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.

 

John McCain: "There's going to be other wars, I am sorry to tell you"

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


So what is he talking about? Is he speaking in general or he is referring to the situation in Iran or Pakistan?

The fact that he is the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services doesn't help any here. What does he know that he is not telling us? How does he know there are going to be other wars? And what's this "I'm sorry to tell you...?"

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Man has been warring with man since the beginning of time...Its not going to change..


Not true and a downright bad attitude. The majority of wars have happened in the last millennium. This does not make it human nature, or normal. There is always a higher choice my friend. There are only two emotions a human can express. Fear and Love. You choose.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
What the original post seeks is what your take is on the video, and whether McCain was speaking in general or could he have possibly been telegraphing something more imminent like Pakistan or Iran.


Sorry wasn't clear on what the big deal was when I heard what he said.

My bad, meant no disrespect.

In my opinion, yes he was speaking in general, and no he is not telegraphing anything that the alert don't already see coming. Iran is on the plate, China may be on the horizon and Putin is knocking on the back door. We need to tread lightly in the mid-east but hey...we are Americans for goodness sake! We aren't known for our soft-shoe shuffles.

No need for McCain to quit his day job and work as a fortune teller if this is the limit of his precognitive abilities. The hawks have many horns and they blow them loudly. Just google "Iran is a threat" to see the latest one spouting rhetoric.

I assume you will find Bolton at the very least.

- Lee



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcloudy
Not true and a downright bad attitude. The majority of wars have happened in the last millennium. This does not make it human nature, or normal. There is always a higher choice my friend. There are only two emotions a human can express. Fear and Love. You choose.


Actually THAT is not true.

You our basing our definition of war on the current ones being waged and the use of the current technological advancements we are privileged to have. Basically grand scale wars. There was no period of complete utopia and man has always seemed to have a rival amongst themselves.

Tribal wars happened all the time as well as religious ones. You check out the Old testament lately? A lot of fighting in there you know. Hugs? Not so much.

Those old wars were very brutal. Slaves taken, wives taken, children killed. Just because they didn't have AK-47's and nukes does not mean they weren't wars. If someone provided the technology we have now I am sure it would have been readily used.

I don't think thats a negative perspective just a logical one.

Yes man is war-like and tribal at heart. The alpha male is alive and well my friend.
I agree though that there is a higher path but if there was a period of human utopia I'd like you to point it out please.

If you go back to some of the earliest recorded history it does not reflect this.

- Lee



[edit on 29-1-2008 by lee anoma]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
After thinking about this for a few hours I wanted to add this. I don't like war. I have tons of respect for people that protest war of any kind. BUT I do not believe that protesting has much of a impact on the idiots we keep putting in the west wing. Vietnam lasted what 10 years. Truth is, that mess had pretty much run it's course. The more people that went into the streets in the 60s the more men Johnson sent. Nixon wanted to nuke the north, but thank god cooler heads changed his mind. We will be in Iraq a VERY long time. No matter who we elect, no matter how much the left bitches we are in that dump for the long haul. John McCain is a great man. a true patriot. He served his country in war and peace. He was a POW for christs sake. He was beaten and starved but was strong. If that guy is not POTUS quality than we are DOOMED. If anybody hates war you better pray that McCain gets elected. Only vets know what war is, and vets DONT want war. But given the fact that Islam has declared war on us....DONT YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A GUY IN CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN IN ONE!!!
ok back on my meds



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
But given the fact that Islam has declared war on us....DONT YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A GUY IN CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN IN ONE!!!
ok back on my meds


I think if another country would be far less likely to mess with McCain then they would any of the others running moreover I think McCain is NOTHING like a Bush clone. With McCain, you get exactly what he thinks, you might not like it but he says it like he thinks it.

I have given many of the same common sense reasons in the begining of this thread you and lee have regarding this. I still can't believe their is this much hub bub being made about a simple statement he made.

I am still waiting for the proof he gave info about wmd's and that he was a traitor posted by another here.

I think everyone ought to get used to the idea of us being in Iraq for a long time however and like you said and I before, it won't matter who is in office, we ain't leaving.

- Con



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Wow, after hearing McCain's speach I feel so comforted to know that there are going to be more injured soldiers, more deaths and more wars - BUT - at least they'll get rapid, accessible health care. phew... what a relief!


