The United States of America

Welcome to our community

Take a moment to sign up and join the discussion! It's simple and free.

PyRo99

Active Member
Messages
567
The United States of America

For those that have read the existing thread, I do not have time at the given moment to go back and re-find all of the links. Tomorrow I will go on my hunt, and search for anything and everything.

Now, we've got a developing problem over in the ME, and Asia. We've got Iran, whom is saying now that they do posses Nuclear Weapons, and that the EU nor the USA wants to get into a nuclear fire with them. And you also have No. Korea, who has openly stated this week that they also posses a Nuclear weapon.

Why would the US be afraid of Iran? Same question should be posed for the EU. You have Russia and China. The two that are seemingly now teaming up. The Fireworks are going off, and nobody cares. Germany and France and Britain are trying to talk to Iran, but they were adamant earlier this week that they would not be shutting down their nuclear things. All of a sudden, they turn face and they'll have talks. I wonder who gave them that idea to allow No. Korea some time to build up from Russia and China.

Russia has already threatend the US, and Israel that if they bomb the nuclear facilities, that they'll turn Israel into a Glass City. That stopped the plans right in their tracks. Now, Iran and No. Korea are both speaking adamantly about poessing nuclear material. And if I am not mistaken, threatening a country with retaliation, especially super powers is not a good idea.

So, what is it going to take for the United States to have a pre-emptive strike upon Iran? I'm not going to point fingers at what, but we did invade Afghanistan and Iraq upon the basis of 9/11.

However, if the United States attacks Russia. That means Russia can strike back alongside China, and No. Korea and Iran. Iran would take Israel right out of the picture, and if No. Korea is dumb enough to launch something at us, they'll just be a piece of fallen parchment. You are then left with Russia and China, both posses nuclear weapons. But am I forgetting a big piece of the picture here? Who will be on our side? It all depends, if the authorities play it right, they'll have countries on their side. If they blame it on Iran, and Russia and China strike back. That makes them look like threats, and the EU would jump in. So, it also depends on how Russia and China play their roles out.

It also depends, on how fast the US can react. If they're ready to go, then by god. We won't be seeing WWIII yet, but if were acting slowly and we wait for the declaration of war by Congress. That'll give Russia and China ample time to beef up No. Korea and Iran. Sure, is it a risk that China and Russia have to take by giving these two regimes weapons, they're taking it.

I am only anyalizing wordly events that have been occuring. I am only speculating.

I'll be back tomorrow, with more.
 

Grayson

Senior Member
Messages
1,079
Re: The United States of America

Didn't take you long... ;)
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: The United States of America

It has been said that emulation is the finest complement.
 

PyRo99

Active Member
Messages
567
Re: The United States of America

The War on Terrorism, what is it really?

We've been hit. We've invaded two countries at the expense of our troops, and our trust. We have been humilitated by the War on Iraq, first it was a pursuit for WMDs. Now, there are two countries that actually possess WMDs, and we aren't going after them?

If I am not mistaken, we were going to eradicate Terrorism, and make the world free, and peaceful. While we've got two countries that are threatening us. What is going on here? Why aren't we striking them? Well for one our armed forces are over-extended. And another thing, mother land is preventing us from advancing our needs.

However, in the midst of all of the evil in the world. There is two countries that are still allowed to opress their people. You have the country of Cuba, run by Fidel Castro. And you have the country of Venezuela run by Chavez. While Venezuela is a relatively new opressive government, we aren't doing much to eradicate them. By the means of the Bush Administration defintion, you or I could be a terrorist.

Why aren't these terrorist regimes being overrun? Why don't we have all of Al-Qaeda in our custody. The world is big, but by the means of our techonological advances, we should be holding them in our prision cells.

Now, on the homefront we have lost many rights. They are enclosing on the right to bear arms, via gun control. Though, that is quite contradictory to the law passed in Ohio, letting you conceal weapons. Although the Fedearl Government supercedes the State Government, that wasn't always the case.

