Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dr.Zer0 on May 16, 2002, 02:45:51 pm
-
I mean, he alredy knew about what Osama was planing :mad2: :mad2: :mad:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/bush.sept.11/index.html
-
to break that link here...?
-
you will bring us.....a shrubbery!
oh....wrong Bush.
:D
-
tsk, tsk, tsk. I've always known it, ALWAYS. Bush is evil
-
I actually think he might have had a good reason not releasing the information. He's got a cabinet ya know. Say he released the information, people would be afraid to fly on airplanes for awhile. Economy gets real bad (look at what happened when the planes _were_ hijacked, airlines were dying)
Now that its happened, everyone thinks its wrong.
Doubt that Al Gore would have given a **** anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
tsk, tsk, tsk. I've always known it, ALWAYS. Bush is evil
Finally! I was affraid that Americans have always been blinded by their leaders.
Oh come on people wake up! I belive Clinton was a mad man. He was sick! I don't know about Bush and I am not very interested in what he is doing out there.
But can someone please answer this to me? Why does American government always take a course of millitary action even when it is not needed? That has always puzzled me.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Finally! I was affraid that Americans have always been blinded by their leaders.
Oh come on people wake up! I belive Clinton was a mad man. He was sick! I don't know about Bush and I am not very interested in what he is doing out there.
But can someone please answer this to me? Why does American government always take a course of millitary action even when it is not needed? That has always puzzled me.
uhh, so the military dosent just become almost useless in peace time
-
Originally posted by Razor
Finally! I was affraid that Americans have always been blinded by their leaders.
Oh come on people wake up! I belive Clinton was a mad man. He was sick! I don't know about Bush and I am not very interested in what he is doing out there.
But can someone please answer this to me? Why does American government always take a course of millitary action even when it is not needed? That has always puzzled me.
If everyone thought like you we'd all be dead, because the news for you is the world aint very nice. Anthrax, nerve gas, dirty nukes. And that happy man Saddamn Hussain is trying to get as much of those as possible, to blow us westerners into no, not the stone age, into oblivion. Military action is always needed when evil exists, we helped kick out the taliban and by doing that, you have Afgans freedom. Something im sure you value and something North Korea and Iraq dont have much of.
-
Originally posted by Dr.Zer0
I mean, he alredy knew about what Osama was planing :mad2: :mad2: :mad:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/bush.sept.11/index.html
On September the 10th, if you had told me a bunch of Muslims were going to hijack planes and blow up skyscapers, i'd of laughed and called you mad. Your getting too high on this thing called hindsight.
-
i think that the government knew a terrorist attack was about to occur, but no one would have guessed it would be as bad as 9/11
edit: and i think this backs it up
"The president did not receive information of the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers," he said. "This was a new type of attack that had not been foreseen. As a result, a series of changes and improvements have been made to the way the United States deals with a terrorist threat."
-Ari Fleischer
-
Pfft. Like they could have done anything... :p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Pfft. Like they could have done anything... :p
Well if they had known they were gonna use planes they could of shot them down, does Brazilian Military have Fighterplanes and Surface to Air missiles?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
If everyone thought like you we'd all be dead, because the news for you is the world aint very nice. Anthrax, nerve gas, dirty nukes. And that happy man Saddamn Hussain is trying to get as much of those as possible, to blow us westerners into no, not the stone age, into oblivion. Military action is always needed when evil exists, we helped kick out the taliban and by doing that, you have Afgans freedom. Something im sure you value and something North Korea and Iraq dont have much of.
Ok then. But what the heck did you do in Vietnam? Were you establishing peace? Oh I forgot yes you did and you lost the war!!
Ok the Afghanistan thing is clear. The Taliban did attack the US and ok nato had to do something about it, but if I remember quite well, nato also attacked countries that have never attacked US and it's allies. You are obviously too blind not to see the injustice that was commited by your ''peacekeepers'' about say, 3 years ago.
-
I dunno, you tell ME what Britain did in the Vietnam war?
-
To clarify, Zeronet is from England - Wigan or somewhere. :p
-
Warrington.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I dunno, you tell ME what Britain did in the Vietnam war?
nothing, but Austrailia (close enough) did send troops.
Vietnam was a war of containment/domino theory. The thinking of the time was that if South Vietnam fell to communism, then the neighboring countries would fall until you had a Soviet-backed commie regime right up against a Western ally. Oh, don't listen to the media about Vietnam, they twisted the war to make it seem like we were losing when we were winning. The only reason we "lost" Vietnam was the Johnson was micromanaging the war where he would do all the general's work. Hitler did the same thing starting in the middle of WWII and look what happened.
