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.

 

I have a solution for World Peace!!!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Alright here we go….First...

We pull all of our troops out of EVERYWHERE! We all know that we don't need a military to protect ourselves or others anyway. All we are doing as a country is causing trouble. And since there is no real evil in the world, this will magically cause all world violence to stop.

Now, since big bad America isn't bullying everyone around anymore, we begin our real goal of spreading happiness and rainbows all around the globe. I'm sure that all of the maniacal dictators in places like Iran will completely change their mindsets when they receive our packages of sunshine and kisses.

Once we accomplish that, we can all just mind our own countries business and everyone will leave everyone alone forever and ever in perfect peace. Then we can elect new leaders who will provide everything for us so we never have to do anything hard or difficult again.

Then sunshine and rainbows will rule the world and we will live in peace for the rest of time as one big happy planet!

[/satirical rant]

Some people make me sick....


I've seen too much garbage like this around here recently. A lot of people need to wake up and realize we don't live in a world were perfect peace can exist. The fairytale attitude needs to end so we can begin to approach the problems of our world with a realistic strategy.




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I've seen too much garbage like this around here recently. A lot of people need to wake up and realize we don't live in a world were perfect peace can exist. The fairytale attitude needs to end so we can begin to approach the problems of our world with a realistic strategy.


Sunshine and rainbows sound groovy man!


Nyk my friend, it's not like we're being led into these wars innocently, we're being lied to and cajoled into war. You can't ignore the questions that still abound for the reasons we went to war. Are we just supposed to accept being lied to by our government?

Peace



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are we just supposed to accept being lied to by our government?
Peace


Absolutely not. However, I do think people spend too much time arguing over "why" we're there. That's really not relevant anymore. What matters is that we "are" there, and we have to come up with a way to finish what we started that doesn't involve pulling out and hoping everything is okay.

I'll be the first to come out and say this administration has made mistakes and lied to the American people, but that's not really the main point of my post.

My main point is that there are too many people today who believe that everyone in the world can get along if we just treat each other nicely. While that's a nice idea, it's a very naive one. The fact is that there is real evil in this world that must be addressed, whether people choose to see it or not.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
My main point is that there are too many people today who believe that everyone in the world can get along if we just treat each other nicely.


Is it any more naive than thinking that everyone in the world can get along if we just bombed the ones who don't agree with our foreign policies?

The real problem isn't that the public is too naive for their own good (which they are) but that the people in power are either too naive or too greedy for anyone's good.

Jon



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
Is it any more naive than thinking that everyone in the world can get along if we just bombed the ones who don't agree with our foreign policies?


No it isn't. However, I never suggested that we do that.

There are many people who feel that a military isn't even necessary, because a little diplomacy can solve any problem. My point is that that is a naive way of thinking. There are times when military force is necessary for peace.

You don't just bomb people who don't agree with policy, you bomb people who torture and murder their own citizens. You bomb people who are hell bent on destroying other countries and the world.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Absolutely not. However, I do think people spend too much time arguing over "why" we're there. That's really not relevant anymore. What matters is that we "are" there, and we have to come up with a way to finish what we started that doesn't involve pulling out and hoping everything is okay.


But see, that's the problem. If you notice, this is always the sentiment of our government. If I hear one more "well, we're already there so we need to forget that and figure out a way to fix it" or "it's already done, so we need to figure out how to make it so it doesn't happen again", I'm gonna go crazy. The government isn't interested in how to figure out that crap unless it means you and I giving up our rights, they just move on to the next part of the agenda and then say the whole thing all over again. It's like giving the government carte blanche and never expecting any accountability. It's like a game to them and it's fundamentally wrong, at least it should be to Americans who, as the only "free" superpower left in the world should be setting the example.


Originally posted by nyk537
The fact is that there is real evil in this world that must be addressed, whether people choose to see it or not.


What if the real evil lies closer to home?


Peace


[edit on 25-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Now wait a minute, suppose those disrupter beams from HAARP became "coherency beams?" Suppose instead of blasting out chemtrails with terrible concoctions, that the military started putting out beneficial bacteria?

Suppose that the CFR began publishing actual peacemaking and prosperity fulfilling papers, instead of warmongering puss? Suppose the IMF and World Bank began actual fair loans that were repayable, and never demanded their debtors cough up their infrastructure, their water supplies? Suppose most worst case scenarios became preventative scenarios, instead of self fulfilling scenarios at major think tanks? Suppose the weapons to civilian conversion process after the cold war found a revival big time? Suppose the Rockefellers made a deal to make a transition to actual free enterprise when it was made clear they would make more money and gain more power that way?

