Making the World a More Dangerous Place

UM_Gazz, any government that will win the elections be Democrat or Republican has an agenda.

What is going on is not new and did not started with Bush alone, it has been in the making for many years.

Our nations power and balances has been hijacked by a group in this nation that are in the pursue of taking over of certain places around the world for a corporate agenda.

They are using our nation, our resources and our military to do that.

Other nations know that, but they are tagged immediately as the enemy, we have been indoctrinated very nicely to believe anything that our elected government tells us.

Unless the public in this nation raises and put a stop to this elite group in our government and force them to uphold our constitution and the will of the people, we are nothing than slaves to them.

Remember the words of Bush You are we us or against us but he didn't specify who was the us.

That is why our own government enjoy the divisons in this nation.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by marg6043]

You know, Marg, when I was a youngster, I would have never thought our nation would be as it is. In my mind, at least as a child, we were always the "good guys" and everyone else was our enemy. If you would have told me, uh, when I was 15 years old that the U.S was going to start a war that had no other reason than to get one man out of power and oil, I would have said you were full of it.

Now I have the same attitude as Clint Black does in one of his songs, "Nothing's news to me." Honestly, it has gotten to the point to where nothing surprises me anymore.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Now I have the same attitude as Clint Black does in one of his songs, "Nothing's news to me." Honestly, it has gotten to the point to where nothing surprises me anymore.

No it doesn't, I agree with you, I am have been throught many presidents at 5 since my adult life and voter.

But now I feel an urgency and something not right in our nation going on, we are fighting each other as American base on views and what we believe right or wrong that keeps many from been able to see the truth.

And that I see as an agenda also, a divided nation is not danger to the powers in our government, but a unified nation does.

Well, Marg, too many Americans are somewhat like me, in that they are confused. They are Republican, but they are so dead set against many of the Republicans' agenda that you can't tell where they stand really, or, on the other side they may be Democrats and against that agenda.

As far as this ABM deal, I think that the U.S should just keep it on its own soil and quit trying to involve everyone else in it. If someone else wants a similar system, let them develop it themselves. That's just how I see it.

We can't keep trying to mediate the world's affairs. It's crazy.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We can't keep trying to mediate the world's affairs. It's crazy.

Are we "mediating" the world's affairs, or further destabilizing the world, pushing for a new level of military super power, and first strike capabilities against any and all enemies, and or/potential threats?

You have to understand (especially SpeakerofTruth) that non-interventionism is NOT isolationism. Isolationism is the refusal to deal with other nations, which is inherently destructive to security, wealth, and diplomacy. Instead, with non-interventionism, friendly relationships with countries is encouraged, although binding alliances aren't. Mutual trade is seen as the way to international wealth instead of imperialism.

Basically, isolationism is refusing to talk or anything with other countries. Non-interventionism is having good relationships with other countries but not getting involved in binding alliances or foreign warfare.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
If you would have told me, uh, when I was 15 years old that the U.S was going to start a war that had no other reason than to get one man out of power and oil, I would have said you were full of it.

What if I tell you that soon we may invade another Middle Eastern nation on a similar basis?

Perhaps even more.

The President is correct, we need not worry about Russia, and Russia need not worry about the USA, at least not right now, we are currently busy in other areas. We must get that Missile Defense System up now though.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

We must get that Missile Defense System up now though.

The missile defence system won't stop nuclear devices from being smuggled in by land or sea. It will only protect against missiles, and it's not even going to be 100% secure against missiles.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
The missile defence system won't stop nuclear devices from being smuggled in by land or sea. It will only protect against missiles, and it's not even going to be 100% secure against missiles.

True, but why the urgency? Why risk potentially upsetting the Russians to get this system in place?

It would be similar to having Russia set up a Missile defence system in Mexico, what do you think the US response to such a move would be?

The USA, UK and other NATO members claim this system to be placed in the Czech Republic and Poland, to thwart "rogue nations" such as Iran and North Korea. The system will likely consist of a radar station in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland, at least initially.

The threat that Iran and North Korea poses, requires an elaborate missile defense system in the Czech Republic, and Poland?

Putin has threatened to aim his missiles at Europe, if this plan takes place, and do you blame him?

He has even gone as far as suggesting a compromise, by proposing that Azerbaijan be used for this defense system, and If his proposal is accepted he would have no need to carry out his threat to re-target Russian missiles on European cities. Do you think this proposal will be accepted?

We can only hope, and perhaps a new arms race will be avoided.

But then there is always Iran, and North Korea.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

The threat that Iran and North Korea poses, requires an elaborate missile defense system in the Czech Republic, and Poland?

Nope, I don't think so. It's pretty obvious that this missile shield is meant to protect against Russian missiles. And to monitor Russian air space.

We can only hope, and perhaps a new arms race will be avoided.

Unfortunately, without the CFE treaty, we will most likely see an arms race with conventional weapons in and around Europe. How many people have died from conventional weapons compared to nuclear weapons in history? People seems to forget how deadly conventional weapons can be. After a massive buildup of conventional weapons, all it takes is an ignition. And then..... booom...

Originally posted by Johnmike
You have to understand (especially SpeakerofTruth) that non-interventionism is NOT isolationism. Isolationism is the refusal to deal with other nations, which is inherently destructive to security, wealth, and diplomacy.

I don't think it is. The United States is not doing anything but creating enemies by trying to deal with other nations. Our security would only be increased by pulling our troops out of foreign lands, while wealth may be curtailed in an isolationist form of government, one thing is for certain, at least we wouldn't be off shoring our jobs to foreign powers.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

For more liberty I hope Russia bombs the # out of the U.S. The U.S. needs a wake up call pronto.

Originally posted by Mabus
For more liberty I hope Russia bombs the # out of the U.S. The U.S. needs a wake up call pronto.

So you hope that Russia murders American Citizens in order to get the government to change its policy stance?

Thats one hell of a hardline stance to take.

Edit to add: How does bombing a nation bring liberty, or for that matter, stability?

[edit on 8-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I don't think it is. The United States is not doing anything but creating enemies by trying to deal with other nations. Our security would only be increased by pulling our troops out of foreign lands, while wealth may be curtailed in an isolationist form of government, one thing is for certain, at least we wouldn't be off shoring our jobs to foreign powers.

What do you mean by "trying to deal with other nations"?

IMO US policy doesnt try to "deal" with other nations, it tries to destabilize nations. US intervetion policy doesnt try to bring democracy and peace to south america, it tries to crush democratic forces and push capitalism to the foreground.