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.

 

Survey Result Shows The US To Be Biggest Global Peace Threat

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
I'm about as American as one can get. I served in the military, I've held elective office, I've marched, I've paraded and I've protested. I regularly write my representatives in Washington and in Austin (I'm a Texan). If necessary I would fight for my country again and if needbe die for it--I love my country. However, I do understand how the world at large could easily see the U.S. as the biggest threat to world peace. We have the most powerful military and we are not hesistant to use it when we think such use warranted. Our politicians don't tend to be world statesmen or statesmen at all; they tend to be fairly narrow minded about the rest of the world. So yeah, I can see how we would scare the beejesus out of many.

Just because the rest of the world thinks that though doesn't mean they hate us, nor does it mean we in the U.S. should get angry about it--hell it's the truth.


very well said astronmer...you are not quite the evil demon I once assumed you to be
, really, very well said.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast


The truth in your twisted little world maybe, but not from a global perspective. You should stop watching Fox News, its destroying the little perception you have of reality.


What in the world?.... My perception of reality is just fine and well, btw i barely listen to the news anymore unless I am asked to go work on a rig.

BTW, what would you recommend? Castro's News Network?



Originally posted by The Iconoclast
I am very aware of the perception of the United States historically. It seems you forget this while trying to argue the survey was not accurate. Interesting contradiction you have in your message.
...................
Yet you argue that the survey is a fabrication? You have seen it first hand, so why would this survey be wrong? A little consistency in your story would be nice don't you think?


First of all what I am debating is the "amount of peopole that is claimed hate the United States"..... which does not contradict at all knowing that since at least the 1960s, according to Gordon Sinclair, the United States has been hated by many countries for different reasons... that is what hasn't changed at all.. As for the amount of people that today hate the United States, it is probably true that now more people hate the united States than before, but it is also true that more people love the United States now than before. And btw, that is not a contradiction.



Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Gordon Sinclair was a great man and understood that the American smugness and the false bravado that Americans constantly display makes the rest of the world sick.


Wrong....I gave the link to what Gordon Sinclair thought about the United States..i guess you didn't read it but decided to claim that you knew what he meant...

Let's actually read the last part of what Gordon Sinclar had to say about the "hate the world has for the United Statesfrom at least the 1960s, and it appears that it hasn't changed today either.


Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.

www.tysknews.com...

There have been at least a couple of Canadians in this site which according to their post they seem to agree with Gordon Sinclair, i just wished people stopped "envying the United States"....for whatever reason they envy us.




Originally posted by The Iconoclast
The rest of the world views the United States as the neighborhood bully who's family occassionally does good things when the community is in need. That is the perception. For the most part, the U.S. pushes other nations around and demands acknowledgement of it's greatness, even if it isn't what it once was.




Originally posted by The Iconoclast
BTW... I'm not sure if you ever noticed that when those disasters happen, and Americans give so much, that it is those damned liberals that are giving so much. The humanist movement is still very alive in this country, no matter how hard the extreme right tries to marginalize it.


..... Nice try....not... Now according to you it is only the "liberals" who give money to other countries?....but again, when I present the facts and show that you are exagerating and lying, then you will go back to hating the United States even more..... who cares, let the truth be known and let the haters be eaten alive by their own hate... Anyways, yes the private sector in the United States provides also more aid to other countries than any other country in the world, but it is not only "liberals" nor are "liberals" the primary force behind private aid from the U.S....


The U.S. Record
1•Top importer of goods from developing countries in 2004 with $661 billion

•World’s largest single country donor of foreign aid. According to preliminary figures, annual official development assistance nearly tripled from $10 billion in 2000 to $27.5 billion in 2005

•$2.7 billion in HIV/AIDS funding through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2005

•$7.8 billion in bilateral humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance in 2005. This expenditure consisted of $3.6 billion for humanitarian relief and $4.2 billion for reconstruction

•$6.8 billion in private charitable contributions to developing countries[/b


72.14.205.104...:jrTNJ9a8TMMJ:www.state.gov/documents/organization/66224.pdf+private+sector+aid+in+the+United+States&hl=en&gl=us&ct =clnk&cd=4



Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Islamists have very little potential to start a "global" conflict. To start a global conflict they would some how have to divide the world's nations and get everyone firing at each other. The Islamists don't even have the support of the majority of their own people, so how would they manage to get several countries to back them? They wouldn't. They don't have the assets, they don't have the capital, and they don't have the political power to do so. It will take a super power to start the next world war. The only one that has displayed any inclination to doing so is the United States.