Your headliner has the right strategy, but no implementation concepts, so of course you have to resort of raw pragmatism and sabotage your best case scenario. Such general thoughts require development, adaptation, and transitional proceedings. You do not necessarily get from A to B in one week, but within incremental phasing. At the same time you have to convert those used to making money by ruining people's lives into the opposite character system of increasing wealth by making people's lives better without exception.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by SkipShipman]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by nyk537
Absolutely not. However, I do think people spend too much time arguing over "why" we're there. That's really not relevant anymore. What matters is that we "are" there, and we have to come up with a way to finish what we started that doesn't involve pulling out and hoping everything is okay.


But see, that's the problem. If you notice, this is always the sentiment of our government. If I hear one more "well, we're already there so we need to forget that and figure out a way to fix it" or "it's already done, so we need to figure out how to make it so it doesn't happen again", I'm gonna go crazy. The government isn't interested in how to figure out that crap unless it means you and I giving up our rights, they just move on to the next part of the agenda and then say the whole thing all over again. It's like giving the government carte blanche and never expecting any accountability. It's like a game to them and it's fundamentally wrong, at least it should be to Americans who, as the only "free" superpower left in the world should be setting the example.


Originally posted by nyk537
The fact is that there is real evil in this world that must be addressed, whether people choose to see it or not.


What if the real evil lies closer to home?


Peace


[edit on 25-9-2007 by Dr Love]


Instead of responding to the several points you made. I'll simply ask....

What's "your" solution?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
There are times when military force is necessary for peace.

I hope you mean "There are times when the threat of military force is necessary for peace." Otherwise, the statement you made is a perfect example of doublespeak.


Originally posted by nyk537
You don't just bomb people who don't agree with policy, you bomb people who torture and murder their own citizens.


Nope wrong.

Personally, I don't care. If they want to overthrow their government we should provide PRIVATE support (from corporations or citizens) in the form of funds, logistics, and aide NOT troops. If the oppressed people want to flee their lands and come here, I am all for it.

You can NOT attack a country for something that is solely a moral issue. Such a stupid reason is too easily abused by the PTB to be allowed. I guess Nigeria would be justified in bombing the USA then because of the disproportionate amount of people with African descent in prisons. After all, isn't that a form of torture and abuse? Morality is a relative issue, bombs are absolute.


Originally posted by nyk537
You bomb people who are hell bent on destroying other countries and the world.


Nope wrong again.

First of all, has there ever in the history of the entire world been a culture that wanted to "destroy the world." Sounds kind of stupid just typing it out actually.

Second, you can only attack countries that have already attacked an ally. All the rhetoric in the world is meaningless. Think about how much BS our President spouts about other countries. Everyone does the same thing.

Someone wants to wipe Israel off the map? So what let them blab and blab about it. The moment they TRY to attack you have real provocation for war but not a second before.

Jon



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
I guess Nigeria would be justified in bombing the USA then because of the disproportionate amount of people with African descent in prisons. After all, isn't that a form of torture and abuse? Morality is a relative issue, bombs are absolute.


Oh please. Don't give me that crap. There are a "disproportionate" amount of people with African descent in prison because those are the people committing crimes. No one is "out to get" people of African descent. Leave that garbage at home.



Nope wrong again.

First of all, has there ever in the history of the entire world been a culture that wanted to "destroy the world." Sounds kind of stupid just typing it out actually.


I'd say the ideology of Adolf Hitler came pretty close to that. Not the "whole" world, just everyone in it who didn't fit his idea of "perfection"



Second, you can only attack countries that have already attacked an ally. All the rhetoric in the world is meaningless. Think about how much BS our President spouts about other countries. Everyone does the same thing.

Someone wants to wipe Israel off the map? So what let them blab and blab about it. The moment they TRY to attack you have real provocation for war but not a second before.


So we wait until the missiles are in the air and then attack? We wait until it's too late? You would rather retaliate against someone after an attack than prevent the attack altogether?

Wrong....



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
What's "your" solution?


That's the million dollar question. Start with Skip's post above.


I just hope the solution isn't what I hope it will never have to be. Our political system is corrupted to the teeth.

Peace


[edit on 25-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 





You don't just bomb people who don't agree with policy, you bomb people who torture and murder their own citizens. You bomb people who are hell bent on destroying other countries and the world.


SO what will that solve? US took out Saddam, and yet how much better has the country gotten? It is ignorant to think that bombing a country will bring peace to their people, Iraq is a perfect example, Afghanistan is a perfect example. However I do agree with you that being nice to people won't bring peace. In order to bring peace everyone needs to see eye to eye, and be nice, not just Party "A".
What my solution is? I have nothing because I have never seen peace exist amongst nations so I can not throw ideas about peace.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I just hope the solution isn't what I hope it will never have to be.
[edit on 25-9-2007 by Dr Love]


Well said my friend.


