War because however bad we were, the Soviets were worse. But the Soviets are gone now.


When those six billion are divided and weak, we certainly can.


Let's see how long that lasts...


Yea...America is so fanatical...


Looked in a mirror recently?


I just wonder how many times you've defended North Korea and Iran's "right" to nuclear arms...


My opinion of their "right" to get them or not is entirely irrelevant. They are capable of building them. At least in NK's case, they already have built them. The fact is, we can't really stop them, without going to war with them, and in that case the results of the "solution" are almost certain to be worse than the "problem" ever would have been.


Yea, we had better watch out for the rest of the world's non-existant global strike capability...


Russia, China, France and the UK all already have SLBM capabilities. That's all you need for that kind of decapitation strike.

[edit on 6/27/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

A legal right to monitor it, sure. Bombing them is another story.


Why can't we bomb? How else are you we going to force Iran to get rid of illegal weapons? Besides that, we've only ever bombed Iraq on that pretext, and they had basically agreed at the end of the Gulf War with us to get rid of those weapons. We were holding them to the treaty they signed.


And our allies remained our allies during the Cold War because however bad we were, the Soviets were worse. But the Soviets are gone now


How many of those allies were with us in Vietnam?


Let's see how long that lasts...


I don't see the world coming together right now to stop us. Unless you know something I don't?


Looked in a mirror recently?


I've looked, it's just not the same distorted funhouse mirror you seem to be using.


My opinion of their "right" to get them or not is entirely irrelevant. They are capable of building them. At least in NK's case, they already have built them. The fact is, we can't really stop them, without going to war with them, and in that case the results of the "solution" are almost certain to be worse than the "problem" ever would have been.


Going to war with North Korea or Iran would get rid of a lot more problems then simply the bombs. We'd be getting rid of two corrupt, and cruel governments, for one.


Russia, China, France and the UK all already have SLBM capabilities. That's all you need for that kind of decapitation strike.


Seriously, what are you on? Nuking America, let alone its capital, would be the dumbest, and most senseless move one could ever make. You'd gain absolutely nothing through it.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Why can't we bomb?


Err, maybe because neither country has attacked us, and neither is likely to?


How else are you we going to force Iran to get rid of illegal weapons?


We're not. They're going to get them if they want them badly enough.
Just like North Korea did.
Watch.


How many of those allies were with us in Vietnam?


Australia - for part of it - and that's all as far as I know.
And you know, the fact that they stayed out of it shows little except perhaps that they had a little more foresight than we did. Vietnam was a disaster.


I don't see the world coming together right now to stop us. Unless you know something I don't?


No, but I see China building a navy at a rate tha hasn't been seen since the US naval buildup prior to WW2. I see Russia letting its conventional military wither in favor of an enhanced "strategic" force. I see a planet where the populations of our closest (and wealthiest, and most advanced) allies see us as the biggest threat to world peace.


I've looked, it's just not the same distorted funhouse mirror you seem to be using.


You're the guy who can't understand why we shouldn't bomb the bejeezus out of people who have not attacked us. So, whatever...


Going to war with North Korea or Iran would get rid of a lot more problems then simply the bombs. We'd be getting rid of two corrupt, and cruel governments, for one.


Sure, look how well that theory has worked out in Iraq.
We've taken a brutal, deadly dictator, and replaced him with a more brutal and more deadly internal conflict. Not only that, but we still aren't getting any of the oil, either...


Seriously, what are you on? Nuking America, let alone its capital, would be the dumbest, and most senseless move one could ever make. You'd gain absolutely nothing through it.


You misunderstand, I don't advocate the idea.
I can think of plenty of reasons not to like it.
Not least of which is that I'd probably get pretty cooked in the fallout here.

But if you're a foreign leader, or a group of foreign leaders, how do you deal with something like the US? A "hyperpower", that has taken the position that it has the ability, and the right, to dictate how things should be to the entire planet?

If I am a foreign leader, or hell even a citizen of any country but the US, I see this as a problem. As long as the US takes this position, I am essentially a helpless subject of a foreigner's whim.

Do you think the US, or it's citizenry, would tolerate this situation if it were imposed on us by anyone else?

Of course not.

The question then becomes, why do you think they will?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Err, maybe because neither country has attacked us, and neither is likely to?


No, they're just breaking treaties and getting illegal weapons that if used would have unforseeable consequences.


We're not. They're going to get them if they want them badly enough.
Just like North Korea did.
Watch.


Destroying nuclear facilities worked fine on Iraq in the 80's.


Australia - for part of it - and that's all as far as I know.
And you know, the fact that they stayed out of it shows little except perhaps that they had a little more foresight than we did. Vietnam was a disaster.


You seem to be missing the point. The current situation with allies is not new. Your predictions were flawed.


No, but I see China building a navy at a rate tha hasn't been seen since the US naval buildup prior to WW2. I see Russia letting its conventional military wither in favor of an enhanced "strategic" force. I see a planet where the populations of our closest (and wealthiest, and most advanced) allies see us as the biggest threat to world peace.


China's navy is still decades behind America's. Russia simply can't afford their conventional arms, and our allies have felt that way for decades.


You're the guy who can't understand why we shouldn't bomb the bejeezus out of people who have not attacked us. So, whatever...


We're bombing nuclear facilities that they aren't even allowed to have.


Sure, look how well that theory has worked out in Iraq.
We've taken a brutal, deadly dictator, and replaced him with a more brutal and more deadly internal conflict. Not only that, but we still aren't getting any of the oil, either...


Saddam had some 300,000 more put into mass graves. The body count in Iraq wouldn't get that high in a decade. The resistance isn't likely to last more than a few years.


But if you're a foreign leader, or a group of foreign leaders, how do you deal with something like the US? A "hyperpower", that has taken the position that it has the ability, and the right, to dictate how things should be to the entire planet?


How would nuking us achieve anything for them but assure their complete and total descrution? They'd have a better chance fighting a conventional war. Besides Russia, no nation has the nuclear ability we have, and even they don't measure up.

The situation is hardly desperate for any of these nations, anyway. America isn't preparing an invasion. We have little concern over their internal politics.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Is this even a question that needs an answer?

Ask yourself how many military bases does the US have in foregin countries? Do any countries have military bases in our country?

Ask yourself how many countries the US has ILLIEGALLY invaded?

Ask yourself who pays the LEAST for gasoline in the entire world?

And to the guy (disturbed something) going around telling people they have "no idea what they're talking about" -- I gotta hand it to you, your rebuttals of "you have no idea what you're talking about" "No were not!" "Russia was hardly equal..." (ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???) "Yea, China, with inferior technology...." "Iran....they arent even remotely a challenge"......are SUPERB....you should totally have lived during the Era where Europe was thought to be the center of the universe. Because your illogical, irrational, naieve remarks dont even deserve to be proved wrong.

But, in a nutshell.

Invading Iran, would be suicide.
China, US can't even touch China.
Russia, war with Russia would be mutual suicide.
9/11, only easily feeble, easily influenced minds can't see past what mainstream media tells them.
American credit can only go so far. My advice...invest in GOLD overseas.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Ask yourself how many military bases does the US have in foregin countries? Do any countries have military bases in our country?


And Bush has actually reduced the number of troops stationed overseas permanently...

We've had bases in other countries for the past half century. We're there on the nations permission, and usually when we try to leave, the people ask us not to. It happened in Germany, and it's happening in South Korea now.


Ask yourself how many countries the US has ILLIEGALLY invaded?


There haven't been any invasions one couldn't argue were legal. Besides Iraq, we were pretty much always going in with UN support, as well as with allies.


Ask yourself who pays the LEAST for gasoline in the entire world?


This has more to do with the fact that other nations tax gas heavily. They've tried to discourage the use of oil in places like Europe. Here:

money.cnn.com...

America doesn't have some secret deal that others don't, and we aren't making the Europeans raise their gas prices, and we aren't doing any of the other nonsense things you could propose...


And to the guy (disturbed something) going around telling people they have "no idea what they're talking about" -- I gotta hand it to you, your rebuttals of "you have no idea what you're talking about" "No were not!" "Russia was hardly equal..." (ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???) "Yea, China, with inferior technology...." "Iran....they arent even remotely a challenge"......are SUPERB....you should totally have lived during the Era where Europe was thought to be the center of the universe. Because your illogical, irrational, naieve remarks dont even deserve to be proved wrong.


I could go off on how inferior Iranian technology is, but until I see some real arguments from other people on the issue, I fail to see the purpose. Comparing them to Iraq in the first Gulf War is enough. They have less manpower, less armor, and less planes.

America spends more then most of the world on their defense budget combined.

If you want to have a real argument comparing the equipment both nations have, as well as the training of the militaries, though, I'm perfectly willing to do so.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join