(not to be sarcastic or anything)



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
But given the fact that Islam has declared war on us....


Um, point of fact, "Islam" did not declare war on us. Hence our close relationship with many Muslim countries and peoples. Unless of course you want to say that the Saudis really were actually behind the 9/11 attacks after all, which would actually make 9/11 a false-flag operation carried out at the behest of a domestic group such as Skull & Bones. Either way, no war with Islam.

Don't ever go off your meds again...ever.


[edit on 1/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

You our basing our definition of war on the current ones being waged and the use of the current technological advancements we are privileged to have. Basically grand scale wars. There was no period of complete utopia and man has always seemed to have a rival amongst themselves.

Tribal wars happened all the time as well as religious ones. You check out the Old testament lately? A lot of fighting in there you know. Hugs? Not so much.


And what is the common denominator? In order to unravel the "mystery" of war, you have to get down to the root. Resources. Be they arable land, water, food, money, oil, women, religious converts, manpower, etc. There is no mystery here about the root of war. You can see it in gang wars, conflicts between countries, religions, organized crime, neighbors. It is no surprise that the history of the Middle east is wracked with violence as the area itself is primed for it in that resources required for human survival are scarce in a a desert.


Originally posted by lee anoma
Yes man is war-like and tribal at heart. The alpha male is alive and well my friend.


See article here for a perspective on that. www.science-spirit.org...

As for the "tribal" nature of this argument the US is a prime example of the "tribe" being flexible and inclusive. In fact any honest look at the concept of "tribe" throughout human history shows a pattern of inclusion where tribe first means the family, then the clan, then tribe, then alliance of tribes, then the nation, then alliance of nations, etc. Why on Earth would this not continue to include all life on Earth at some point?



Originally posted by lee anoma
I agree though that there is a higher path but if there was a period of human utopia I'd like you to point it out please.

If you go back to some of the earliest recorded history it does not reflect this.


There have been long periods of peace in many countries, groups of countries, etc. Just because there have been wars or violent conflicts in some parts of the world at some given point in time it does not seem fair to me to completely ignore that at any given time the vast majority of human beings are NOT involved in some violent struggle with other human beings in the same period of time. What actual percentage of humanity is involved in violent conflict say, right now? And opposed to that what actual percentage is living peacefully?


It boils down to struggle over resources. When people are in a period of expansion, when there are more resources in their given geographical area than can be used up they live in harmony. When things begin to pinch, and shortages arise, (even if they are perceptual rather than actual) the survival instinct kicks in and we begin eliminating or attempting to eliminate rivals for that resource.

A very good argument for this is here:

fire.pppl.gov...

Though in my opinion one does not need a PhD in Physics to LOOK at the situation with eyes that are not seeing through the lens of popular opinion and discern what the underlying problem is. It is obvious, and it can be seen not only in human populations but in any population of living beings here on Earth. Too many of any one animal in any one geograpical location, so that said animal begins to require more resources than are readily available leads to conflict, both within the species and without. (By eliminating other species that contend for those same resources.) If everyone has enough, no one risks death and the extinction of their genetic line simply for the sake of the "pleasures" of war or "bloodlust." It simply isnt true, except in the case of the "insane" or "sociopathic," and since when did we use them as the measure of all men?









[edit on 29-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
True American-

I'm sorry to tell you there will be other wars. He was telling the truth. The United States is an infant compared to the History of the World. How many wars; major and minor have we already been in? It is also in our DNA to try and police the rest of the world. We will always be some kind of scrape or another. The HOPE is that we will never be in another one like WWI or II, because what we did to each other in those wars could destroy the planet if we did a III. McCain is just being realistic.


Sorry to correct you, but war is not in our DNA. Survival of the fittest was for centuries the way man carried on. Survival does not induce a gene or a chromosome engineered for dominance. However, through manipulation of the weaker mind by a corrupted teacher leads to slavery- slaves revolt and thus war.

It is not man's inherent nature to be evil. In fact there are not that many truly evil people by comparison to the meek majority. To say that the dark con of man was brought on by himself via his natural DNA is not a very bright observation. Most people want peace and oppose war- so this statement of DNA as the cause of war is rendered irrelevant by way of the peace loving majority.