Other restrictions on our rights have occured, freedom of speech being one. We are no longer allowed to protest really anywhere, the Secret Service will provide spacing where you are allowed to protest.

The Department of Homeland Security was also created. That one will be coming tomorrow.

The DOD(Dept. of Defense), has gotten its own sector like CIA. Why do they need their own sector? Well, its probably because of Rumsfeld. What can you do?

------------------------------------

This is the week of things I'll be posting this week.

Tomorrow: DHS; Finding articles to support claims I have been making

Weds: FEMA; find articles to coincide

Thurs: NWO; sites

Fri: PNAC; sites

Saturday: Foreign Affairs

Sunday: Domestic Issues that need to be addressed.

------------------------------------
 

Eutychus

Junior Member
Messages
37
Re: The United States of America

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"PyRo99\")</div>
The War on Terrorism, what is it really?

We've been hit. We've invaded two countries at the expense of our troops, and our trust. We have been humilitated by the War on Iraq, first it was a pursuit for WMDs. Now, there are two countries that actually possess WMDs, and we aren't going after them?


Now, on the homefront we have lost many rights. They are enclosing on the right to bear arms, via gun control. Though, that is quite contradictory to the law passed in Ohio, letting you conceal weapons. Although the Fedearl Government supercedes the State Government, that wasn't always the case.


------------------------------------[/b]

Humiliated in Iraq? They just had an election and seemed, by all the video shown, to really enjoy having a say in their destiny. From that point of view, looks pretty successful. And as the whole UN oil for food/silence/cooperation/kickbacks scandal unfolds, there are more and more bits of info filtering through the system that indicate Saddam did have biological weapons. Hell, just ask the Kurds who survived if he had them.

I'm not quite sure what to say about N. Korea other than our intelligence folks dropped the ball, allowing things to get to this point. But then we treated N. Korea like relatives no one wants to see for so long that we probably deserve our current pickle.

And as to our concealed carry law here in Ohio, recent statistics are showing that it's working. Violent crimes are down. That just means someone will step in and make us stop doing it because it seems to work.
 

sosuemetoo

Active Member
Messages
723
Re: The United States of America

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Eutychus\")</div>
Humiliated in Iraq? They just had an election and seemed, by all the video shown, to really enjoy having a say in their destiny. From that point of view, looks pretty successful.
[/b]

Normally I'd agree with this statement Eutychus, but then I read the latest news unfolding in Iraq. It seems that the Iraq's voted, but the voted for the wrong people in the Coalition's eyes.

Link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html

US fights back against 'rule by clerics'
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Given the widespread Sunni boycott of Iraq's January 30 elections for a National Assembly, with voting concentrated among the Kurdish north and Shi'ite south, the polls served more as a referendum to prove Shi'ite and Kurd strength.

This can be seen in the results of the polls released on Sunday, with the Shi'ite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance capturing 48% of the vote and the Kurdish alliance 26%.

Now it emerges that there is a strong movement in southern Iraq for the establishment of autonomous Shi'ite provinces as a precursor to introducing vilayet-e-faqih (rule by the clergy) in the whole country.

Of these calls for autonomy or federalism, the most disconcerting for US authorities is the call for religious rule. Already, leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq are pushing for \"Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution\".

To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to \"nip the evil in the bud\".


How will they "nip this evil in the bud?" Well, the coalition is going to arm the militias in the south using Pakistani weapons, which will in turn cause chaos in that southern region. In other words, "you voted, but we don't like how you voted, and since we're bigger and badder than you, we're going to fix it."


And as the whole UN oil for food/silence/cooperation/kickbacks scandal unfolds, there are more and more bits of info filtering through the system that indicate

I sure won't disagree with you here. This is the main reason why the UN didn't vote to go into Iraq. The ones voting were the ones sitting on the cash. They didn't want to lose their income.

Saddam did have biological weapons. Hell, just ask the Kurds who survived if he had them.

