Making the World a More Dangerous Place

Since America was attacked on September 11, 2001 we have all witnessed an administration who have pushed forward a new era of military confrontation. The threats were real, Radical Islamic terrorist groups, and those who supported them were necessary targets, especially in a post 9/11 world. There was a time where it was easy to support military actions aimed at removing this threat. Even early on when the world was led to believe that Iraq posed a great danger.

We have all since learned at least a few hard lessons in Iraq, and found out that the "grave danger" Iraq posed to the world was at a minimum exaggerated. Intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was proven to be exaggerated, or inaccurate.

Many years ago world leaders and particularly the major super powers seen the futility in a continued nuclear arms race, the financial strain was extreme, and continued development of insanely powerful weaponry was a waste. Agreements were made to limit such weapons, share plans and keep communications open, so that no side would perceive the other to be in preparation for attack or war.

In very recent times we have seen a desire to once again have a "better" war deterrent factor against the other side. Particularly in Europe, by the USA, a plan that the Russian leaders see as more of provocation, and a potential dawn of a new arms race that could ultimately threaten all life on this planet.

While President George W. Bush has tried to calm the Russians and world down by saying "not something we ought to be hyperventilating about." and by saying: "It is important for Russia and Russians to understand that I believe the Cold War ended, that Russia is not an enemy of the United States, that there's a lot of areas where we can work together," While continuing with a "defense plan" in Europe that the Russians are more than alarmed by, and have said that this could spark a news arms race between these two super powers.

For now, we may only be seeing a war of words, but could this be a subtle provocation by the Bush administration, aimed at exactly what the Russians alleged, sparking a new arms race, a new cold war, a new threat to all?

It was not that many years ago, the world was much more peaceful, there was cooperation between the United States and Russia, could this president be willing to throw all of that away, and create a climate where war, and even nuclear war could have much greater potential of happening?

Some say actions speak louder than words, and all anyone need do is look at the actions of the Bush administration. It seems they consistently are moving toward making the world a far more dangerous place.

Are they?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

yes they are

were only human, apparently were not capable of living peacefully.

A possible new cold war in a climate of global warming?

were only human, apparently were not capable of living peacefully.

We are, and we can.

However if world leaders decide for us what is peaceful, and what is not, then perhaps we are doomed.

I pray to God as a Canadian
#1 Ron Paul is elected president
#2 Peace in the Middle East
#3 Focus on Afganistan and Defar

The world is not as unsafe as the USA Gov't would have you believe especially airline security, border security is very tight. Not one single act of terror has occured since to america. Civil war they started in Iraq has claimed 1000's of lives of innocent iraq's, thats very unsafe and a terrible state of affairs. Sad thing is that on average 50 people a day die over there and its worth 30 seconds of news time>>??????

The Media is controled thats unsafe.

Now what is unsafe is that priviacy invasion by the government, loss of due process and habius corpus, secret jails, torture of innocent canadian citizens, false flags operations where people still talk "post 9/11" and the "day that changed the world". A world so far removed from the constitution that its a nightmare in progess and no one will put a stop to it.

Enough already with the historical retoric, the boggy man is gonna get you scare tactics, loss of freedom does not equal security.

Get a grip on yourself america and vote in Ron Paul as President and back to the American Constitution.

Paid for by your Canadian petition to elect Ron Paul President



[edit on 7-6-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord


border security is very tight.

Since when has American border security become "tight?" It certainly wasn't just a couple of years ago.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

how often do you cross the boarder?
I live on the boarder with a international crossing here and another 10 miles east and another 40 miles west.
I am also 1/3 Mohawk and the reservation is in two Canadian Provinces, and the state of New York and lies right in the middle with canadian customs on the island which is reservation land.
trust me boarder security is very tight.
pre and post 9/11 are two different systems on both sides.
My students dad is one of the main people involved as one of the top RCMP on the international boarder initive and they have done a good job.

Its no lie that the large land mass b/t canada and the US has much undefended territory but I have not seen any terroist plots that have succeded since 9/11 in canada or the US.

I know the act of crossing the official boarder is very stringent as its a daily routine here and the overflys by RCMP and American Military is aggressive.

I live in this world, where do you live?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by junglelord]

Uh, I live in Texas and I can assure you that border security is not "tight" at all on the southern border. Of course, I am one that would support militarization of our borders in a heartbeat, so, anything short of placing troops on our borders wouldn't be secure enough, in my honest opinion.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Well thats a slap in the face...Canadians are more dangerous then Mexicans
I am deeply offended

PS you never said how often you cross the boarder?
we do it daily here, some times several times.
they have an access lane for the Tribeal Members but both sides are very stiff with everyone else and we are under close scurtiny.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord
Well thats a slap in the face...Canadians are more dangerous then Mexicans
I am deeply offended

Maybe you should be. I don't know what you are talking about as far as the Canadian border is concerned, but I can tell you that doesn't take place down here. I cross the border enough to know that we don't have the measures you are talking about.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Junglelord, naturally you Canadians are more dangerous. If you come over to steal jobs, they won't be those low paying ones, and that might be a problem for our rich class.

they run a tight ship up here and its not the same at all as it was pre 9/11
there is no difference down there?
at the offical crossings I mean?
I am shocked if thats true cause we get the third degree which sucks cause its such a mismash here, two provinces, one state, international and provincal boarders....security, cigarett smuggling, tasks forces for this and for that.
man we have a RCMP detatment of about 100 officers.
My students Dad was the head officer there twice,
once to root out bad cops, in which they got several.

Anyway, we are way off topic. This thread is about the ABM. I personally think the U.S should just place it here in the United States and not worry about it. As far as going to all of these other countries and offering our "protection," they don't want it.

I think the U.S should, and inevitably will, move more towards an isolationist stance when it comes to its dealing with the world.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

Political endorsement? Canadian borders?

Oh well, this is ATS!

Sheesh!

Carry on.

Sorry I took the larger context of the world being safer or more dangerous?
I think the ABM in europe is way over kill
so yeah its no good either way.
will it make the world safer or more dangerous just because of the anti russian sentiment?
I would like to see some peace some where some time
coldwar ended, war on ideology changed from communism to terrorism...both a war thats won in the hearts and minds of the people not on the battlefield.
iran will talk, but talk is cheap, they have no capabilites of hitting us and if and when they get there MAD will work as well for them as it did for the russians during the coldwar.
putetin is a dictator IMHO
bush is a dicatator too.

Um I have been saying the same for some time, that any person, group or country can be seen as an enemy of the US if its interests are threatened. One only has to read the PNAC document to see what the real intentions of those who run the US, the US is now morphing into a dictatorship where to question the actions of one's goverment can put you in jail, the your either with us or with the terrorists attitude.

This and many other things that are happening inside the US does not make for a democracy, how long will it be before Americans are rounded up enmasse and put into camps for re education. Its happened in other countries many times before and the US is not immune from such a process.

The US Goverment is treading a very dangerous path at the moment and its not like the old days of the BE when we and our modern weapons took on natives with spears etc. The US is facing nuke armed opponents who are willing to us them, the luxury the US enjoyed by its location in past wars will not help it in the next major conflict, now it can be reached and reached by WMD's.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I think the U.S should, and inevitably will, move more towards an isolationist stance when it comes to its dealing with the world.

You live in Texas and can't see the North American Union being forced down your throat. How is that isolationist? Not to mention American corporation's moving off shore. Non existent trade barriers. Isolationism, not hardly. The US dealings with the world are fueled by one thing; greed and the Corporate oligarchy will never, ever allow the citizens of this country to isolate themselves.


The ABM stuff is just another reason to allow the company's that produce, engineer and install the hardware a way to increase their bottom line. And nothing can deter the military industrial complex. They are the big dogs. And the little dogs roll over on thier backs [the American Taxpayer].

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.

Many here know that I am all in favor of a more dangerous earth, more dangerous meaning ME in charge of it, but as far as UM_Gazz's comments are concerned he is right. I do not want a return to the cold war that I spent the first third of my life in. I can't tell you the paranoia of the ever present threat of "commies" brought into my life every day.

and the ever fun thought of bombs being dropped on my head and on the heads of my family by this invisible evil "commie" force.

Paranoia is the tool of government to control the populace. When a government feels that it's loosing the control it needs, they come up with a boogie man to keep the people in control. "commies" were a great boogie man for the US government in the past, perhaps they are trying to resurrect this has been pseudo threat in a new form to cow the populace.

Since WW2, the thing that kept the peace between the worlds major powers has been mutual deterrence (although it didn't stop any of them from kicking lesser powers into touch)

What Bush, the rabid right and all points inbetween on that side of the political spectrum don't acknowledge, or seem to understand, is that a "defense" shield - of any kind or capability is an offensive weapon insofar as it reduces the risk to one of the paries involved.

The right wingers will tell you that there are ABM defences around Moscow - and they are right - and if we were talking about ABM defences around Washington I'm sure no one in Russia would give a rats ass about it.

Moscow and Washington are one city each. Losing one city is a catastrophe, but its not insurmountable.

But its not that.

I can't imagine the world ever allowing someone insane enough to get to power who would go "fully nuclear" and launch an all out attack.

I CAN imagine people getting into power who would consider the use of one or two nuclear weapons to either make a point, or force an issue.

And I'm sorry to say it but one of them is sitting in the Whitehouse right now, after invading a sovereign nation under apparently false pretences, whilst his senior advisors and possible successors "won't rule out any option" when it comes to "pre-emptive defence" and "installing democracy" in order to "protect their freedoms"

And THATS why Putin is antsy about it, and Russia is getting nervous, because a Bush - or someone similar - behind a defence shield might be tempted to do something very very rash and attempt a limited nuclear exchange with a large possibility that any inbounds can be intercepted.

After all, they aren't testing this missile defence system against Scuds. Its being tested against SLBMS and ICBMS, and if the US can shoot down a few of its own, it sure as hell can manage to shoot down a couple of someone elses.

The shield brings about the possibility of shotgun diplomacy, nuclear style.

And that, in turn, makes the world a much much more dangerous place to live in.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I think the U.S should, and inevitably will, move more towards an isolationist stance when it comes to its dealing with the world.

You live in Texas and can't see the North American Union being forced down your throat. How is that isolationist? Not to mention American corporation's moving off shore. Non existent trade barriers. Isolationism, not hardly. The US dealings with the world are fueled by one thing; greed and the Corporate oligarchy will never, ever allow the citizens of this country to isolate themselves.

Well, firstly, I didn't say that we were pushing towards isolationism, but I do think that inevitably it will come. It may not come within the next twenty years but when it does, it will be good for the U.S. I don't know how good it will be for the rest of the world and quite frankly, it is not my concern.

The world's populace has made it pretty clear, to studious Americans, that it hates America. So, as far as I am concerned, I think America should pick up camp and move on.

Originally posted by neformore



- and if we were talking about ABM defences around Washington I'm sure no one in Russia would give a rats ass about it.

Well, any shield in the U.S would constitute more than just Washington. Actually,I think that's what the United States should do, protect itself and quit worrying so much about everyone else. We should deal with our own.

That's why I am a big supporter of isolationism. Anything that the U.S does is going to be skewed to look bad, so, just withdraw from the whole bit. It's too bad more Americans aren't of like mind.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]