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

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

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

Message

subfever -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 10:55:43 AM)
My opinion is not in response to anyone in particular here: As long as Man possesses prejudice and greed, we will never see world peace. Nor will we ever see a level playing field. The strong will continue to exploit the weak. Some of the strong will be subtle about it, and others will be more arrogant.

tetherboy -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:00:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladysekhmetka Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act:: I mean, the last I knew, having taken American Gov. and what not in high school, is that a President has to ask permission from Congress to declare war. The whole checks and balance thing [sm=rolleyes.gif] Wanted to clear up a little misunderstanding on this. The president has the power to wage war for 90 days without permission from Congress. To continue from that point, would require a formal declaration of war via the Congress. Correct me please if I am wrong, but Congress did consent to the military action.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:01:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tetherboy quote: ORIGINAL: ladysekhmetka Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act:: I mean, the last I knew, having taken American Gov. and what not in high school, is that a President has to ask permission from Congress to declare war. The whole checks and balance thing [sm=rolleyes.gif] Wanted to clear up a little misunderstanding on this. The president has the power to wage war for 90 days without permission from Congress. To continue from that point, would require a formal declaration of war via the Congress. Correct me please if I am wrong, but Congress did consent to the military action. The controlling document is the Congressional AUMF in Iraq. Since it was predicated on a bunch of lies, I'm not sure it's still valid. Anyway, take a read

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:18:25 AM)
I knew I was lagging behind. Thankyou for clearing that up for me caitlyn. :) Think of everything ..there will always be a division if not many amongst the peoples. This is not unique by far to the US. Other countrys "who appear" to be the good guys or on higher moral grounds than the US during any given situation will have their own peoples going through the same and different divisions within their own borders, and not even related to anything the US is currently doing or not doing. Just watching the news..geez even reading history shows this current Evil label has pretty much been applied to umm..well just about every country. Bush a threat to world peace? Hardly. The US a threat? Absolutely because we currently are the big dog on the block, and the little dogs don't like not being the big dog. Will we fall someday? Probably but thank goodness were scrappers, and will fight till the bitter end. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin "edited because I apparently was to happy".

NorthernGent -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:26:25 AM)
Trying bush alone will achieve nothing. Lock him up and someone will take his place. All members of the US and British governments should be tried. Tomorrow's politicians will then think twice about just 'following orders'. If a government deliberately misleads the public in order to achieve business aims (and in the process directly and indirectly cause the deaths of a lot of people) they should be held to account. Otherwise, why don't we just let them do what they want, why even vote? There are two issues a) war crimes b) war crimes in our name - they're our politicians and if we don't hold them to account it appears that we're happy to let them go about their business of killing and maiming when in order to achieve their aims. If a person has no morals, stay out of government. Ditto, if you think your morals can be swayed by a few quid and a career. In truth, I can't see a trial and even if there is I can't see it having any impact. The trial won't take place in either the US or Britain so both parties will simply ignore any ruling (as per when the US government walked out of The International Court of Justice and refused to abide by an international ruling to reimburse Nicaragua for an invasion of sovereignty).

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:40:21 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? [;)] Being British, the Marshall plan is really immaterial to me. Actually the Marshall plan made a lot of sense for the US too just as it makes a lot of sense now for the west to help develop undeveloped countries rather raping them for their assets and allowing them to become failed states where terrorism flourishes. You were the only ones in the Balkens?

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 11:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 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". Austria asked the USSR to leave and they did. The point is that governments ask the occupying powers to stay regardless of who the occupying forces were. The fact that Britain joined the US in an agressive war in Iraq against its citizens will doesn't mean it was right and its citizens have to echo their government's policy. Fuck knows who was fucking who and who was sliding who a wad a cash in the corridors of power. The fact was that the next world war was supposed to be fought in Europe, not in the USSR or the USA so don't expect your ordinary Joe European to be grateful for the possibility of that privilege.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 12:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Austria asked the USSR to leave and they did. The point is that governments ask the occupying powers to stay regardless of who the occupying forces were. The fact that Britain joined the US in an agressive war in Iraq against its citizens will doesn't mean it was right and its citizens have to echo their government's policy. Austria: The Soviets failed to get it's puppet government to take control, and there was a lot of pressure from the rest of the Allies. The issue of Austrian independence dragged on for over 10 years after the war, and it was primarily the Austrians themselves, refusing to become a puppet, along with the power of the other Allies that allowed it to stay out of Soviet control. A taste: Between 1946 and 1953 the Austrian government implemented more than 550 laws over the objection of the Soviet Union. One such measure was the Soviet seizure of German assets in July 1946 as war reparations. To protect the Austrian economy the Austrian government nationalized all German assets, but when the Soviet Union attempted to veto the nationalisation law it was overruled by the western allies. This did not prevent the Soviet Union from seizing assets in its occupation zone. The Soviet Union attempted to block Austria's participation in the Marshall Plan and the KPO pulled out of the government over the issue. However, 1946 Control Agreement enabled Austria to freely sign up to the plan and also join the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Why not talk about the Soviet occupation of: 1. The northern Japanese Islands, 2. Iran, 3. The rest of eastern Europe 4. Other areas How about Russian activities of oppression and political blackmail going on right now? Had any presidential political candidates poisoned by the US lately? US cut off anyone's petro pipelines to make a political point? Had any US political opponents got sick and died of radiation sickness lately? Where's your outrage, meat? Oh, that's right. The US has always been the only evil empire in the world. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The fact was that the next world war was supposed to be fought in Europe, not in the USSR or the USA so don't expect your ordinary Joe European to be grateful for the possibility of that privilege. If I remember correctly, the US had to be brought kicking and screaming into the war, that you Europeans had gotten yourself into. That's one way to look at it. Not necessarily one based in a full understanding of politics and world history, but just as valid as your opinion. FirmKY

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 12:36:50 PM)
If I remember correctly, the US had to be brought kicking and screaming into the war, that you Europeans had gotten yourself into Edited because i was wrong. You joined the second world war after an attack on pearl harbour, hawaii where you declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on you three days later. So nobody dragged you into the war.

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The Soviets failed to get it's puppet government to take control, and there was a lot of pressure from the rest of the Allies. The issue of Austrian independence dragged on for over 10 years after the war, and it was primarily the Austrians themselves, refusing to become a puppet, along with the power of the other Allies that allowed it to stay out of Soviet control. Why not talk about the Soviet occupation of: 1. The northern Japanese Islands, 2. Iran, 3. The rest of eastern Europe 4. Other areas How about Russian activities of oppression and political blackmail going on right now? Had any presidential political candidates poisoned by the US lately? US cut off anyone's petro pipelines to make a political point? Had any US political opponents got sick and died of radiation sickness lately? With regard to the US and USSR, pot and kettle spring to mind. As for my lack of outrage with the Soviets, there are none on this board to have a debate with or I would. Just because Britain and France were just as imperial as the USSR/Russia and USA in the cold war and now, doesn't mean I have to shut up and think it fine. I think Britain at its height was just as absymal. As for assassinations, the US happily topples governments it doesn't like and assorted deaths that go along with that. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If I remember correctly, the US had to be brought kicking and screaming into the war, that you Europeans had gotten yourself into. I think you were attacked if my memory serves me well.

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:05:55 PM)
think you were attacked if my memory serves me well. Your memory didnt serve that well lol. I said this in the post above yours so you technically only had to remember it for around twenty seconds lol [:D]

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:07:57 PM)
What gets me about all this superpower stuff is the paranoia it feeds. I travelled extensively around eastern Europe when I was a teenager in the early seventies. Yep you could and you didn't need a visa in some countries and most people I met weren't really that much worse off than my family in Britain. What caused the rift in Europe was superpower politics and the paranoia that goes along with it which is why I'm so against all the paranoia that feeds international politics, it creates the conflicts by making self fullfilling prophesies.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:08:22 PM)
But we showed those Japanese, didn't we? And today US Marines are STILL hanging out on Okinawa...

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:09:35 PM)
What about the rift between us and Spain? Super powers did not cause that.

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle But we showed those Japanese, didn't we? And today US Marines are STILL hanging out on Okinawa... So proud lol. The USA only became involved in world war two when it became in their interest. When we requested help you turned us down other than supply aid which we paid for. Pity Tony Blair didnt tell George Bush to go stick it when you asked us for help. Edited to add - How did you win that war? You resorted to nuclear war fare on hiroshima and nagasaki. An estimated 140,000 people were killed in those bombings. Big pat on the back for you.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 1:13:27 PM)
"Pity Tony Blair didnt tell George Bush to go stick it when you asked us for help." I'll agree with that sentiment.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 2:21:35 PM)
FR: To correct a few mis-understandings about the US entry into WWII: The American people didn't want anything to do with any of it, and it took some statesman on our side of the pond to try marginally to prepare for it. In particular, the Lend Lease program was started by a horror strong President who went against the popular will, and the political winds within the US. There were talk of gasp impeachment because of many of the blatantly illegal methods used by Roosevelt to give some aid to the UK prior to the US's entry. The draft was passed by a single vote in congress, before Pearl Harbor, by a statesman who voted against his own desires, and popular opinion on his district. And gasp, even though it was the Japanese that attacked us, Roosevelt made the obviously wrong decision to put the bulk of American war effort against Germany - who hadn't really done much to us. Certainly they hadn't attacked us - it was the Japanese, damnit! The term "isolationist" came from this period of American history, and so, yes, I think it's quite appropriate to say that the US was dragged kicking and screaming into the second world war. If it hadn't been for a strong, visionary President who was accused of being a dictator, and if it wasn't for the suprise attack at Pearl Harbor that woke up the major of the American citizens to the danger, then we would have certainly taken a "miss" on that little European scuffle. Substitute "Bush" for "Roosevelt" and "Iraq" for "Germany", and there seems to be a lot of similarities to me. FirmKY

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 2:29:36 PM)
Ok so presuming you are correct (and you are not) that the USA was a part of the war before pearl harbour would you care to prove you were dragged into it or are you back peddling on that one? Edited to add germany and italy declared war on you three days after pearl harbour. The USA appears to have taken on what they thought were the little guys Germany and italy and then very bravely killed an estimated 140,000 people on august the 6th 1945 in a nuke attack on Japan.

WyrdRich -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 2:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation How did you win that war? Manufacturing. Our factories had oceans to protect them against bombing and we built stuff a lot faster than it could be destroyed.

Sinergy -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 2:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Should Bush be tried? Of course he should and Blair too but it won't happen. We keep show trials for dictators, not democratic leaders that lie and start illegal wars. History is always written by the victors. Or, in this case, the US military will protect the following list of people... http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91 http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/2006/10/president-bush-indicted-for-war-crimes.html ...from being tried in the Hague. Unfortunately for him... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051028&articleId=1159 ...is that Monkeyboy could be tried under US law as well. The method used by Nixon when he got caught breaking the law was to resign and let Ford pardon him. Besides not having to spend time in the Big House, this prevented anybody from investigating his crimes. Ford was not complicit in the Watergate scandal. One question is whether Monkeyboy is intelligent enough to figure out a way to leave office and let Cheney pardon him. This puts Cheney in the cross hairs of the US investigators, with nobody to pardon him after he pardons Bush. Wonder how far down the food chain in the White House they will have to have people resign in order to have somebody in office who was not complicit in the invasion, who would be willing to issue pardons. Bush resigns, Cheney resigns, and now we have Pelosi as president. Not sure she would be willing to pardon anybody in the current administration. The clock is ticking... Sinergy

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875