JMO


[edit on 29-1-2008 by dk3000]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000
To say that the dark con of man was brought on by himself via his natural DNA is not a very bright observation.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by dk3000]


Really?


In the past, there were Ice Ages and times of Global Warming, and our ancestors evolved to adjust to each of these times. There were epochs of plenty, and epochs of famine. For each scenario, our ancestors evolved to fit their new environment, not just with bodily changes, but with instincts to fit the new times as well. Monkeys evolved traits and body shapes to adapt to life in trees, and at other times, to life on the plains. Before them, their ancestors evolved instincts for harsh times and flush times; times of war, and times of peace. (Sorry, Jane Goodall, but even chimpanzees go to war!)

Every instinct is (obviously) an inborn behavior, maintained in our DNA
freewill.typepad.com...


[edit on 29-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
really?



The instinct inherent in our DNA is for survival. Not war. There are far more examples of that instinct for survival being expressed as co-operation than as conflict. Is war ever the means we choose to facilitate survival? Yes. Is it NECESSARILY so? No.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

The instinct inherent in our DNA is for survival. Not war. There are far more examples of that instinct for survival being expressed as co-operation than as conflict. Is war ever the means we choose to facilitate survival? Yes. Is it NECESSARILY so? No.




Is war ever the means we choose to facilitate survival? Yes. Is it NECESSARILY so? No.


If war is a means we choose to facilitate survival which we both agree.
Then conventional wisdom would follow that it IS NECESSARILY so. If War is waged on a people and they want to come out of it alive it is.

I think War "happens" because a group of serotonin high egomaniacs start imposing there will on others and the testosterone does the rest. For the same reason men are more aggressive then woman they are bigger risk takers sometimes to a fault. If the prime directive is to survive and we are a social creature, with all this built in civility I would agree but I don't see that in most of books on anthropology, evolution, social studies etc. I think civility takes practice and biting your tongue and not flipping off the other driver is the exception to the rule, one which takes more discipline and intestinal fortitude which are learned behaviors anotherwords War is in us as a human being, Peace,, maybe,, Peace is in us as a Human Becoming but I don't see us becoming all that much more civilized.

Unless I mis interpreted the instinct and its expression in your post I would appreciate if you would be so kind as to elaborate, I got to say its a provocative argument you make but ??

- Con



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

If war is a means we choose to facilitate survival which we both agree.
Then conventional wisdom would follow that it IS NECESSARILY so. If War is waged on a people and they want to come out of it alive it is.


That is part of the problem right there. You are correct, that once a violent conflict has begun, fighting back is often the only means for survival. I do not dispute that. What I AM disputing is that while we do/have chosen war as a means for resolving conflict, it is not necessary, and I mean that literally, it is not the ONLY choice for resolving a conflict.

Hopefully, you do not beat every person you have a conflict with. Hopefully, you often negotiate. Some people are bestial enough that they only negotiate out of fear, (ie: if the guy is bigger than they) and they DO resolve all other conflicts with "weaker" creatures, (their spouses, children, dogs) with a beating. However I hope you are not arguing that this is the norm.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
I think War "happens" because a group of serotonin high egomaniacs start imposing there will on others and the testosterone does the rest.


Thats how a fist fight happens. War happens because a bunch of hormone laden egomaniacs convince everyone else that they should fight their battles for them, and that war is the only possible solution, and that without war their very lives are threatened. The testosterone or other hormone laden egomaniac rarely puts him/herself in harms way.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
If the prime directive is to survive and we are a social creature, with all this built in civility I would agree but I don't see that in most of books on anthropology, evolution, social studies etc.


There are so many examples of cooperation being our dominant drive it is staggering to even choose some for illustration. War itself is an example of cooperation, so since it is highly relevant to the topic lets start there. A large number of people have to agree to cooperate to the degree that their own lives and physical well being are placed in peril. Often, without the participation of the yahoo that started the whole conflict who often sits back and eats popcorn and talks about how sad it is that people have to lay down their lives for this "grim necessity." Now if those people who are out there laying their lives down for the "presumed" good of the whole arent cooperative, I dont know what you would call it. It may also be foolish at times, (if they dont examine the supposed necessity of said war and sacrifce) but that doesnt take away from the cooperative angle at all.

