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.

 

Russian Threats

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been posted


Russia issued a new round of threats today saying that "military force" would be used if Russia's current 'threatened' feeling continued to worsen due to the U.S. missile defense systems in Poland and Czech Republic.


The senior Russian officials warned Washington against snubbing Moscow's proposal for cooperating on missile defense, saying the deployment of U.S. missile defense sites in Europe would strengthen Russia's belief that it is the real target of the American system.

If the United States rejects President Vladimir Putin's proposal for a shared use of a Russia-rented early warning radar in Azerbaijan, that would clearly show Washington's real intentions, he said.

"That is a litmus test," Baluyevsky told reporters. "The entire world will see the true aim of this system."


source


Why is this being done? I'm not pro-Russia in any way shape or form, but I agree with them here. Iran is not that much of a threat that we need to do all of this. So clearly this is aimed at Russia.

Some people here in the United States will take offense and automatically jump on our government's side because everybody here has this arrogant 'us vs them' mindset. But what they fail to see is the hypocrisy in this situation. If Russia was building missile defense systems in Cuba and claiming it was targeting Brazil, what exactly would our "elected" officials and every other American think?

Every day that passes, this administration brings us closer to a police state here at home, and World War III abroad. I can't believe more people don't see the treasonous nature of this administration, and I don't see how more people cannot see that 9/11 has benefited them drastically.

What is all this for? We go blow up some rocks in Afghanistan, while setting up a natural gas pipeline for profit. We invade Iraq on false intelligence to control the oil fields so that the conversion to Euros doesn't happen. We're threatening Iran for their "potential" to build a nuclear weapon no sooner than 10 years from now. We're threatening Syria for no reason in particular. We're in a little political standoff with China in recent months of economy and military power, plus the Taiwan situation. Now we're pushing Russia to the brink of a military response?

It serves absolutely no purpose. The "War On Terror" led to all of this, but it's never been about that. It's been about money, land, and resources.

Does anybody else have a problem with this?



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
You are absolutely right, but what can we do about it.

The US, Russia and China and most other governments dont have the peoples best interest at heart, its only about competing who gets the biggest piece of the pie that is resources-money.

Only we people can hpe for is devine intervention or fan-induced-flying-#-festival that will allow some of us a brand new start to do things right.

The clocks ticking and there are only a few seconds on the clock....
tick-tock...



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Iran is a threat, so this shield is completely justifiable.

Iran does not have the capabilities to fire a missile that could hit the U.S. true,
but they are capable of hitting most if not all of Europe, and considering that the maniacs
in charge there are against freedom and liberal democracy and anything they generally
consider against there religion, it's not that farfetched to think that they would fire
missiles at Europe if they were on the brink of losing or coming apart.

Russia is just being difficult, since they are both friends with Iran, and because they
want to look like they are still a superpower.




If Russia was building missile defense systems in Cuba and claiming it was targeting Brazil, what exactly would our "elected" officials and every other American think?


That's a very different scenario.

Firstly, Brazil does'nt go around calling for the destruction of countries (not that I particularly
like Israel) and is not a limited democracy theocracy that would like to see anything against
there ideology destroyed.
Now I'm not saying that all Iranians think like that, but the ones in charge seem to.

Secondly we are doing it to protect Europe.

I don't see Russia wanting to protect us from anyone, unless they themselves faced
destruction if we fell.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Te he, haha.

The wording in the article and the OP is amusing in that it uses words like "aimed at" and "target of the American system". These are completely nonsense words when describing a defensive missle system.

You don't aim at anyone with that type of system. You just shoot down another missle. You don't target any country with it. You just shoot down an offensive missle.

The words are an intentional attempt to mislead, and make people think the U.S. is pointing a dangerous missle at (former) Russia.

Why can't they just say why they don't like it there instead of the attempts to mislead and bully?

makeitso



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Iran is a threat, so this shield is completely justifiable.