There is already a global conflict with Islamic extremists at the forefront of the conflicts and wars in many nations around the world. not only that but there are Islamic extremists who are rich despite some people wanting to think that they must be only "sand people".... The next world war was already started, and Islamic extremists started the war, and unfortunately it is only the beginning.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast

I was refering to the link between Iraq and 9/11, and then the link between al Qaeda and Iraq. There was no link between Iraq and 9/11 and the only link between al Qaeda and Iraq was Iraq's diplomatic interest in Afghanistan
................


This has been discussed so many times it is not even funny anymore... There were several links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.... do a search in the forums and you will find the "proper" threads to discuss this...since you are the one trying to bring this up in this thread, which has nothing to do with your claim, you ahve to do the research yourself...


Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Converting or killing the world? Huh??? Where did you come up with that idea???


Well, he didn't explained it correctly, but you should have gotten the idea because that is exactly what Islamic terrorists want, either convert and accept their own perverted version of Islam, or destroy any nations which opposes radical Islam and kill as many people in those nations as possible.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Since no one responded to my quotation from a different empire, I'll try to be a bit more up front with my thoughts.

A lot of countries probably do hate America. Whether that particular poll is exagerated or not, it probably correctly conveys negative sentiment.

On the flopside, America has only every courted the positive opinion of its own people; most of the people who don't like us now, didn't like us before, except when we tried to be more like them.

The truth is, we shouldn't be trying to please other people, because we will never succeed in earning their goodwill. They wish we'd let them dictate how we spent the lives of American soldiers AND civilians, and that just isn't acceptable.

Most of "world opinion" is simply people on the sidelines, who expect to be protected, but without any actual geopolitical confrontations. France and Germany have both expressed their concern about Iran; yet they are horrified at the American suggestion that Iran may be using negotiation to buy time while they buy centerfuges.

Saddam was playing the same game---endless negotiations to gain time, while the plans were slowly put in place.

Before that, it was Hitler. Back then, America "minded it's own business," while Austria was annexed, Czechoslavakia was absorbed into the greater Reich, and Poland was partitioned by Hitler and Stalin.

Hopefully, future American presidents will hit on the happy notion of striking "a seperate peace" with the world's tyrants, and we'll quit getting sucked into being the world's police force.

This is already happening with terrorist targets. As America gets harder to attack using terror cells, the terrorists are turning to softer targets in Europe and SE Asia.

People will still hate us, but at least it will be for entirely different reasons.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I think you're missing the point - The US is more than happy to tell us all what to do (via WTO etc) and subvert democracy when we vote the 'wrong' way.

However the US is perfectly happy to ignore the World when it impacts on US lifestyle / cheap gas or even stops the US occupying foreign lands.

Everyone is expected to listen to the US but the US listens to no-one.

It's the hypocrisy and double standards that convince people the US sees the world as simply something to subjugate / exploit.

That's why people despise / dislike / hate the US Administration - particularly this one. As before, for most people this doesn't extend to the Ameican people - we know your system is corrupt and undemocratic, even if many US citizens don't realise this.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Don't forget grimreaper797 that we gave the Taliban months & months of time to turn the 9/11 perpertrators over to us before we finally attacked. Had they turned them in straight away no attack would have taken place at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
In all honesty, I doubt the taliban could even find him. We are there and couldnt get him, you expect a bunch of taliban to catch him?

Also I stand by my position that If we are behind attacking and invading the taliban for 9/11 then Iran can attack and invade us for the 1954 overthrow and guatemala too.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
In all honesty, I doubt the taliban could even find him. We are there and couldnt get him, you expect a bunch of taliban to catch him?

