Hmm, August 1st 1914 is considered to be the start of WWI.......................Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Well, if you're going to add the US, why not go completely unbiased and add China, Russia, France, The EU as a whole and especially Germany? I mean Germany was the originating force in both world wars so.................
wrong. WW1 was started by the austro-hungarian empire. i'm not saying that germany wasn't a willing participant though.
August 1st 1914 Germany declares war on Russia........................
Outbreak of WWI..............Germany Declares War On Russia...............
austro-hungary declared war on serbia on 28. july 1914. since the assasination of franz ferdinand is considered to have triggered (not caused) the war, i guess that is when the war started.
I'm well aware of that, but, history denotes Aug. 1st 1914 as the begining of WWI when it became more than a regional conflict, thus, Germany officially started WWI by declaring war on Russia.
The Bush administration (NOT the USA) is not necessarily the greatest threat to international security, but they're working very hard on it. While I agree that Saddam should be removed, I think the way they've brought us to this point shows some very dangerous thinking.
1. Richard Perle just stepped down as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but he didn't resign from the board. This man has considerable conflicts of interest because of his dealings as a highly paid consultant and represenative to many companies defense industry.
2. Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld continually defended Perle's choice and also has a history with the defense industry.
3. Vice President Cheney's old company, Haliburton, has just been awarded the first of probably many lucrative contracts to deal with post-war Iraq.
4. The Bush Administration should have had the majority of the world on our side in this mess. They blew it by sheer arrogance, backing out of the Kyoto Protocols, rejecting the War Crime Tribunal, and saying that we would go it alone against Saddam, with or without the agreement of other nations and essentially demanding that they follow. Most of those who don't back us, now, have good reason to be suspicious.
5. The Bush Adminstration started out by avoiding all of the issues between Isreal and the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Middle East. Only lately have they tossed a few generalized bones to those looking for some interest from the Bushies.
The list goes on. The Bush Administration's arrogance is obvious and not in dispute. The problem with the conflicts of interest is not yet whether actual conflicts of interest exist, but just the appearance of such conflicts lend credibility to the views of many nations that the U.S. is in it for the oil and money. I believe this is a major threat to international security because other nations are not taking us as seriously as friends and allies. Therefore, few are willing to cooperate with us, or even watch our flank, because the Bush administration has left our motives so in question.
1. Richard Perle just stepped down as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but he didn't resign from the board. This man has considerable conflicts of interest because of his dealings as a highly paid consultant and represenative to many companies defense industry.
2. Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld continually defended Perle's choice and also has a history with the defense industry.
3. Vice President Cheney's old company, Haliburton, has just been awarded the first of probably many lucrative contracts to deal with post-war Iraq.
4. The Bush Administration should have had the majority of the world on our side in this mess. They blew it by sheer arrogance, backing out of the Kyoto Protocols, rejecting the War Crime Tribunal, and saying that we would go it alone against Saddam, with or without the agreement of other nations and essentially demanding that they follow. Most of those who don't back us, now, have good reason to be suspicious.
5. The Bush Adminstration started out by avoiding all of the issues between Isreal and the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Middle East. Only lately have they tossed a few generalized bones to those looking for some interest from the Bushies.
The list goes on. The Bush Administration's arrogance is obvious and not in dispute. The problem with the conflicts of interest is not yet whether actual conflicts of interest exist, but just the appearance of such conflicts lend credibility to the views of many nations that the U.S. is in it for the oil and money. I believe this is a major threat to international security because other nations are not taking us as seriously as friends and allies. Therefore, few are willing to cooperate with us, or even watch our flank, because the Bush administration has left our motives so in question.
we are,
but only because we have the most military power by orders of magnitude as well as quite strong economic power. we have the capability. places like north korea and iraq just cant project their small amount of military power and we can. plus we've shown that we are willing to invade sovreign nations. even though i think that a reasonable case can be made for invasion (though mostly not the ones that i've heard from bush) threat assesment is made on the basis of capability. this is sop for all threat assesment. and by that measure, we are, most definitely. just be glad it's us. if history is a guide, if any other nation that i can think of offhand was on the plus end of such an asymmetric world power balance, they would conquer (and i mean really conquer, not economically and militairly dominate) the rest of the world.
but only because we have the most military power by orders of magnitude as well as quite strong economic power. we have the capability. places like north korea and iraq just cant project their small amount of military power and we can. plus we've shown that we are willing to invade sovreign nations. even though i think that a reasonable case can be made for invasion (though mostly not the ones that i've heard from bush) threat assesment is made on the basis of capability. this is sop for all threat assesment. and by that measure, we are, most definitely. just be glad it's us. if history is a guide, if any other nation that i can think of offhand was on the plus end of such an asymmetric world power balance, they would conquer (and i mean really conquer, not economically and militairly dominate) the rest of the world.
