U.S.A could take over the world if they wanted to. Could they???

Hmmm.


Let me think for a minute.

Tactics, are my job.

COULD, the US take over the world? Sure. It takes one thing. Strategem!!!!

All you would have to do would be set up.

Hmmmmm....

Start of CFR was by intelligence officers in 1920-1930. (roughly)
They have been setting up for a long long time.


Think about controlling all the muslims.
Each of those people has about 8-9 children per family.
Average for white "american" familes? about 1.2

Needed ratio for survival of CULTURE and RACE? 2.4 children per family (roughly)

Take over the eastern lands, produce babies like its no problem, and bring a country to its knees by exterminating its lifestyle when you over ride it with your own.

Slowly, but surely...

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Christians, then, should also not be on ATS vowing armed resistance against a perceived international threat of "elites" enslaving them. It was obviously more important to Christ to die in peaceful affirmation of faith, rather than killing to preserve or spread it. Render unto Cesar, after all. He did not strike at Pontius Pilate when he faced death, and he accepted his crown of thorns; praying for his persecutor's forgiveness. Pilate did not even want to crucify Christ, considering him a more a fool than a threat and passed his judgment to Herod. Herod II similarly saw him as a fool and would not execute him. Pilate finally left the decision up to the populace, by presenting them with a contrary choice of prisoner release whom no one in their right minds would choose to free - Barabbas. Yet the crowd released a man deserving of his punishment; their intolerance let an unrepentant murderer walk amongst their ranks rather than suffer a harmless, blasphemous fool.

Of course, I don't see any evidence that the story of Jesus is anything other than just a story. However, I find the irony deeply moving. The story of Christ's persecution and trial is rather insightful into (IMO) the historic and contemporary Christian fundamentalist mentality, and the lengths some are willing to go in order to prop up by any means their rigid dogma. Even if the cost of it means walking defiantly with evil in order to silence what they feel is an even greater evil, the perceived fool. Oh, how weak is thy faith; those whom must affirm it with stories of miracles and defend it with censorship and violence. How very un-Christlike some have become in the defense of Christ.

It colors vividly Mahatmas Gandhi's comment: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." This, then, dovetails into Nietzsche's famous commentary on the death of god. The madman screeched while throwing down his lanterns because the values and morals that religion once espoused had been usurped and forgotten in man's hearts. Yet the madman came too early. We did not yet acknowledge the gravity of our crime stained onto our hands with blood, nor the stench of the rotting corpse of God, and the grunts of the grave diggers toiling to bury him.

An exert:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

Note: The "You and I" acknowledgment of the madman's guilt in the killing of god referred not just to rationalism and science killing the faith in god in the public, but of the corruption of the believers by modern society away from the guiding morality of the scripture into justification for whatever morality the believer choses. Whether one openly rejects the authority of a god as an objective source of morals, or whether one uses the name and scripture of god to justify their own personal moral compasses - the end result is the same. Moral nihilism with no direction or purpose.

Where we go from here is dangerous and unprecedented territory, and is still highly contentious even in academic and scientific circles when discussing human behavior, human nature, and human instinct. However, I think that while we should undoubtedly tread cautiously, ultimately we've always been without divine authority for morality all along, the scriptures and doctrines of the religions which guided us created and endorsed by man and our culture under the illusion of divine authority or immutable supernatural serendipity for lack of explanation of origin. If we can envision a moral guide such as Christ who's morality is lauded often even among non-believers, if we can abolish slavery, strive for civil rights and suffrage, work towards animal rights and the ending of abuse... all without edicts from the divine, and at times in defiance of previously established social norms in culture traditionally justified by scripture.

Even within Christianity there are great strides made to either disconnect or or engage in amazing feats of mental gymnastics to justify the change in the demeanor of god between the Old and New Testament - because now god must adhere to his own scripture where it is written that he does not change... because to allow god to change would be to tether our morality to the whims of a deity who itself is subject to moralistic nihilism.

I think we are scared of taking responsibility for our own morality, by and large... because the implications of our moral misjudgments are higher than we are prepared to accept. Ironically, this has only served to help stymie research and discoveries into human origins and human nature which are vital to rational discourse and decision making. We need to know ourselves better, which isn't going to happen so long as we hide away in comfortable delusions which lift greatest of weight of moral responsibility from us. We need to grow up.

(Note: Steven Pinker argues in his book The Blank Slate that among prominent intellectuals and those without a belief in a god for moral direction in the latter half of the 20th century latched onto the Blank Slate/Noble Savage/Ghost in the Machine philosophies with fanatical tenacity out of concern for damage that "deterministic" and "reductionist" views of neurology, genetics, and evolution regarding our behavior could do to the progress made in the Civil and Women's rights movements in the public arena - to say nothing of the specter of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century taken to it's horrific extreme by Nazi philosophies that were cultured directly from Nietzsche's concepts re-anchoring morality into nature which would facilitate emergence of the Übermensch, though twisted and modified to provide supports of noble justification and a higher moral righteousness to their own philosophies.)

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

So if I understand what you said, it's that America is hated because of the wars we get involved in.

I wish we could have known that about 1917.