Oh please. Do you actually believe what you just wrote? You must be totally unaware of the situation over there if that is how you see the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
no, I just cant see a third world government finding a guy that we couldn't catch after we invaded the entire country. To me it just sounds like if you can't do it, why expect some one with less technology to be able to?

Also osama cannot be connected to 9/11, the FBI said that. So until they can prove he was even connected, I fail to see how we can invade the country at all. there may have been documents connecting iraq to taliban, and taliban to osama. But unless you can connect osama to 9/11 I dont really see where its all going.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I think a review of the historical record will show that Osama connected himself. As for proof of his involvement, there is none. Communications intercepts and such do not qualify as that kind of proof even though they may make specific mention of Al Qaeda. In other words, they constitute evidence, but not hard evidence.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Ok well guess what, how does that legally hold? If the FBI says it cant connect osama to 9/11 then if we had caught him, we would have had to let him go. I think its pretty obvious that something is up when you can invade a country claiming to go after a criminal, even if you have no legal proof hes the one. I could claim I was behind 9/11, that doesnt make it anymore true. If you could show evidence that I was behind it (LOL I would be in for quite a shock) then I guess legally that would hold up and you would be justified.

unfortunately a simple claim when even osama himself cant prove it doesnt mean osama did it. get official proof that he was behind it that will hold up in a legal court and my whole opinion will change.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no, I just cant see a third world government finding a guy that we couldn't catch after we invaded the entire country. To me it just sounds like if you can't do it, why expect some one with less technology to be able to?

It would be great if we were allowed to go in and use our technology, but Musharaff won't allow it. And there's always the problem of tribal warlords that spawn and harbor people like bin Laden.


Also osama cannot be connected to 9/11, the FBI said that.

Oh my God.:shk:



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
I think you're missing the point - The US is more than happy to tell us all what to do (via WTO etc) and subvert democracy when we vote the 'wrong' way.


But the WTO isn't an American org. It's multinational, with a multinational court, that subverts American interests as often as it upholds them. The WTO consistently upholds tariffs for the EU when it comes to steel and ag products, while forcing the USA to "open its borders" to foreign-made products priced at predatory rates.

Funny how your theme seems to be that its America that expects the world to serve its interests----yet you seem convinced that the WTO ought to serve yours.




However the US is perfectly happy to ignore the World when it impacts on US lifestyle / cheap gas or even stops the US occupying foreign lands.


First, how has the world wanted to "impact US lifestyle?" You mean the Kyoto accords, which require different outcomes from different nations, instead of the same standard evenly applied? Let's see, your main gripe has been that America wants to dictate how other states operate, yet that is exactly what the Kyoto accords were designed to do to the USA.

Second, isn't cheap gas in everyone's interest (except for exporters)? If cheap gas was the goal for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, then it has failed miserably, right?

Third, the US didn't "occupy" Iraq without a UN resolution supporting it. But, that isn't good enough if "the world" changes its collective mind later, apparently.




It's the hypocrisy and double standards that convince people the US sees the world as simply something to subjugate / exploit.


Fine. This is the part at which you give an example of a state that ISN'T trying to exploit "the world." Shall we skip over examples like Iran, and talk about French troops in the Cote D'Ivorie, beating Ivorians to death during interrogations, or China's "military interventions" in Tibet and Vietnam? This doesn't make US's actions right; but it does show that such "attitude" is a question of degree rather than a uniquely American aggressiveness.



That's why people despise / dislike / hate the US Administration - particularly this one.


Exactly. "Particularly this one" highlights the fact that ALL of the US administrations are unnacceptable---it's just that this one is "particularly" bad.

Certainly implying that ALL of them have been more or less "bad news" as far as the rest of the world cares.

Which goes back to my earlier point: the only America you'd approve of is one that turned its resources and riches over to "the world," and took its orders from the "mature" nations (read: ex-empires) of old europe and asia.

.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Converting or killing the world? Huh??? Where did you come up with that idea???


Come on Iconoclast. They say it ALL the time.

Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5

The news reports are easily googled ...
Here are just a few -
www.jubileecampaign.co.uk...
www.chicagotribune.com...