ELECTRODE'S TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC ANALASYS:
Taliban:
Former ruling party of Afghanistan, only ever controlled a small portion of it, now completely disbanded.
Threat: 0/10
Al-Qaeda:
International terrorist organization ruled by a very rich and very crazy Saudi. Has lots of explosives and the know-how to use them. Hates everyone that isn't an Islamic extremest. Command structure is a little messed up.
Threat: 7/10
Iraq:
Middle-eastern country once ruled by a guy whose head isn't quite on straight, now mostly occupied by US and British military. Has some missiles and some suicidal guerilla fighters for a military.
Threat: 2/10
North Korea:
Nuclear-capable communist country ruled by a total nut case with a short penis. Has ICBMs that can go as far as the west coast of the US, but isn't quite crazy enough to do that... yet.
Threat: 6/10
Palestine:
Former middle-eastern country whose residents claim a part of western Jordan as their own, only a threat to Israel, who should quit being such stubborn bastards and pull out of the west bank already.
Threat: 1/10
India/Pakistan:
"Nuclear Neighbors" as the media is fond of saying. Both have the bomb, and have tested nuclear weapons in recent years. Are at odds over Kashmir, for who knows what reason. Probably not crazy enough to nuke eachother, and not a significant threat to anyone else at the moment.
Threat: 2/10
USA:
Big, powerful western nation ruled by a somewhat extreme conservative party. Believe they are the world police, and seem to have no problem with attacking foreign nations without provocation. Pretty much run the world's economy.
Threat: 4/10
Taliban:
Former ruling party of Afghanistan, only ever controlled a small portion of it, now completely disbanded.
Threat: 0/10
Al-Qaeda:
International terrorist organization ruled by a very rich and very crazy Saudi. Has lots of explosives and the know-how to use them. Hates everyone that isn't an Islamic extremest. Command structure is a little messed up.
Threat: 7/10
Iraq:
Middle-eastern country once ruled by a guy whose head isn't quite on straight, now mostly occupied by US and British military. Has some missiles and some suicidal guerilla fighters for a military.
Threat: 2/10
North Korea:
Nuclear-capable communist country ruled by a total nut case with a short penis. Has ICBMs that can go as far as the west coast of the US, but isn't quite crazy enough to do that... yet.
Threat: 6/10
Palestine:
Former middle-eastern country whose residents claim a part of western Jordan as their own, only a threat to Israel, who should quit being such stubborn bastards and pull out of the west bank already.
Threat: 1/10
India/Pakistan:
"Nuclear Neighbors" as the media is fond of saying. Both have the bomb, and have tested nuclear weapons in recent years. Are at odds over Kashmir, for who knows what reason. Probably not crazy enough to nuke eachother, and not a significant threat to anyone else at the moment.
Threat: 2/10
USA:
Big, powerful western nation ruled by a somewhat extreme conservative party. Believe they are the world police, and seem to have no problem with attacking foreign nations without provocation. Pretty much run the world's economy.
Threat: 4/10
Not any more Halliburton isnt in the running for the rebuilding of Iraq, my guess is the white house told them to back out.
Cant blame that on Bush, congress would NEVER have ratified it, it would of fell well short of 50 votes.
Pakistan is a messy problem waiting to happen. One day, sooner or later, muslim fanatics will overthrow their dictator as he isnt fanatic enough. Then you have some crazy nut jobs with nuclear weapons. Of course the only thing they could do is hit India, then India would wipe out the ~150,000,000 muslims in pakistan, causing world war III.
I cited that as only one example of a general pattern of behavior that has increased the world's perception of U.S. as arrogant. The Bush administration has been a diplomatic failure from day one, and I haven't even gotten into other domestic reasons I distrust them.
You mean how they made regime change in Iraq official US policy?
Oh wait..............that wasn't the Bush administration.
You mean how they made promises to China and NK in exchange for certain materials, trade agreements. etc.?
Oh wait...........that wasn't them either.....................
You mean how they appeased and ignored international problems that were growing such as terrorism hoping they would just disappear?
Hmmm, not the Bushies either........................
You mean how extrodinary econmic growth led to corruption and misappropriation?
Wait..................that too came before Bush.........................