Hmm...I guess we could always round up a few more people and take care of things ourselves. Superhero style...

Whaddya say??



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
I have nothing because I have never seen peace exist amongst nations so I can not throw ideas about peace.


That's the point.

There can be no peace. People just refuse to see that.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are we just supposed to accept being lied to by our government?
Peace


Absolutely not. However, I do think people spend too much time arguing over "why" we're there. That's really not relevant anymore. What matters is that we "are" there, and we have to come up with a way to finish what we started that doesn't involve pulling out and hoping everything is okay.


and THAT mentality is why we will keep getting into wars, and people will keep not caring WHY.





Some people make me sick....

I've seen too much garbage like this around here recently.


my thoughts exactly.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I'd say the ideology of Adolf Hitler came pretty close to that. Not the "whole" world, just everyone in it who didn't fit his idea of "perfection"


What?! Did you just say what I think you said? Where in the Nazi rhetoric of "Greater Germany" and cleansing of genetic undesirables do you see "destroy the world?"

Even if Nazi Germany succeeded in wiping out all the Jews, homosexuals, and mentally ill people in all of Europe, you are still talking about a small portion of the worldwide human population. They didn't see anything wrong with the Japanese, so why assume (like most) their ideology targeted anyone who wasn't white and blond?

C'mon I have heard some real hyperbole thrown in the direction of the Nazi's but "destroy the world" probably takes the cake. By resorting to such a gross distortion and generalization, I think that you are implicitly admitting that your initial statement was absurd.


Jon



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel

Originally posted by nyk537
I'd say the ideology of Adolf Hitler came pretty close to that. Not the "whole" world, just everyone in it who didn't fit his idea of "perfection"


What?! Did you just say what I think you said? Where in the Nazi rhetoric of "Greater Germany" and cleansing of genetic undesirables do you see "destroy the world?"

Even if Nazi Germany succeeded in wiping out all the Jews, homosexuals, and mentally ill people in all of Europe, you are still talking about a small portion of the worldwide human population. They didn't see anything wrong with the Japanese, so why assume (like most) their ideology targeted anyone who wasn't white and blond?

C'mon I have heard some real hyperbole thrown in the direction of the Nazi's but "destroy the world" probably takes the cake. By resorting to such a gross distortion and generalization, I think that you are implicitly admitting that your initial statement was absurd.


Jon


I think you are taking "destroy the world" waaaay too literally here. Quite obviously I didn't mean destroy the world in a literal sense of the planet being destroyed. I assumed the point would come across...obviously this is what I get for assuming.

But let me get you straight here, because the "genetic cleansing of undesirables" as you put it, only targeted a "small percentage of the world population", does that justify it? Does that make it okay?

Should we have just stood by and let it continue?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Should we have just stood by and let it continue?


Once again, you post something that forces me to question your own grasp of history.

WE DID STAND BY AND LET IT CONTINUE.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I do think people spend too much time arguing over "why" we're there. That's really not relevant anymore. What matters is that we "are" there,


Me thinks it is worth it to spend how ever much time is necessary to argue about "why we are there" for the simple reason stated in this famous quote....."Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." by George Santayana.

Why are we there?...Hmmm, let's see....Faked intelligence, a dry-drunk president and a VP so closely aligned with the industrialized military complex that they were compin' at the bit to get things fired up. Just because Sadam called Georgie's dad a wuss.

And you wonder why people hate Amercia? It is because of the attitude expressed by the OP. Perhaps this is why cousins shouldn't marry.

Oh and whats with the fake headline? Just a trap to lure the unsuspecting?
It is so obvious you are just stirring up trouble and looking for a fight.

Regards....kk


[edit on 25-9-2007 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
The only reason our government sought to enter the war was because our trade and economy was being affected by the war. Even that didn't sway the American public who wanted nothing to do with the war until we allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen.


This is the kind of response I expect from a pacifist such as yourself. This is the real purpose of the original post. The belief that the "only" reason for war is money and power and corrupt government. (Now obviously these are facets of any war, and are contributing factors, but they are not the sole reasons)


Jews in this country had been trying to get the government to do something about what was happening over in Europe for years and they got no response but silence. But our corporations and their lobbyists were making far too much money supporting the Nazi war machine to let that happen.

Try to crack open a history book once in a while.


Excellent advice. Perhaps with your advance knowledge of American history, you would know that the persecution of the Jews was not the only factor in the second World War. Germany itself did declared war on us, but that was 4 days "after" Japan had began to attack US assets in Southeast Asia. Corporations making money off of the Nazi war machine was not a deciding factor in the United States going to war.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join