Human culture itself is cooperative, just the agreement to get together and parcel up tasks and trade with one another. You wouldnt have "Social studies" if we were not "social." Hunting large animals if you want to go for textbook cases, is cooperative. The act of teaching anyone anything is cooperative. Forming alliances of any kind is cooperative. Including marriage, and families. Corporations are examples of human cooperation. Farming, house building, firefighting, policing. What isnt? is more the question. As I said, including war itself. The task is directing this natural instinct for survival, and utilizing our talent for cooperation that is often exploited by warmongers into less destructive choices.

The question I would like to ask is not "why are humans violent." I dont think we naturally are if not provoked by either a real or percieved threat to their survival, as I have argued. (Except as I have said for the "dysfunctional," the mentally ill) It is "why are humans so cooperative and gullible that they are so easily goaded into violent (and very high cost to themselves) behaviour by people who neither share the risk of that violence themselves NOR share the benefit that that violent behaviour wins with the gullible cooperators?" Now THAT is a question I would love to know the answer to.

On cooperation. And there are tons of sources online. I picked this one because it is concise.

en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 29-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


OR Hitlery clinton...
Maybe Usama Obaba......Look name calling aside McCain has experience.........Does he scare me a little...Yes...Kind of like a charming Nixon....But he is better that any of the other nuts running. I dont buy the JFK Obama thing....And Clinton is as fake as they come. Ron Paul would have been great, but that ship sailed.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 



Well...You have a point, I agree. Hitlery is a nightmare. In fact, ALL of these candidates are. We are completely FUBARed with our choices on either side. I just worry that McInsane is going to finish what Dumbya has started, and send us into the apocalypse. The guy is literally frothing at the mouth to get his finger on the big red button. LOL


[edit on 30-1-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Now that McCain has won Florida and Guiliani has dropped out and passed his support to McCain, it looks like McCain will be the one to go up against Hitlerly in Nov.

People looking for the end of the Bush Regime have either Hitlerly or McCain to look forward to and think things will be better?




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Flashman
 


Yes. Things are going from really bad, to much, MUCH worse. We are in a really bad way here in the states, no matter which way we turn. The system is totally screwed. And we are the casualties left behind. I'm not sure what it's going to take to reverse this mess that has been forced upon us all.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

That is part of the problem right there. You are correct, that once a violent conflict has begun, fighting back is often the only means for survival. I do not dispute that. What I AM disputing is that while we do/have chosen war as a means for resolving conflict, it is not necessary, and I mean that literally, it is not the ONLY choice for resolving a conflict.

Hopefully, you do not beat every person you have a conflict with. Hopefully, you often negotiate. Some people are bestial enough that they only negotiate out of fear, (ie: if the guy is bigger than they) and they DO resolve all other conflicts with "weaker" creatures, (their spouses, children, dogs) with a beating. However I hope you are not arguing that this is the norm.





yes,, I see what you are saying,, we are not at the "mercy" of our DNA in that regard



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
At least he is playing with open cards. Casting a vote for him is a vote for war. Least he is saying it straight ahead that he is not going to work for peace. I can imagine where his campaign money comes from.

I watched his speech, and to me he seems like hypocrite; in his speech he thanks god, but on the other hand promotes death through war. If he is a christian, then this is bit odd.

But I nevertheless give credit to him, he is being straight in his campaigning and doesn't try to be something else he is - at least not in scale of Hillary Clinton, who once promoted universal health care but shut up about that later once she got a good chair and paycheck from some nice corporation.

I'd rather vote for him than Hillary, as the result is being much same nevertheless.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by djcloudy
Not true and a downright bad attitude. The majority of wars have happened in the last millennium. This does not make it human nature, or normal. There is always a higher choice my friend. There are only two emotions a human can express. Fear and Love. You choose.


Actually THAT is not true.

- Lee

[edit on 29-1-2008 by lee anoma]


Umm, yeah, maybe we occasionally fight, but as far as I know my homeland's history, there been only few major clashes, few internal fights but thats about it. It is true that I live in a peaceful country, but as you can see, peace is an REAL option.

And djcloudy was right: Fear causes war, love peace.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join