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.

 

Why Shouldn't We (The U.S.) Just Take Over the World?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Hi all.

I started a thread yesterday to ask about our involvement in Afghanistan. I wanted desperately to know WHY our troops are dying and killing in a country that we don't really have any interest in.

The ONE (almost) valid response I got was that we have to defeat the Taliban because they are an oppressive regime. As it tends to do, this got me thinking.

The link below is to a site called FreedomHouse they track things like the most oppressive regimes on the planet each year. They call it, 'The Worst of the Worst.'

FreedomHouse

According to this site, the most repressive regimes in 2009 are:

Belarus
Burma
Chad
China
Cuba
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Laos
Libya
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe
Chechnya
South Ossetia
Tibet
Western Sahara

To reinforce this, here is an image of the 'free' and 'not free' countries of the world.

The 'Free' countries are GREEN




Here is a link to the entire document that this picture was taken from. (29 page PDF)

Worst of the Worst 2009 (pdf)

My point?

If we are only in Afghanistan to defeat an 'oppressive regime,' I reckon we are going to need some more troops.

That argument holds absolutely NO WATER. Roughly thirty percent of the world is under the thumb of an oppressive regime.

Is it the job of the United States to defeat ALL oppressive regimes? If it is, we better get on with China.

It seems to me as if we are picking and choosing which oppressive regimes we can go to war with, based on what it is that we can gain, monetarily and in the form of resources.

If we are going to pretend that we are on the moral high ground and doing the folks of these oppressed nations a favor by deposing and replacing their oppressive leaders, we need to stop being hypocritical and just take over the whole damn world.





[edit on 16-7-2009 by KSPigpen]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I wonder how many of those oppressive countries are oppressive due to their culture and tradition and not so much due to the leaders they have in power.

IMO, most folks know that we pick and choose our fights. Of course, the US must have an interest in order to intervene. In Afghanistan, it is the oil that surrounds the region. The Taliban is just a god excuse to keep us in the region.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Don't think that just because the oppression we face is subtle in nature makes it anything less than oppression.Nobody is more enslaved than the man who falsely thinks he is free is a good quote that sums up what i feel about this.Btw i disagree with some of the countries in that list...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
We are not in Afghanistan because the Taliban were repressive, but because the Taliban sheltered and supported the organization that turned 3,000 New Yorkers into pulverized ash


I was a strong opponent of the Iraq invasion, but we're in Afghanistan because we were attacked. Period.

There was no other logical choice.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
We are not in Afghanistan because the Taliban were repressive, but because the Taliban sheltered and supported the organization that turned 3,000 New Yorkers into pulverized ash


I was a strong opponent of the Iraq invasion, but we're in Afghanistan because we were attacked. Period.

There was no other logical choice.


Then why did the taliban ask for evidence to link Osama to 9/11 before the invasion and if the evidence was given they would hand him over no questions asked...as you can tell the evidence was quite obviously never given to them.Even the FBI said they didn't have enough evidence to link him to 9/11 hence no mention in the top 10 wanted list...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


There was no other logical choice.


After 9/11 America could have asked the world for anything and recieved it, in a way it was a chance to move the world forward into a new golden age, instead America led the world to war.

That even now 8 years on there is anyone who believes there was no other logical choice but to attack Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11 makes me really sad.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Is it the job of the United States to defeat ALL oppressive regimes? If it is, we better get on with China.


Yeah good luck with that, attacking the largest Army in the world. The US would never attack China unless provoked, there would be far too many casualities on both sides. Not to mention China has some of the most sophisticated Surface to Air missile batteries total air domination which is an essential part of war would not be an option either to support ground troops.

You're never going to see the US declare war on the likes or Russia & China unless they declare war first simply because of their military might.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Afganistan is a land locked country of strategic importance.

Located between Iran, Pakistan and the former USSR states of Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan and Tajikistan, Afganistan, if controlled by the 'super powers' could provide a good base or launcy area for the movement of troops and equipment throught the region and from there south into Iran toward the Gulf.

Afganistan is also a major exporter of the opium weed.

The war on drugs is a complete fabrication.

If the USA believe that any action on their part to 'take over the world' in Afganistan would not lead to opposition by the Russia's, other parts of Asia, Islam and the drug lords, then they would have done so already!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If we discount nukes America would have absolute no chance of invading China...it literally is a fortress.They have been cutting down their army and equipping them better,and making them more easily deployable in recent years ...still one heck of an army though.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
We are not in Afghanistan because the Taliban were repressive, but because the Taliban sheltered and supported the organization that turned 3,000 New Yorkers into pulverized ash


I was a strong opponent of the Iraq invasion, but we're in Afghanistan because we were attacked. Period.

There was no other logical choice.


can't believe that there are still people out there believing the official conspiracy theory.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
We are not in Afghanistan because the Taliban were repressive, but because the Taliban sheltered and supported the organization that turned 3,000 New Yorkers into pulverized ash


I was a strong opponent of the Iraq invasion, but we're in Afghanistan because we were attacked. Period.

There was no other logical choice.