Iran does not have the capabilities to fire a missile that could hit the U.S. true,
but they are capable of hitting most if not all of Europe, and considering that the maniacs
in charge there are against freedom and liberal democracy and anything they generally
consider against there religion, it's not that farfetched to think that they would fire
missiles at Europe if they were on the brink of losing or coming apart.

Russia is just being difficult, since they are both friends with Iran, and because they
want to look like they are still a superpower.


Iran is a threat to who, exactly? Israel? And if they are such a threat, why not put the missile defense system in Azerbaijan?

I'm not saying Iran is a victim or they're the good guys. I'm not saying they wouldn't fire missiles at Europe in a last ditch effort to survive. But look at the hypocrisy here for a minute. We, along with Europe, allow Israel to have nuclear weapons. We, along with Europe, are marching through the middle east stealing resources and occupying the land. And then, when Iran takes defensive measures, as this missile defense system of ours is supposed to be, then all of a sudden they're terrorists and they're evil.

Is that how the world is supposed to work? We can run over everybody, and if they don't lay down and die, and submit to our force, they're evil? Are we the only ones allowed to defend ourselves? When our "freedom is attacked", we're the victims, poor us, but then it's ok to meddle in their political systems and bomb their homes and families? Who the hell died and put us in charge of policing the world?

By the way, despite what you want to believe, Russia is still a superpower.



Originally posted by iori_komei


If Russia was building missile defense systems in Cuba and claiming it was targeting Brazil, what exactly would our "elected" officials and every other American think?


That's a very different scenario.

Firstly, Brazil does'nt go around calling for the destruction of countries (not that I particularly
like Israel) and is not a limited democracy theocracy that would like to see anything against
there ideology destroyed.
Now I'm not saying that all Iranians think like that, but the ones in charge seem to.

Secondly we are doing it to protect Europe.

I don't see Russia wanting to protect us from anyone, unless they themselves faced
destruction if we fell.


You're grasping at very minor technicalities. I didn't say Brazil goes around calling for the destruction of countries. I never compared their system of government to Iran's. But Brazil has about as much potential of carrying our Iran's threats as Iran does.

Now picture this, Brazil has the same 'destruction of all' mentality as Iran allegedly does. Brazil is threatening Russia and Russian interests and allies. Brazil is our ally. So, in order for a "defensive" stance, Russia sets up missile defense systems in Cuba. Now ask yourself, as an American citizen, or if you were President, what would your response be?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Te he, haha.

The wording in the article and the OP is amusing in that it uses words like "aimed at" and "target of the American system". These are completely nonsense words when describing a defensive missle system.

You don't aim at anyone with that type of system. You just shoot down another missle. You don't target any country with it. You just shoot down an offensive missle.

The words are an intentional attempt to mislead, and make people think the U.S. is pointing a dangerous missle at (former) Russia.

Why can't they just say why they don't like it there instead of the attempts to mislead and bully?

makeitso


What's really amusing is you don't understand how a defensive system can be an offensive system.

With a missile defense system "aimed at" Russia's nuclear arsenal, we effectively give ourself first strike ability, while, depending on how good the missile defense system is, giving ourselves the ability to defend against any retaliatory strike. But you knew that, right?

By the way, what exactly do you mean by "(former) Russia"? You do know that Russia is an actual country, right?

They have said why they don't like it there, and I just told you why. Maybe if you paid attention rather than just taking the good ol' American slanted bias viewpoint, you'd know that. They don't like it because it gives us (the United States) first strike ability against Russia, if we decide to do so. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if a country had first strike ability against the United States, would you?

Bully? You're serious? How about over-running a regime in Afghanistan that we did business with, just to set up a natural gas pipeline? How about creating false intelligence to over-throw an Iraqi dictator, who embarrassingly kept Iraq more stable than we can keep it, all because they were going to switch to Euros when selling oil? How about threatening Iran, even though it was our very own CIA who ended democracy in Iran and led to the type of regime we see today? How about allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons while labeling Iran as evil when they try and acquire those same weapons? You want to talk about bullying?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I think you guys should read the interview Putin had with the media after G8. Almost no Western media took that news.