Could have saved a lot of American boys lives by staying home.

Then we wouldn't have had to go BACK again just a generation later, and could have REALLY saved some American lives - and TONS of money.

Could have avoided all that lend/lease, and then the cleanup and reconstruction with the Marshall Plan.

Don't know if the winner would have been Russia or Germany, but it would definitely been one or the other.

Wow. All of Europe either Nazi, or Communist.

Then we wouldn't be HAVING this discussion.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
With all the "So called underground bases" the weapondry, the military spending. Why does any other nation bother in fighting america? how could they win. Imagine the weapons the US will release when a major war happens. no nation even spends 1/6th the amount America does. The wepons they have must be unimagineable. If Dulce, or other bases exist and the stuff thats happening down there is really real it would even be more terrifying. Could Russia even compete with the U.S.A??? Could all of Europe even compete with them?


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Maddogkull]

It really is this kind of arrogance that negatively affects the United States, and further isolates us from re-establishing our once positive standing in the world.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Gunpowder Plot]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Haha, that was funny. Those people were dense as bricks! I'm ashamed to admit that these cretins are an all to common sight on the street

Current British PM? George Bush?

How many sides does a triangle have? 3? Oh dear lord.....

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Oh, I see...

You can kick daylights out of the whole planet, based on unsubstantiated rumours on the internet that the US has Alien weapons and underground bases?

You don't use your advanced tech because you want to hide it? Whats the point in having it then? Why would you fight wars essentially the same as anyone else, except you have a few advantages in certain area's, if you have such uber-cool gear?

Pull the other one.

It's absolutely amazing that people honestly believe this crap.

EDIT: What's even more amazing is that they believe that not only do they have uber-weapons, but somehow have managed to keep them totally secret from the Russians, Chinese or Europeans, but somehow the wierdo's on the web know all about it....

Think about what you're saying, honestly...




[edit on 18/9/09 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


Oh I'm pretty sure in both of the dumb American and Dumb Brit videos they edited out all the ones who got the answers right. It's just a cheap slam on said country.

Keep up the fight against ignorance.

reply to post by LOLZebra


This is exactly right, you will have to look back in history and see all the interenventions done in Latin America and Europe by the US, but not much people know about this.

So I don't think a war is need it when the US can have the resources in a different way... its already happening.

IF he marines werent so complicated..we have the technology and weapons to do so, and the manpower. However, judging form how things are going in afghanistan ide say hell no, no way we could win. Seems like a bunch of soldiers are thier jsut to be scattered all over the desert, moreso to rape and party and torture than get anyting accomplished.....
WE failed in the korean war, and vietnam...i blame it on superiors being to leiniant with orders and laid back descisions, as opposed to get in thier and make some kills soldier! lets take this land

reply to post by Lasheic


An excellent post and I agree nearly 100% with everything you say.

The only differance being probably that I do have beliefs as such about the divine. And though I am no longer a Christian and infact follow no "Monotheistic" path, I still do respect and accept many of the teachings of Jesus if he existed or not.

Besides that we have very little variation in veiw and understanding except you seem atheist mainly.

Thank you for an excellent post that took much pondering.

You are very right Atheist or Bible Basher or whatever, we all need to grow up in regards to where, why and how we gain, integrate and act out our belief systems inregards to morals and codes of behaviour as such.

Kind Regards,

Elf.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by MischeviousElf]

I know there has been criticism about this thread. All I was wondering was if they could actually take the world over with the correct planning. After all of your posts I realised the answer is no. Thank you for all your helpful information.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

So if I understand what you said, it's that America is hated because of the wars we get involved in.

I wish we could have known that about 1917.

Could have saved a lot of American boys lives by staying home.

Then we wouldn't have had to go BACK again just a generation later, and could have REALLY saved some American lives - and TONS of money.

Could have avoided all that lend/lease, and then the cleanup and reconstruction with the Marshall Plan.

Don't know if the winner would have been Russia or Germany, but it would definitely been one or the other.

Wow. All of Europe either Nazi, or Communist.

Then we wouldn't be HAVING this discussion.

The Bretton wood agreement made much possible for America, so I think you have gained more in total from the agreement than you think!

Originally posted by infolurker

Yeah, unless you kill EVERYONE... and let's be honest... The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so... NO. Our mission (in my opinion) is to keep all the rest of the loons from killing themselves (and us in the process). So three cheers for having to be the planets freeking peacekeeper... a thankless job and a very expensive one.

'The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so..' That's a load of B.S. propaganda - Because every time when the press "actually does their job" and reports them objectively. it was a either mistake, an accident or simply grossed over quickly. Only then did they TRIES to limit civilian casualties. Another senario are due to limited quick and decisive actions to effect regime changes (Latin America), but their installed President (Dictator) will make up the numbers later and slowly.

Korea, Laos, Vietnam war are just some examples I can cite off hand.

Korea -"All man made structures are targets", "Numerous Mass Civilian executions "- when caught the communist did it. -

Laos - "Secret bombing" -two millions civilian souls in pieces.

Vietnam - "We had to destroy the villages in order to save them" - Napalm was in great usage.