You mean how the president of the US stood in front of its citizens and told a bold face lie about moral issues which occured inside the Whitehouse?
nope......again......not Bush!
it's a given, Bush is a much more hard line administration than the world was used to, but to be fair, many world affairs were already at nearly breaking points and as far as the economy, it was already in decline months before Bush was in office, then came 9-11 which changed that and almost everything else.................he's definately not the greatest, but then neither was his predicesor...........................
i agree with your statement that the problem with the administration is a perceived arrogance that led to the failure of diplomacy, but not any of your other reasons. What do you expect defense people to do when they're not working for the government? go into the health care industry? Haliburton is a major construction/logistical company, it's not same pissant firm. Civil engineering firms make their businesses through engineering and politics. they must have both or they won't survive. the other international agreements were crap, just as all international agreements pretty much are. no one makes policies for the good of all. the only way to defeat problems with solutions, not more bureaucracy. I thin kthe problem was the administration came with a view of no interference and concentrating on us, so that led to little outside diplomacy. Then 9/11 happened, and we were forced to deal with the outside world...
Ok there the poll has been updated
Sorry about the India/Pakistan thing, I didn't mean any disrespect.
Sorry about the India/Pakistan thing, I didn't mean any disrespect.
You are the one making a comparison, not me. I made a statement, one you yourself validated, and with good reason.
I do disagree with you about Iraq. Here, if we continued to do nothing, Iraqi citizens were at risk of vile and desasterous rule by terror and evil. You need to check Iraq's record of human rights and how they treat women just as an example. Saddam needs t obe removed and we are the only ones powerful enough and with enough resolve to get the job done. Good people doing nothing would just allow more atrocities to continue, and hope for Iraqi people fade to dust in the desert.
I am not a fan of how this war started, nor am I a fan of who is calling the shots, but as long as I am an American , I will proudly support every man and woman who is in this fight for the liberation of a proud and worthy people.
Can you possibly comprehend that?
Very interesting results considering ATOT is made up of mostly Americans... conservative Americans at that.
Iraq isn't even close to being the top threat to international security according to the poll here...
Iraq isn't even close to being the top threat to international security according to the poll here...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: Jmman
Wow, it didn't take very long for someone to say the US. If you are a US citizen and that is your belief, I will buy you an airplane ticket to emigrate to someplace truly safe like Iraq or NK.......
You "Love or Leave" people amaze me. Do you really believe that a citizen should not criticize their goverment?
Yea, while they'll talk about how Iraqi people don't have freedom of speech, once a US citizen speaks in defiance of their Government they should "move to Iraq."Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
You "Love or Leave" people amaze me. Do you really believe that a citizen should not criticize their goverment?Originally posted by: Jmman
Wow, it didn't take very long for someone to say the US. If you are a US citizen and that is your belief, I will buy you an airplane ticket to emigrate to someplace truly safe like Iraq or NK.......
Funny irony.
Originally posted by: DanJ
Yea, while they'll talk about how Iraqi people don't have freedom of speech, once a US citizen speaks in defiance of their Government they should "move to Iraq."Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
You "Love or Leave" people amaze me. Do you really believe that a citizen should not criticize their goverment?Originally posted by: Jmman
Wow, it didn't take very long for someone to say the US. If you are a US citizen and that is your belief, I will buy you an airplane ticket to emigrate to someplace truly safe like Iraq or NK.......
Funny irony.
Did I ever say that you don't have the right to criticize the government anywhere in that statement? You obviously scored a 200 on the SAT reading comprehension segment, didn't you? I simply said that if you truly believe that utter tripe, I would be a charitable human being and purchase you a ticket to someplace which must inherently be more secure if the US is the most dangerous. Since nobody has accepted my generous offer, it only leads me to believe that you are saying it purely to advance your political agenda or simple ignorance, and not out of a heartfelt belief that this country is the most dangerous.
LOL...look at the idiots voting for the USA. The USA is a major stabilizing force in the world since any other government knows the USA is willing to fight for others.
You know, you have to love all these war protesters. Past wars have protected their right to protest and they are using that right to protest a war against a regime that would kill them for protesting the government. Sheer brilliance. WTG!!
You know, you have to love all these war protesters. Past wars have protected their right to protest and they are using that right to protest a war against a regime that would kill them for protesting the government. Sheer brilliance. WTG!!
the usa fights for its own interests, just like any other country would. i don't believe for a second that any country on earth would go to war and have its own soldiers killed just to save other people. that said, the USA has a remarkable track record of involvment in conflicts that are not fought on american soil.
Who are the good people and how did it lead to 9/11?
When you say we did nothing to stop it . . . what did YOU fail to do?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter