Originally posted by Hand of HecateYou left out annihlation given that America is promoting violence as standard, the balance of power is changing and the world is full of WMD's.
As a global society, we stand at a crossroads with a short window of opportunity. One road leads to global prosperity, peace, freedom and perhaps, collectively, pursuing exploration of space and other grandeous ideas. The other path leads to continued stagnation, economic crisis, famine, war, crime, hate and the gradual decline of Western civilization. You chose.
Originally posted by Rochadethis is a fairly common argument but where are the raw materials in Bosnia? where is the flow of raw materials from Iraq to the U.S.? where is the need for subterfuge? if the US REALLY needs oil, why couldn't they just take it? and if they don't need it, why this argument?
@kirksey957
But occupying the country and just to steal its raw materials let me seriously doubt the goal of the US to spread freedom and democracy as they do it only in those states which are uniqly rich on raw materials.
Originally posted by kirksey957Why bother? Stang, while well intentioned I'm sure, is a one trick pony. Apparently, he's never going to get it, never going to be able to delve deeper than the surface of the issue. In the face of any challenge, all he'll ever do is regurgitate someone elses ideas over, and over, ad infinitum.
I did not word that very well. What I meant to ask was do you believe that Allied interventions only escalated causualties and civilian deaths. Also, what would you have done about Auschwitz and the holocost?
The second world war had a scale of brutality that has faded into history. Forgetting trauma and pain is a survival mechanism after all and in the recent past we have not experienced carnage on the scale that WWII brought to us. Something like 20million Russians, 6million Jews, 300K Americans, etc... Perhaps military action like we see in the middle east will prevent another WW? Perhaps policing the world to one degreee or another is vital to global stability... even if we do a crappy job at it? Perhaps having the US as a target for hatred and terrorism actually prevents a myriad of smaller global conflicts? Perhaps a strong US leading the world, even if they screw up, even if people die because of it, is necessary for a long term unified humanity (it is my opinion that we have to unify globally and there can only be one leader)?
A major terrorist attack seems inevitable, a nuclear weapon to easy to obtain, taking a hardline approach to terrorism seems reasonable despite the 'collateral damage'...
Originally posted by STANGPerhaps... Perhaps the problem stems from the scientists, engineers and technicians. I doubt that any political leader in the last 200 years understands the weapons that are handed to him by his scientists, engineers and technicians. Since we can be reasonably certain that all political leaders will continually try to accumulate power, perhaps it is the scientists, engineers and technicians whom we should be holding accountable.
No, the world will be beyond help at that point, thanks to things like America promoting the use of violence, stocks of nuclear weapons, etc.
I'm sure that Bush understands the capability of nuclear weapons such as those used on Hiroshima, killing 70000, and Nagasaki, killing another 70000 only a few days later.
He also seems to understand the capability of other WMD's, having lied to the world about them being in Iraq.
What we need to teach politicians is that the public will hold them accountable when they lie, when they resort to violence, when they are corrupted by personal financial interests, etc.
First, we need to overcome our own apathy.
Originally posted by STANGthat's not at all realistic ...
I would try to get Hitler with minimum casualties.
I don't get your point.
America went after Saddam with extensive casualties, based on a lie, and when there were other options.
there's a bunch of armchair generals around, think they could've handled anything better than the government ... every decision is a mistake to them .... they don't have the briefings or the expertise .... but they do have a lot of hindsight and opinion ...