I think you encountered the new MIG fighter in korea , that was actually flown by russians ( which would have caused a greater escalation of the conflict had it been known at the time) which cancelled out the existing air supremacy . MIG alley . They (US) put out a ransom for a capture of one of these aircraft intact owing to the losses they were suffering . A north korean pilot flew one over to a US air base in S korea eventually . I think he became a US citizen.

So, in Korea at least . Americans and Russians have exchanged fire . In Georgia 2008 , it may have happened again. The K141 Kursk sinking was no doubt the cause of an american torpedo. It is no doubt the americans and russians know they will come into contact with one another during conflicts , but they are experts at this game and it will not escalate . Although the americans are the worlds scourge , they are not foolish enough to engage in a nuclear war , at least not till they elect their sarah palin.

reply to post by dooper


Jaysus.. are ye STILL goin on about that

We should get some French people in here to go on about how they helped win the war that created your country..

If ye didn't jump into WW2 in Europe, you would have been up against a Nazi Eurasia. And don't try tell me that the US didn't profit from WW2. Its involvement in WW2 gave it its now receding empire.

But I get your point. It must be frustrating to hear people giving out about what your Military is doing. The thing is though, those people are probably sick of hearing pro US army/empire stuff so it works both ways.

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by Maddogkull

 

As long as the US didn't care about collateral damage and civilians they could.

Whoever controls that air controls the war. The satellite network, missile defense system, Aegis, Stealth, F-22, F-35, B-2 there are NO comparisons to these weapons in any other country ( don't forget the US military is supposedly 20-30 years ahead of what we are aware of) .

If you have to invade it may be a different story but who knows what would really happen in a total war situation like WWII.

The problem is any country forced into a corner will just launch nukes. Hence no total war. Its just proxy wars now and probably always will be.

Over here [and i bet in Thales France as well] we have Thales radar, in the Czech republic for instance Vera-e radar which they wanted to sell to China.We can target and shoot down those "stealth" planes like its a shooting-gallery, if you can even get past our navy and shore...

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Foppezao]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
With all the "So called underground bases" the weapondry, the military spending. Why does any other nation bother in fighting america? how could they win. Imagine the weapons the US will release when a major war happens. no nation even spends 1/6th the amount America does. The wepons they have must be unimagineable. If Dulce, or other bases exist and the stuff thats happening down there is really real it would even be more terrifying. Could Russia even compete with the U.S.A??? Could all of Europe even compete with them?


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Maddogkull]

As an ex USAF B-52 pilot I may have a useful perspective on this. The SIOP (single integrated opperating plan) for nuclear war had at it's disposal over 30,000 nuclear warheads when I was flying. Today we have far fewer but either way we have sufficient weapons to destroy any enemy, but we do not have any way from stoppy that enemy from doing terrible damage to us as well. We could certainly threaten Russia or the EU, or Iran or whomever, with total destruction, but if it actually came down to a nuclear exchange, the US would suffer horrible damage (well probably not in an exchange with Iran or North Korea, but certainly with the EU and Russia).

The US always maintained a primarraly offensive capability, as we still have today) under the premiss that by threatening an overwhelming response to any attack we make it suicidal for any nation to attack us, but that same offensive capability does not work if we are the agressor. If a country is under attack from the US and feels they have nothing more to lose they would have little incentive not to use their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against us, and we have little in the way of defence against these things. We may be able to intercept a portion of a very limited number of weapons (as in a very small attack) but in a large scale attack by a determined foe (Russia, China, EU, maybe even India or Pakistan) we would lose all our cities and important military capability. Our only way of prevailing in an all out attack would be to preemptively attack every country that had any potential to retaliate in one massive nuclear attack. If we caught the world sleeping it might work, but if only a hundred warheads reached the US we would be devistated and that doesn't account for the damage that even our own weapons would do to us.

I guess my point is this, in a practical sense, the US simply does not have the capability to take over the world. We could destroy the world but not take it over.

Probably because we aren't there to conquer them, sports-fan.

Nice try, tho.

Ah i disagree there as well we are because we are bring the beauty of Democracy to Afghanistan and in that way you conquer it is not about a straight out "Yeah we conquered them" its a strategic ploy by the leaders of the western world or the elitists behind them for as they say those who control the Middle East control the world, the advantage of having Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic countries is that they can control who comes into power they do it in America alot for example Obama was already president in 2008 and there is evidence for that in the Bildeberg group meetings it was decided by the worlds elite. so they are attempting to conquer the Middle East just not in classic american shoot first ask questions later style it has all been planned, tatics that would not be expected by the general population, something that you would actually have to use your brain with.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
IF he marines werent so complicated..we have the technology and weapons to do so, and the manpower. However, judging form how things are going in afghanistan ide say hell no, no way we could win. Seems like a bunch of soldiers are thier jsut to be scattered all over the desert, moreso to rape and party and torture than get anyting accomplished.....
WE failed in the korean war, and vietnam...i blame it on superiors being to leiniant with orders and laid back descisions, as opposed to get in thier and make some kills soldier! lets take this land

The Military didn't fail in Korea, and You weren't there. You get a look at what South Korea looks like?