You are absolutely correct in that statement but you need to use the word HAD in your statement. He HAD them during the Persian Gulf crisis. Saddam, after we attacked in 1 and 2, dismantaled his weapons program. The evidence is in all of the reports we've seen up to now.

Now, if the coalition would have gone in on the basis of Saddam shooting down our planes in the "no fly zone," I would have been cool with that.

If the coalition would have gone in, based on Saddam not using the money he received from oil to feed his people, I would have been cool with that.

If the coalition would have gone in, based on the intelligence we had that Saddam was torturing his citizens, I would have been cool with that.

However, the coalition went in based on WMD, using intelligence that was old, faulty and paid for by the British. I'm not cool with that.

The coalition said that the Iraqi's desired to be free, but we aren't letting them be free. We are condeming those that are voting based on their religion. Why is that? I believe it's because we cannot understand why people would vote in a democratic election, based on our religion (okay except for a few Republican Catholics who voted for JFK, simply because he was Catholic)

I believe, now that the election is over and the Iraqi's have voted, that it's time for the coalition to leave. We gave them their freedom, now they have to decide how badly they want it.

France helped America during her fight for freedom and democracy in the American Revolution. However, France did not stick around after the vote was concluded. France didn't tell us that we voted for the wrong Continential Congress or voted for the wrong guy for President. We need to learn from that and leave.
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: The United States of America

Voted for the 'wrong' people? Perhaps, perhaps not, time will tell. However as
Eutychus may have pointed out, at least there was an election of sorts with more than one party despite all the threats before the election.

How many years has it been since that country had ANY kind of election regardless of wether the 'right' party won. How many years was old picklehead in power preventing any kind of say from the people other than his own?

That country has just stepped into the 20th century governing wise and should not be expected to get it right immediately. Besides, who are we to judge who the right party is? Let them decide their own fate. Let them see that the people, if allowed, can have a say in who gets elected and leads their country.

Imho, they have come a very long way from what the system was like 5 years ago.
 

PyRo99

Active Member
Messages
567
Re: The United States of America

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Eutychus\")</div>
Humiliated in Iraq? They just had an election and seemed, by all the video shown, to really enjoy having a say in their destiny. From that point of view, looks pretty successful. And as the whole UN oil for food/silence/cooperation/kickbacks scandal unfolds, there are more and more bits of info filtering through the system that indicate Saddam did have biological weapons. Hell, just ask the Kurds who survived if he had them.

I'm not quite sure what to say about N. Korea other than our intelligence folks dropped the ball, allowing things to get to this point. But then we treated N. Korea like relatives no one wants to see for so long that we probably deserve our current pickle.

And as to our concealed carry law here in Ohio, recent statistics are showing that it's working. Violent crimes are down. That just means someone will step in and make us stop doing it because it seems to work.[/b]

You used a keyword, as Sosuemetoo pointed out. He had WMDs, which country doesn't anymore though? Hell, you've got the fiery No. Korea and Iran with 'em, or they just have the backing of their government.

Did Iraq have an election, yes they did. But, were trying to instill a government within' them that we approve of. It takes trial and error to find out what works and what doesn't. We didn't know right away that democracy was the way, instead we had our fair share of 'bad' governments.

We are being humiliated. Were getting hit by terrorists that are hiding out in urban settings. Were supposedly the baddest beast of all, and yet we cannot even do so.

On the other hand, you have got Russia bombing the ever loving hell out of Chechnya. Gotta hand it to the Russians.
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: The United States of America

Let the other hooligans in the world behave as they may. It's bad enough to have the likes of france denegrate us each chance they get. They too will have their day in the center ring.
 

Eutychus

Junior Member
Messages
37
Re: The United States of America

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"StarLord\")</div>
It's bad enough to have the likes of france denegrate us each chance they get. They too will have their day in the center ring.[/b]

Whenever France is in the center ring, there is usually someone else in there with them, usually with a pair of hands around France's throat. I wonder if anyone from our side of the Atlantic will come to the party next time around.
 

Top