The threat of the US defense shield is real. Why? Because that defense system will be an integrated part of the US nuclear capabilities.

So what does that mean? Well If USA will nuke Russia they have the upper hand since they can coordonate an attack and a defense against Russia in such a way that they might get away with a nuke attack. Since Russia will be neutralized by the defense shield.

Basically in the case of a US-Russia war, USA with this shield can win the battle and this means that the ballance is broken. Russia can't accept a monopol of USA in the world. That would mean that USA can do anything it wants and that is bad no matter how "good" USA is.

So yes, Iran is just the excuse for USA imperialism. Which is bad in all possible ways. USA is getting very aggresive.

That shield is a joke and another lie. Just like Iraq and Iran. All is Western propaganda. Brainwashing people to connect Iran with "bad", "evil", "danger", etc. So that the people will accept a new war. You should NEVER accept WAR!

But it is too late, USA will attack Iran and it does not matter what others say be that Russia, the American people or the world. The ballance is lost!

It would be a miracol to stop USA from another genocide.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Pericle]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
I think you guys should read the interview Putin had with the media after G8. Almost no Western media took that news.

The threat of the US defense shield is real. Why? Because that defense system will be an integrated part of the US nuclear capabilities.

So what does that mean? Well If USA will nuke Russia they have the upper hand since they can coordonate an attack and a defense against Russia in such a way that they might get away with a nuke attack. Since Russia will be neutralized by the defense shield.

Basically in the case of a US-Russia war, USA with this shield can win the battle and this means that the ballance is broken. Russia can't accept a monopol of USA in the world. That would mean that USA can do anything it wants and that is bad no matter how "good" USA is.

So yes, Iran is just the excuse for USA imperialism. Which is bad in all possible ways. USA is getting very aggresive.

That shield is a joke and another lie. Just like Iraq and Iran. All is Western propaganda. Brainwashing people to connect Iran with "bad", "evil", "danger", etc. So that the people will accept a new war. You should NEVER accept WAR!

But it is too late, USA will attack Iran and it does not matter what others say be that Russia, the American people or the world. The ballance is lost!

It would be a miracol to stop USA from another genocide.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Pericle]



Well said.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
I think you guys should read the interview Putin had with the media after G8. Almost no Western media took that news.

The threat of the US defense shield is real. Why? Because that defense system will be an integrated part of the US nuclear capabilities.

So what does that mean? Well If USA will nuke Russia they have the upper hand since they can coordonate an attack and a defense against Russia in such a way that they might get away with a nuke attack. Since Russia will be neutralized by the defense shield.

Basically in the case of a US-Russia war, USA with this shield can win the battle and this means that the ballance is broken. Russia can't accept a monopol of USA in the world. That would mean that USA can do anything it wants and that is bad no matter how "good" USA is.

So yes, Iran is just the excuse for USA imperialism. Which is bad in all possible ways. USA is getting very aggresive.

That shield is a joke and another lie. Just like Iraq and Iran. All is Western propaganda. Brainwashing people to connect Iran with "bad", "evil", "danger", etc. So that the people will accept a new war. You should NEVER accept WAR!

But it is too late, USA will attack Iran and it does not matter what others say be that Russia, the American people or the world. The ballance is lost!

It would be a miracol to stop USA from another genocide.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Pericle]


Exactly.

Every war is preempted with propaganda.

Afghanistan = "Al Qaeda carried out 9/11"
Iraq = "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Iran = "Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

I think this missile shield is a different form of propaganda, but still in preparation for a war with Russia. They don't mention Russia as a target, but they shift the focus of it somewhere else, while still getting what they intended in the first place.

This "War On Terror" has given the United States justification to spiral completely out of control.

First strike ability is something that has never existed in the USSR/Russia-United States rivalry. This missile shield WILL give that first strike ability. The non-existence of a strike capability, while defending against the retaliatory attack, is probably what has kept both countries from going to war all this time. If anyone of those countries would have had it during the Cold War, things would be very different right now.

