Is America heading to war?

1. 66

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   With the Pentagon's global missile shield and the encirclement of Russia and its allies, is the US intending to see what will be its "enemies"' reactions if it launches first a nuclear attack? Does it mean that it is its intentions? Why are we provoking them? Once again, who is the aggressor? The Russian fleet will acquire 50 new warships, 20 new submarines by 2020. What the Bush's administration planned, happened in what way should we avoid the info? Russia is opening naval bases in Cuba, Vietnam, Seychelles... to counter-react the US military pawns. When will the outbid stop? Why are we escalating the violence? Is America really heading to the 3rd world war? It looks like it.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We already are, and have been, engaged in war. We still have troops in Afghanistan, and all sorts of other places like Iraq.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm referring to a nuclear war.

         replyreport
2. 86

   crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

   I don't think either the USA or Russia will ever use nuclear wepons. If anyone ever does it will be muslim extremists.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's what Europe thought of Hitler before and after he invaded Poland in 1939. What are you basing your argumentation upon when you emphasize that if it had to happen it would be under the aegis of muslims? The US threw 2 nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945 and you are telling me that the muslims are the ones we should fear. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 (not a long ago), the Russians were the ones who chickened out, not us. It means that we don't care about the future consequences and that we are ready to jump in a nuclear war. As crazy as it may seem, history is speaking here, not in our favor!

      replyreport
      1. 86

         crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I can see the situation where the USA would use nuclear wepons. But I think they might use them on China before Russia. China holds a lot of US debt and it could happen.
         
         You are right about Cuban Missle Crisis. The US and Russia came the closest ever to using nuclear weapons. I grew up in Key West.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just a side issue note:  China were smart enough to off-load most of your debt onto Japan who, as a satellite of the US, were pretty much forced to take it.
            
            However, China has opened up currency exchange with Japan,which requires holding each others debt, so now Japan has the dodgy trillions of US debt with little chance of repayment, and China holds the keys to Japanese survival if that debt goes bad.  Not hard to see the long term outcome of those arrangements with Japan back in the Asian fold, the new 'seabourne' silk route linking Asia with India, Africa and europe.

            replyreport
   2. 78

      RecoverTodayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It will be North Korea...they are very dangerous.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Why didn't it throw any yet? And why the US did? In regard to those two facts, who, objectively, will appear to be the danger?

         replyreport
3. 60

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   The coming nuclear war will be a US proxy war, probably started by Israel in response to some actual or more likely fabricated 'attack'.
   
   How the sides would line up is still not so certain - and until it is then the US will continue to pressure Israel to keep the missiles (they were given by the US) in their trousers.
   
   The map decides the location, the farther away geographically from the US the more likely it is to be.
   
   The krazy kristians are slavering for it as they think it fits their end days scenario - and so it is the will of their vicious god, from which confagration they think they will be ok as they are the chosen ones.  This thinking has been cleverly aggravated to the point of no return by the 9/11 attack that fulfilled the two towers prophesy that presages armageddon.
   
   The mid-east countries are either trying to maintain their culture and build a modern culture at the same time and are either sold out to the US and the west generally, or anti west.
   
   The recent election result in the US would appear to be a step back from some stupid escalation that could bring the event closer, but it is likely that it will go the other way next time - and a right wing moron with a fallout shelter and second home in Alaska or somewhere safe can start it off with some imagined impunity.
   
   We tend to forget that the world nuclear arsenals are pretty much balanced, the missiles of the USSR are still there, as are those of China and others.  The totally transparent twitterings of Hilary Clinton are clearly designed to keep Russia and China out of it all until it is over.
   
   My prediction would be that there will be a radioactive mess covering half the mid east at some time not so far off.  It is hard to imagine that this will stay in the region - and the new world order will have achieved their aims and will be happily sitting in their safe places ready to come out in a position of total domination. Domination over what is not so clear.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As I am reading your answer, I can't help thinking that it is a plausible version of what can happen in the middle east. So far, as I wrote it precedently our elite is mad enough to launch such an attack. Let us not forget that for a country that was against chemical and biological weapons (Iraq), we, ourselves, won the cesar with the agent orange in Vietnam (the Tu Du hospital has kept dead foetuses witnessing our inhumanity), with the mustard gas in Bari, Italy (another defense secret) in terrorism.

      replyreport
4. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   A nuclear war would destroy trade links, close borders and plunge the US into a depression that would make the recession look like a picnic.  It would be political death for any party responsible.  I don't see anyone deliberately doing that.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No-one ? maybe you don't have enough imagination

      replyreport
      1. 66

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It is not imagination that she's lacking but objectivity!

         replyreport
   2. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even the US after its historical background explained precedently? It is not a realistic view. Then what is this fuss about? Why are encircling China, Iran, Russia with military bases and pointing nukes in their directions? Why is Russia upgarding its fleet, its weaponry...?

      replyreport
5. 70

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   There is an agenda:
   
   1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE
   
   
   2. GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY - IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY
   
   3. UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING NEW LANGUAGE
   
   4. RULE PASSION - FAITH - TRADITION - AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON
   
   5. PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS
   
   6. LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT
   
   
   7. AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS
   
   
   8. BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES
   
   
   9. PRIZE TRUTH - BEAUTY - LOVE- SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE
   
   10. BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH - LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE - LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE
   
   
   http://thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      China tried to regulate its natality rate and it failed lamentably. Several years later, the male population is largely superior to the female's. The discrepancy is such that Chinese must import women to respond to the national demand.
      How would we guide reproduction, I mean, wisely?
      Rule passion, but without it life has no taste!
      I like the fact that humanity is so diverse, I would unite it in its diversity. We are people of reason above all, and it would be my motto.
      I, personally, don't think that international courts are efficient otherwise why would Bush and Co not be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity?
      Aren't we already prizing peace, the Nobel Prize, andwho got it? Europe. It is a joke!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         China has not failed to regulate its birth-rate at all - it has been a huge success in national terms.  The population now would be almost half a billion more without it !!!   have you ever been to China and seen just how many people live here ??  ever tried to get on a bus near rush hour ???
         
         On a personal level there have been issues, not as many as the west would like to promote.  Yes babies were left by the road which is terrible - but mostly all those babies were picked up and cared for.  I guess China could apologise for not having a revved up social care system but then they were dealing with near-starvation after centuries of mis-rule and plunder by colonial powers, including the US of course.
         
         Most Chinese will tell you that their dream would be to have loads of children, but they still almost wihout exception support the one-child policy.  And when you consider that this ends up a two child policy in reality (or 1.85 to be more precise) the sting goes out of it.   
         
         What is wrong with importing women ???

         replyreport
         1. 66

            maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There's nothing wrong in importing women. I just underlined the failure of a so-called birth controlled policy. It desequilibrates the population. What is the meter square per inhabitants? China is a vast country with different climates. Is China exploiting all its arable land?
            Malthus wrote his theory at the end of the 18th century, when new economists drew the map of the unsustanability of the earth did it also take into consideration, China as a potential grain provider?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               But the policy is an amazing success ! !    how do you see it as failure.  China can feed itself and develop at a rate never seen before because it has controlled its population.  The trivial issue that the ratio of available young men to women is around 10 girls to 11 or 12  boys is easily dealt with by importing the girls and exporting the guys - which is what is happening. 
               Also it is not essential that everyone finds a mate is it ?  unless have you fallen for the western government induced idea of family values and loads of kids in order to give them more poor people to govern?
               China will never be a major grain producer as it does not have the vast areas of flat water fed land on shich to do it.  Now Mongolia does, as does Russia - but these are not China.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Had it been impossible for China to import women to renew the population, what would have happened? How would men procreate without women? The fact that it led to a problem of desequilibrium of the population discredites the one child policy. Is it really the one child policy or the choice of the sex to keep? All over the world, women are dominating men quantitatively and societies have never experienced such a gap. And no, I don't praise the football team as the model of a family cell.
                  Russia is limited by its climate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     One child policy is not perfect - it comes with many problems, but the sum of those problems is hugely outweighed by the advantages to the country and its people as a whole.
                     
                     Why would it ever be impossible to import women ?
                     
                     In China the inequalities between the sexes are different in nature and expression.  Generally there is none of the ridiculous divisive twaddle of feminism and there appears to be a slow but sure movement toward more equality in some areas of life.  Interestingly the Chinese also operate many customary mechanisms to help in redressing the imbalance, such as the new middle class, it is becoming more customary for the woman to hold the money, but only spend it after consultation with the man; not much on the face of it until yo think about it a little more deeply.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Maybe feminism will come with the economical development of China. Although men and women under Mao were equal weren't they? Now that I am thinking about it, there are not too many women in executive positions are they?

                        replyreport
6. 57

   Drive-by Quipperposted 12 years ago

   Ha ha ha ha ha ha! What?! Are they still putting propaganda pie-holes on the payroll?

   replyreport
7. 86

   crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

   And then I just heard Obama from his speach today that the US will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I can see a nuclear release in the middle east if the US does try to enforce no nukes for Iran.
   
   I do not think the US should have ever given back any territory won in their recent wars in the area. I don't think we should trade young American lives for oil.
   
   I think we should do everything possible to produce our own oil or an alternative from corn or sugar cane.
   
   I think the US should become independent of the need for oil from any where outside of the USA. Now that would be freedom.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What do you mean that they shouldn't have given back territories won? Does it mean that Iraq, Libya should be American after we invaded them for no legal reasons? Is it ethical? If Iraq or Libya were your country, what would you think of your reasoning? We have a problem with oil, we solve it. Either we increase our production, either we limit our consumption. It seems more realistic to limit it. But our elite disagrees since we are targeting Iran already.
      The conversion of corn or sugar cane to ethanol or any fuel energy was apparently a mistake since it inflated the prices of both commodities.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hemp!  We could have been self sustained years ago if corporate America did not make one of the nations most profitable and useful crops, illegal! 
      
      We are fooled in to believing it is illegal so we won't smoke it.  Yet the hemp plant could and would revive the economy and bring the U.S.A back to the prominence it once had.  But the dictatorial machine funded by the people continues to hold back opportunities from the People! 
      
      CHG, our government does not want us to know freedom, we might decide to become free from them!

      replyreport
      1. 68

         innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         But hemp can be grown anywhere - that's far too easily accessible for the oil companies that buy government

         replyreport
8. 53

   ocbillposted 12 years ago

   sigh...not just muslim extremists. forgot about North Korea?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Muslims and communists. Easy targets. Did they bomb Nagazaki, Hiroshima? Did they use agent orange against civilians?

      replyreport