RE: Threat to world peace???????

RE: Threat to world peace??????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 8:57:58 AM)
Yes, he is a threat to world peace. No, he should not be tried.

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:03:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And the US's actions were in reaction to the USSR "forgetting to return" half of Europe after WWII (oh, yeah, they "forgot" to leave Iran, too) and declaring their goal of world domination. Ooops. Little fish get eaten by big fish, which get eaten by bigger fish. Trace it back further, if you wish. Eventually, the US wasn't even around. Then who ya gonna blame for all the world's ills? Oh, that's right. The British. No ... the church! No ... the Romans! [:D] FirmKY When did the USSR claim its goal was world domination? I think the USA made that claim on its behalf. While the USSR remained occupier of part of Europe, the USA also kept its share of the spoils. The USSR wanted the states under its control as buffer states, having suffered acts of aggression by both France and Germany in the past, not an irrational stance even if it wasn't welcome. The USA wanted to keep its gains for ideological reasons. The placement of nuclear missiles in Turkey was still an act of aggression that led to USSR wanting to place nuclear weapons in Cuba. While one can argue about illegal and legal in regard to wars, the Iraq invasion was a blatant act of aggression and a danger to world peace. Especially now we see the USA's aggressive posture towards Iran and Russia supplying Iran with missile defence weapons and noises from China appearing to support such deployment.

caitlyn -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver When did the USSR claim its goal was world domination? I don't think when Nikita Khruschev said, "We will bury you!", he was taking about a day at the beach making sand castles. [;)] A powers are equally to blame. Take any small, poor nation on Earth and make them a power, and they would be doing the same sorts of things.

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:13:49 AM)
Accepting it, and not wanting to wipe us out entirely are worlds of thinking apart. Influence does take lifetimes. Many wars are started over religion or involve it greatly some how, some way even if just a false front for the real reasons..greed/power/false sense of safety if you have control of xy or z. Over time though with influences being present it has allowed for atleast tolerance and existence of even if only to staive off for awhile another war sooner than it might of happened. It will probably not happen in our lifetime I agree there. It hasn't happened between Muslims and Jews as a whole Ever. At this point no matter what decisions are made ..they will be wrong. In these cases it to me is a situation of choosing the less wrong for any given moment, and hoping for the best. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And the US's actions were in reaction to the USSR "forgetting to return" half of Europe after WWII (oh, yeah, they "forgot" to leave Iran, too) and declaring their goal of world domination. Ooops. Little fish get eaten by big fish, which get eaten by bigger fish. Trace it back further, if you wish. Eventually, the US wasn't even around. Then who ya gonna blame for all the world's ills? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver When did the USSR claim its goal was world domination? I think the USA made that claim on its behalf. While the USSR remained occupier of part of Europe, the USA also kept its share of the spoils. The USSR wanted the states under its control as buffer states, having suffered acts of aggression by both France and Germany in the past, not an irrational stance even if it wasn't welcome. The USA wanted to keep its gains ideologically reasons. The placement of nuclear missiles in Turkey was still an act of aggression that led to USSR wanting to place nuclear weapons in Cuba. The USSR wanted the states under its control as buffer states, having suffered acts of aggression by both France and Germany in the past, not an irrational stance even if it wasn't welcome. Strange ... You excuse any other nations activities as somehow "justified" ... except for any US actions, which are automatically "evil" and unjustified. Got it. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver While one can argue about illegal and legal in regard to wars, the Iraq invasion was a blatant act of aggression and a danger to world peace. Especially now we see the USA's aggressive posture towards Iran and Russia supplying Iran with missile defence weapons and noises from China appearing to support such deployment. Russia wants the money. No moral component there. They'd sell their mothers overies if it got them a few extra pennies. China wants Iran's oil. That makes their "support" of a repressive, aggressive, terrorist supporting nation who is trying to build nuclear weapons (and wants to "wipe Israel off the map") ok, right? While the US, which is supposed to be the nation greedy for all the oil in the Middle East, and the Capitalist evil incarnate of the world ... wrong for opposing their nuclear ambitions? Funny logic there, meat. FirmKY

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I don't think when Nikita Khruschev said, "We will bury you!", he was taking about a day at the beach making sand castles. [;)] I don't think Khruschev's response to US aggression, perceived or not, is a statement of intent about dominating the world. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn A powers are equally to blame. Take any small, poor nation on Earth and make them a power, and they would be doing the same sorts of things. You'll get no argument from me on that score. Which is why it is imperative to stop making the same mistakes of the past. Once it was acceptable to wipe out whole nations, now it isn't. We are moving forward, though not fast enough.

caitlyn -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:23:01 AM)
Somehow, I don't see your "Bash America Plan", as a step forward. You are just the same thing, on the other side of the fence, if you ask me.

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:39:25 AM)
quote: Once it was acceptable to wipe out whole nations, now it isn't. We are moving forward, though not fast enough Just because I don't know the answer to this..what whole nations has the US ever wiped out or even slightly hinted this was their intent when they went to war somewhere? Infact where has the US ever fought that after all was said in done..they did not somehow atleast make the attempt to repair or help repair the damage that had been done. Not asking for success stories here..but any place where the US did not even bother to take a second glance and not offer some sort of assistance somehow afterwards? Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:44:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The USSR wanted the states under its control as buffer states, having suffered acts of aggression by both France and Germany in the past, not an irrational stance even if it wasn't welcome. Strange ... You excuse any other nations activities as somehow "justified" ... except for any US actions, which are automatically "evil" and unjustified. Got it. What was the difference between the USSR fighting Nazi Germany and staying put and the USA fighting Germany and staying put? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Russia wants the money. No moral component there. They'd sell their mothers overies if it got them a few extra pennies. China wants Iran's oil. That makes their "support" of a repressive, aggressive, terrorist supporting nation who is trying to build nuclear weapons (and wants to "wipe Israel off the map") ok, right? While the US, which is supposed to be the nation greedy for all the oil in the Middle East, and the Capitalist evil incarnate of the world ... wrong for opposing their nuclear ambitions? So the USA isn't interested in money and didn't invade Iraq for oil? The irony is the US won the cold war and now all countries are capitalist and competing for resources. The US has been unable to get past its humiliation of being kicked out of Iran in the Iranian revolution like it is unable to get past being kicked out of Cuba, it remains bitter. As for Iran being a terrorist state, that is subjective, one can easily say the same thing about the USA if one is objective. They both deal with freedom fighters/terrorists.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:50:13 AM)
"Lets wait and see if a Muslim fundamentalist group get their hands on a Nuclear weapon. " Such as the rulers of Pakistan?

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned quote: Once it was acceptable to wipe out whole nations, now it isn't. We are moving forward, though not fast enough Just because I don't know the answer to this..what whole nations has the US ever wiped out or even slightly hinted this was their intent when they went to war somewhere? I never said the USA has wiped out a whole nation. I said it was once acceptable to wipe out whole nations. Though the plains Indians will do for an example but that wasn't my point, I meant international opinion no longer accepts that countries wiping out whole nations. (though sadly if one country wanted to I doubt anyone would do anything about it unless oil was involved.)

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:52:28 AM)
I wonder why Bush has been quietly replacing Federal Prosecutors, as reported today in various news outlets? Hmm.. Could it be his potential exposure to criminal liability, and an attempt to stack the deck with "Ideologically Appropriate" individuals?

caitlyn -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:55:24 AM)
Get with the program starshine ... [;)] We are a bad country, full of bad people. We didn't do anything but get in everyone's way in WWI and WWII. The Marshall Plan was a plot to take over Europe. Taking action to stop genocide in the Balkens, while all the Euro's were sitting on their ass and doing nothing ... that was all wrong too. The world would be better without us ... does that help clear things up? [;)]

luckydog1 -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:56:25 AM)
Meat says..."What was the difference between the USSR fighting Nazi Germany and staying put and the USA fighting Germany and staying put? " The reality is that the the USA was asked to stay in most of the nations it was in after ww2. France for example asked us to leave and we did. The rest have begged us to stay. Hungary asked the USSR to leave and was attacked. All of the nations we were in held elections and governments representing the people took over, and asked us to stay. Zero of the nations the USSR was in held elections, the USSR appointed leaders and kept them in power through force. Meat really doesn't grasp this stuff. Meat somehow ignores that the entire goal of the Comintern/USSR was world wide revolution under the "vanguard of the USSR".

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 9:59:12 AM)
Well, the Capitalists have won, and The Workers continue to get fucked. If The Workers get fucked under either system, why should The Workers support EITHER system?

luckydog1 -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:04:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, the Capitalists have won, and The Workers continue to get fucked. If The Workers get fucked under either system, why should The Workers support EITHER system? Do you have a third option? Anarchy is not good for workers at all, it means starving to death.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, the Capitalists have won, and The Workers continue to get fucked. If The Workers get fucked under either system, why should The Workers support EITHER system? Do you have a third option? Anarchy is not good for workers at all, it means starving to death. Anarchy works only until someone with a stick takes control. Economic Democracy? The way I see it, is that Laws are passed for the benefit of Artificial Legal Entities. That's gotta stop.

luckydog1 -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:11:46 AM)
Anarchy does not work at all. People beg for someone to pick up the stick. New Orleans post Katrina is a perfect example

Real0ne -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:17:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, the Capitalists have won, and The Workers continue to get fucked. If The Workers get fucked under either system, why should The Workers support EITHER system? sadly they only fuck workers in round one, after that workers simply bend over asd ask for it.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Get with the program starshine ... [;)] We are a bad country, full of bad people. We didn't do anything but get in everyone's way in WWI and WWII. The Marshall Plan was a plot to take over Europe. Taking action to stop genocide in the Balkens, while all the Euro's were sitting on their ass and doing nothing ... that was all wrong too. The world would be better without us ... does that help clear things up? [;)] [sm=biggrin.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125