But now that it's here, and the United States has it, do you think they're going to not use it, or use it against a weak prize like Iran? Certainly not.

Like Pericle said, all balance will be lost if Russia is defeated, and vice versa actually. China is on the rise, but not up there yet. That would be the only thing left standing in the path of whoever came out of that war less destroyed.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Iran is a threat to who, exactly? Israel? And if they are such a threat, why not put the missile defense system in Azerbaijan?


Iran is a potential (as in not that hard to imagine them doing it rather than they theoretically
could do it) threat to Europe and to Israel.

Now one think I need to note.
I don't particularly like what Israel has done since it was founded, and I don't agree with
it being created in the first place, but that's the past, and even though Israel has
several major negatives, it also has just as many major positives, so I'm not a
pro-Israel Zionist or anything.

Also, I would'nt mind locating the system in Azerbaijan.




We, along with Europe, allow Israel to have nuclear weapons.


Technically we don't know if Israel has nuclear weapons, they're more than capable
of building them, and they most likely do, but there is about a 25% chance they don't have them.

Personally I don't think Iran or Israel or any other nation for that matter should have
Nuclear weapons, but it's pretty difficult to get the ones that do to give them up,
which is why we have to prevent any more countries from having them.




We, along with Europe, are marching through the middle east stealing resources and occupying the land.


Well, I'd say it's more us with some minor UK help.

Europe basically does'nt like or approve of the war, and really has disinvolved itself from it.




And then, when Iran takes defensive measures, as this missile defense system of ours is supposed to be, then all of a sudden they're terrorists and they're evil.


What measures do you mean?

Not trying to sound rude or mean?
I'm just curious what you are referring to.

On a side note, I would still consider Iran evil regardless of if we were in this ignorant
'War on Terrorism' and in the Middle-East or not.




Is that how the world is supposed to work? We can run over everybody, and if they don't lay down and die, and submit to our force, they're evil?


No, it's not.




Are we the only ones allowed to defend ourselves? When our "freedom is attacked", we're the victims, poor us, but then it's ok to meddle in their political systems


If their political systems are no free and democratic, than yes we have every right
to 'meddle' with it.




Who the hell died and put us in charge of policing the world?


I blame Germany.

If it had'nt been for the World Wars, America would not most likely be a Superpower
and the way it is now.

By the way, despite what you want to believe, Russia is still a superpower.




Now picture this, Brazil has the same 'destruction of all' mentality as Iran allegedly does. Brazil is threatening Russia and Russian interests and allies. Brazil is our ally. So, in order for a "defensive" stance, Russia sets up missile defense systems in Cuba. Now ask yourself, as an American citizen, or if you were President, what would your response be?


Well, we would'nt be friends with any nation like that, so I don't see how a similar situation
could be justifiable.

But to answer the question, as long as the system was Defencive and not completely aimed
at us, I would'nt have a problem with it.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Iran is a potential (as in not that hard to imagine them doing it rather than they theoretically
could do it) threat to Europe and to Israel.

Now one think I need to note.
I don't particularly like what Israel has done since it was founded, and I don't agree with
it being created in the first place, but that's the past, and even though Israel has
several major negatives, it also has just as many major positives, so I'm not a
pro-Israel Zionist or anything.

Also, I would'nt mind locating the system in Azerbaijan.


Of course they have the potential. That's not the point. I don't mind a missile defense shield if it's a genuine threat.

Azerbaijan borders Iran. Why can't we just build it there?




Technically we don't know if Israel has nuclear weapons, they're more than capable
of building them, and they most likely do, but there is about a 25% chance they don't have them.

Personally I don't think Iran or Israel or any other nation for that matter should have
Nuclear weapons, but it's pretty difficult to get the ones that do to give them up,
which is why we have to prevent any more countries from having them.


Israel admitted to it.

Iran is developing them because Israel has them. We can't be hypocrites and expect everyone in the world to fall in line.




Well, I'd say it's more us with some minor UK help.

Europe basically does'nt like or approve of the war, and really has disinvolved itself from it.


That's true, but they're not really doing anything to stop it either.




What measures do you mean?

Not trying to sound rude or mean?
I'm just curious what you are referring to.

On a side note, I would still consider Iran evil regardless of if we were in this ignorant
'War on Terrorism' and in the Middle-East or not.


They're arming themselves and allegedly pursuing a nuclear bomb development. Those are defensive measures.

Give me an honest answer, if you were in charge of Iran, and everything that is happening now was happening under your regime, would you just sit there and do nothing? Or would you see it as a threat and defend yourself?




If their political systems are no free and democratic, than yes we have every right
to 'meddle' with it.


I don't think we do. But I guess we have to agree to disagree.




I blame Germany.

If it had'nt been for the World Wars, America would not most likely be a Superpower
and the way it is now.


I don't really think Germany gave us the right to police the world. I agree with what you're basically saying in that it made us more powerful with their downfall, which encouraged policing. But I don't think anybody has the right to police the world.




Well, we would'nt be friends with any nation like that, so I don't see how a similar situation
could be justifiable.

But to answer the question, as long as the system was Defencive and not completely aimed
at us, I would'nt have a problem with it.


We are friends with somebody like that - Israel.

Besides, the situation was hypothetical. I didn't mean to start an argument over minor technicalities.

And the point was, the system would most likely be "aimed" at us if that occurred. Like I said before, a defensive system can be offensive.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I pity the fool who loses any sleep over this pathetic neo-cold war big hat/no cattle bluster. If the US and Russia were really going to put their money where there mouth is and destroy each other, they would have done it in the 1960s.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I pity the fool who loses any sleep over this pathetic neo-cold war big hat/no cattle bluster. If the US and Russia were really going to put their money where there mouth is and destroy each other, they would have done it in the 1960s.


So basically what you're saying is, because they didn't do it in the 1960's, there's never ever going to be any possible situation that arises at any point in the future that would lead the two to go to war?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Azerbaijan borders Iran. Why can't we just build it there?


I suppose because we've already worked out negotiations with Poland and the other countries
it's suppose to be in, and we would have to start over again with Azerbaijan.

I can't really give you the answer, since I'm not exactly a strategic strategist
or socio-political-economist.

It may make Iran attack to, I'm really not sure.



Israel admitted to it.


Last time I checked they neither deny or confirm they have them, and don't officially
have them, that is they are not internationally recognized as a nuclear capable country.

I don't doubt they have them though.




That's true, but they're not really doing anything to stop it either.


Short of going to war with us, what can they do?

They stopped supporting the war, they are vocal when we do something wrong,
I don't see what else they can do.




They're arming themselves and allegedly pursuing a nuclear bomb development. Those are defensive measures.


Well I suppose arming themselves is a Defencive measure, though honestly I never
even really thought about it, since I figure every country arms itself, or at least updates.




Give me an honest answer, if you were in charge of Iran, and everything that is happening now was happening under your regime, would you just sit there and do nothing? Or would you see it as a threat and defend yourself?


I'd seek diplomatic actions, try to reach compromises and if need be would allocate
Defencive systems.




I don't really think Germany gave us the right to police the world. I agree with what you're basically saying in that it made us more powerful with their downfall, which encouraged policing. But I don't think anybody has the right to police the world.


We, as a single nation should'nt police the world, rather the world should police the world,
or at least if we're going to, we should only take actions if we have the support of the
majority of the world behind us in it.




We are friends with somebody like that - Israel.


Israel is a free liberal democracy, Iran is a limited democracy theocracy.
I meant ideologically speaking.




And the point was, the system would most likely be "aimed" at us if that occurred. Like I said before, a defensive system can be offensive.


Not necessarily.
Though many Defencive systems are more or less interchangeable with Offensive systems.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Can we not learn from history.....

Are humans incapable of such a simple task!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Come on people!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I suppose because we've already worked out negotiations with Poland and the other countries
it's suppose to be in, and we would have to start over again with Azerbaijan.

I can't really give you the answer, since I'm not exactly a strategic strategist
or socio-political-economist.

It may make Iran attack to, I'm really not sure.


Azerbaijan already agreed to it.



Last time I checked they neither deny or confirm they have them, and don't officially
have them, that is they are not internationally recognized as a nuclear capable country.

I don't doubt they have them though.


I heard Olmert slipped up in a press conference or something and said that Israel had them.

But whether it's "official" or not doesn't really matter. If they do indeed have them, then they still have that strike ability.




Short of going to war with us, what can they do?

They stopped supporting the war, they are vocal when we do something wrong,
I don't see what else they can do.


Diplomatic pressure can work. They're not even trying that.




Well I suppose arming themselves is a Defencive measure, though honestly I never
even really thought about it, since I figure every country arms itself, or at least updates.


The Iranian "threat" was never this big until we went storming through the Middle East and allowed Israel to do what it does. It's a defensive measure for them.




I'd seek diplomatic actions, try to reach compromises and if need be would allocate
Defencive systems.


How can you seek diplomatic actions when the country threatening you won't even talk to you? I'm sure Iran would talk to us, but we refuse to talk to them.




Not necessarily.
Though many Defencive systems are more or less interchangeable with Offensive systems.


Defensive systems create offensive capabilities. If you can defend against a retaliatory strike, then you have the upper hand for an offensive first strike.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
@ omega1

Your post reminds me of this:

(...)

You’ve been watching us since the Montgolfiers, when was that? 1650s?

God: ‘Close. 1783’

Well, if you’ve been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven’t intervened more often. Why, if you have that sort of power, did you allow such incredible suffering and human misery?

God: ‘It seems to be necessary.’

NECESSARY??!!

God: ‘Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins, they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to manipulate the environment. Unfortunately for the dolphin, his is a dead end. He may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet Earth - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.

Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never require. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.

Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.’

And what of pity for those have to live through this torment?

God: ‘I can’t say this in any way that doesn’t sound callous, but how much time do you spend worrying about the ants you run over in your car? I know it sounds horrendous to you, but you have to see the bigger picture. At this stage in human development, you’re becoming interesting but not yet important.’

(...)

Is there worse to come?

God: ‘Much

Genetic warfare for instance?'

God: ‘Distinct Possibility’

And the problem is… that we need to develop all these technologies, acquire all this dangerous knowledge in order to reach level two. But at any stage that knowledge could also cause our own destruction

God: ‘If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.’

(...)

This is an alleged story of someone meeting with "God" if you will.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by Pericle]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by Pericle]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
its a global chess game and everyone is positioning their pieces. with the way the oil game is going down america is positioning themselves to cut russia'a throat if need be. its almost like a counter strike move by america to try and take control of the business befire russia can. russia is in postion now to take over the oil export business, seeing whats going with us and iraq/iran. look at whats been going on with russia the last couple years with their oil & gas exports blooming, the hardball they play with europe, how the putin got back control of russia's oil industry and with siberia having a pretty vast amount of oil and new drilling taking place. america sees this and wants to stop it some how. if/when america starts using miltary force against iran and whoever else; doesnt that leave russia in perfect position to assume control of the oil business with new and eager customers in europe and oil hungry china?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
So basically by putting missile defence systems right near Russia, it means that if they wanted to, the USA could attack Russia and Russia wouldn't be able to do anything about it?

Another question, if Europe don't want to be attacked, why aren't they the ones building the defence systems?

oh and, is it a possibility that Russia would answer this by building anti-missile systems in Cuba?


cheers

[edit on 23/6/2007 by malganis]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
Another question, if Europe don't want to be attacked, why aren't they the ones building the defence systems?

[edit on 23/6/2007 by malganis]


i would say because the rest of europe, basically, are lap dogs to the east and west and pretty much stuck in the middle of it.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join