It's a bit insulting to all the other nations who lost people in the World Trade centre to make the astonishing claim that they were all New Yorkers! If we're going to go down your road of reasoning why doesn't America attack Saudi Arabia as most of the alleged hijackers came from that country? Why not arrest Rumsfeld for selling Iraq the very weapons which were used against coalition soldiers?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The US could never take over the world, china and russia have more nukes combined than america. And the Chinese army is huuuge beyond belief.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
This isn't going to be a popular reply but if you people think that your government has invaded the middle east for anything other that ensuring the oil supply for the west (yes, that includes me) and the dominance of the USD.. then you are sadly mistaken/misinformed/conditioned > take your pick.

Yes, the "War on terror" is a noble idea when you look at it from the perspective of a patriotic individual who's country folk have died at the hands of "terrorists?".

But looking at the bigger economic picture, the US is currently holding the fort in central asia for the "west" until the EU can build up sufficient forces to carry at least half the load in a decade or so. This will ensure that the US/EU partnership will continue to the the worlds stabilizing economic and military force until the next century.

Also, keeping forces and extending its sphere of influence further in central asia ensures the USD stays powerful while Oil is being sold in USD... Also, the more military bases the US has in Central Asia means it has attack capability against Russia or China should it be needed... or even just for intimidation.

Just to prove my point.. If the US government actually gave a crap about spreading freedom and democracy.. wouldn't it have simply invaded its nearest socialist dictatorship .. Cuba?

Wouldn't that have been relatively simple and cheap?

The US is an empire.. this is what empires do.. this is what empires have always done.. don't delude yourself thinking its anything other than this. Everything else is simply sugarcoating.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

Originally posted by xmotex
We are not in Afghanistan because the Taliban were repressive, but because the Taliban sheltered and supported the organization that turned 3,000 New Yorkers into pulverized ash


I was a strong opponent of the Iraq invasion, but we're in Afghanistan because we were attacked. Period.

There was no other logical choice.


It's a bit insulting to all the other nations who lost people in the World Trade centre to make the astonishing claim that they were all New Yorkers! If we're going to go down your road of reasoning why doesn't America attack Saudi Arabia as most of the alleged hijackers came from that country? Why not arrest Rumsfeld for selling Iraq the very weapons which were used against coalition soldiers?


This is my point in the OP. We were also attacked in a lot of other places.
New Revelations in Attack on American spy ship
American Ship Survives Somali Pirates Hijack Attempt
American Woman among deat at U.S. embassy in Yemen

If we followed the 'logical' premise that the United States goes to war when we have been attacked, we would be in a lot of other wars right now.

I'm not endorsing the wide-scale world-wide conflict that it would seem logical for us to be in, given our efforts to free innocent people from repressive regimes, but it strikes me as really odd how places of 'strategic importance', drug production, or massive resources are given priority.

If we really cared about the welfare of our fellow human beings, we could certainly find better, more productive, more impacting ways to assist the suffering masses.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
The US could never take over the world, china and russia have more nukes combined than america. And the Chinese army is huuuge beyond belief.


Many historians will argue that the US could never take over Afghanistan either, but yet, there we ARE....thinking somehow we are more capable than Russia was to force the submission of another nation.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Freedom
Ask yourself that question than you may discover why it's not plausible. WW3 would end in disaster, Facht
and China, Russia and the other regimes wouldnt exactly roll over nor do I think Usa would win in an invasion. In war their animals



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Many historians will argue that the US could never take over Afghanistan either, but yet, there we ARE....thinking somehow we are more capable than Russia was to force the submission of another nation.


Well technically the coalition (UK and some other euro nations are there too you know ?) has not taken over Afghanistan, there are still alot of Taliban there and the fights can get pretty intense.

The USSR could not take over Afghanistan because of the Taliban and ironically the support and training the Taliban received from the US of A (kinda funny how things come to bite you in the Ass)

So I don't really know why you're talking like the US alone have taken over Afghanistan when they are far from having done it



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Why would we want to? What purpose would be served in our taking over the world? Aside from more debt, more deaths, and more starving people.

I have a better question, why is it that some can't seem to understand that we don't just indiscriminately go after countries or groups? We were attacked, and horribly so. The information we had pointed to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, so that is who we went after. The fool released a video claiming responsibility for heavens sake. 3000 innocent people were murdered over ideological differences. We went after those responsible, as we should have. You don't get to fly our own planes into our own buildings and expect us to sit back and do nothing. Had it not been for that, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan and we wouldn't have gone to Iraq.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen

Originally posted by Haydn_17
The US could never take over the world, china and russia have more nukes combined than america. And the Chinese army is huuuge beyond belief.


Many historians will argue that the US could never take over Afghanistan either, but yet, there we ARE....thinking somehow we are more capable than Russia was to force the submission of another nation.


You will never defeat the taliban for the simple reason that ideologies cannot be killed with bullets and airstrikes.And trust me,the influx of pakistanis into Afghanistan will not stop unless you kill every single man,woman and child in the region.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by KSPigpen

So I don't really know why you're talking like the US alone have taken over Afghanistan when they are far from having done it


If you read the post, Disco, you will see that I never claimed the US has taken over Afghanistan....

'Many historians will argue that the US could never take over Afghanistan either, but yet, there we ARE....thinking somehow we are more capable than Russia was to force the submission of another nation.'

No occupying force will EVER 'take over' Afghanistan. Ever. The Taliban are 'boogeymen.' They are someone to blame for the evils our government has perpetrated. Our 'leaders' have not become any more intelligent than they were when they though hundreds of thousands of human lives into the meat grinder in Viet Nam. This is nno different; The only thing different is they gave the boogeyman a different name.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join