[edit on 6/16/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
I personally prefer PB and toast, with no jelly


Toadmund ... bud ... that was satire. It wasn't news.
It was GNN - a made up 'APE' news network. Funny though.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Re the WTO I'm afraid you're wrong - it's a US puppet dressed up with a bit of 'democracy'. Same same the World Bank. The WTO has insisted that other countries remove subsidies but allowed the US subsidies to continue.

US peanuts (the most subsidised food stuff on the planet) can be sold to a market in Kenya at pice BELOW the cost of local production. Many countries have slaughtered their dairy herds as local fresh milk is more expensive than US dried imported milk etc etc.

The EU does benefit from these rules too but we dont't invade countries because we feel like it so we're less hated than the US.

Even with the EU/US club the application and adherence to the rules varies.

We're expected to free-up our markets and allow US firms to bid for strategic assets (our Naval dockyard etc) but when free trade impacts on the ownership of US ports the US claims 'special circumstances' and ignores the rules.

Hypocrisy and double-dealing have become 'American Values'



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Ok well guess what, how does that legally hold? If the FBI says it cant connect osama to 9/11 then if we had caught him, we would have had to let him go. I think its pretty obvious that something is up when you can invade a country claiming to go after a criminal, even if you have no legal proof hes the one. I could claim I was behind 9/11, that doesnt make it anymore true. If you could show evidence that I was behind it (LOL I would be in for quite a shock) then I guess legally that would hold up and you would be justified.

unfortunately a simple claim when even osama himself cant prove it doesnt mean osama did it. get official proof that he was behind it that will hold up in a legal court and my whole opinion will change.



.......First of all, present proof where the FBI says "it can't connect Osama Bin Laden to 9/11".....

second.....kid, Osama himself said he did it...He is the leader of Al Qaeda, even his followers say he is and he is behind 9/11 and other attacks... The courts in countries like Spain have found that Al Qaeda members, following the orders from Osama were responsible for planning 9/11 in Spain.....

You want more proof kid?

Here it is...


(CNN) -- Al Qaeda identified a Saudi militant, who was killed in 2004, as the 20th hijacker in the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, according to a statement published Tuesday on an Islamist Web site.

"Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001," the statement said.

Al-Muteiri was not able to join the other hijackers in time for those attacks, the date of which had been pushed forward, the group said without elaborating.

www.cnn.com...

www.ict.org.il...

Here is a link with many statements done by Osama Bin Laden some of them about 9/11....
www.september11news.com...

and some other links which disprove completly your "false" claim...

jamestown.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
actually Muaddib and jsobecky Ill let you find it out yourselves. Go to the website and get the contact information to some sort of help in the FBI and ask them why they aren't alloud to post up 9/11 under the reasons why Osama Bin Laden is on the FBI top 10 list. They dont have the evidence to connect him to 9/11 so therefor they cannot list it. They can connect him to the embassy attack I think it was, so thats why hes on the list.

Now I have seen alot of "he confessed this" and "he confessed that". Now think of it like this, these guys blow themselves up to kill acouple people. Think about it, they have the oppertunity to take credit for the BIGGEST attack in the US possibly ever (pearl harbor compares). How much would this boost moral for their followers? They have a cause, and they need something for their followers to get behind.

As far as people like osama go, if the president got shot, he would try to take responsibility so his followers go crazy thinking osama pulled off another attack on the US and they were winning this war.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
www.fbi.gov...


Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


I will leave it on You to find out why they can't put 9/11 on the caution list.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
actually Muaddib and jsobecky Ill let you find it out yourselves. Go to the website and get the contact information to some sort of help in the FBI and ask them why they aren't alloud to post up 9/11 under the reasons why Osama Bin Laden is on the FBI top 10 list. They dont have the evidence to connect him to 9/11 so therefor they cannot list it. They can connect him to the embassy attack I think it was, so thats why hes on the list.

I don't personally care whether he is on some "list" or not. Proof of the pudding is whether they would grab him if he showed his head. And I tend to believe that they would nab him first, and ask questions later.

Then, people like you could fight for his "rights".



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join