-
The Media does twist things a lot. Its quite true Austrailia by a technicality comes under British territory in some way(as their head of state is the same as my head of state the "Queen".)
-
You know F.D Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was coming.
He just let it happen to create a political excuse to enter the war.
Besides, He knew that war would end the depression and at the same time he would gain popularity. (Not unlike Bush)
America is run by idiots and one day it will burn to the ground.
We will probably live to see it too.
-
Meh. There's no proof the government more than suspected that Pearl Harbor was happening, and there are terrorist threats all the time. This isn't exactly news- I see you haven't seen the reports on some of the more outrageous acts of incompetence the government went through with evidence of the hijackings. I mean, in one case the FBI HAD one of the guys in prison as a suspected potential hijacker, but didn't search his stuff!
And, all in all, I can't be as hard on Bush anymore as I'd like to. At least, not about foreign policy. He's a jingoistic cowboy bastard, but somebody very shrewd is holding the reins, who's put a great deal of care into damage control. It's astounding how well the government avoided turning Afghanistan into another Vietnam or getting us bio-bombed by Saddam.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
If everyone thought like you we'd all be dead, because the news for you is the world aint very nice. Anthrax, nerve gas, dirty nukes. And that happy man Saddamn Hussain is trying to get as much of those as possible, to blow us westerners into no, not the stone age, into oblivion. Military action is always needed when evil exists, we helped kick out the taliban and by doing that, you have Afgans freedom. Something im sure you value and something North Korea and Iraq dont have much of.
Right, so what you're saying is we should eradicate people unlike us before they do it to us first. There's a historical precedent for this - the desire of the American military following WW2. They had the Atom Bomb and the USSR did not - so they reasoned that before the USSR got one, they should destroy it. It's a pre-emptive strike...
By caving into the methods of toerrorists and dictators, we become little better ourselves. Just because Saddam wants to destroy the West doesn't mean we should destroy his nation. Besides, that works both ways: from Iraq they see America threatening to destroy their nation and respond with a "let's destroy them first" mentality.
Further to that, I'm yet to see conclusive proof that this time, Saddam actually has these weapons of mass destruction. Yes, denying inspectors access is suspicious, but I doubt very much that America will allow Russian inspectors in to check that the nuclear weapons they said they'd destroy the other day have been. Besides, deny to me that Bush has family scores to settle.
Finally on the Saddam point, we, the West, armed him in the first place so he could fight Iran, another nation that we didn't (and still don't, supposedly) like. So there. It's just our own hubris about controlling 'inferior' people and getting them to do our dirty work by proxy. :no:
In Afghanistan we have replaced terror not so much with freedom as another dangerous power vacuum. The Afghans may be allowed to play music, but they still have no food, homes or jobs. Yay for freedom; God Bless America.
Incidentally, when the Taliban first swept to power in Kabul (taking it from the very warlords to whom we have just returned it) they were welcomed by the public because they promised a return to order from lawlessness. Oh, and the West armed the Mujhedin (sp) as well so they could fight the USSR.
As for North Korea, it's a Communist country, and thus I guess must be automatically evil. It's different. :rolleyes: It's part of Bush's ridiculous and ill-defined 'spindle of atrocities' or whatever the hell it's called this week - something which patently doesn't exist. Korea may oppose Western capitalism, but it had nothing to do with the Sept. 11th attacks. Nor did Iran - it condemned them. The only country to publicly celebrate them was Iraq - yet these three contries are bunched together.
Recently, Bush and co. have widened the definition of 'states supporting terror' to include Syria, Cuba and some other one. Clearly there are scores to settle in Cuba, and it's the only reason at all that it has made the list. These states are not those responsible for the WTC attacks; and they are now being used as a justification for making the world a safer place - for American Republican Capitalism. Hooray. These states may be able to understand why the attacks took place, but they universally condemned them and by no means sponsored terrorism in any way related to 9/11.
It alarms and appals me that Britain is being drawn into this increasingly barmy "war on weird stuff - oh, and Osama, too". I mean, it's bad for America as well, but at least Britain can disassociate itself from it.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
nothing, but Austrailia (close enough) did send troops.
Vietnam was a war of containment/domino theory. The thinking of the time was that if South Vietnam fell to communism, then the neighboring countries would fall until you had a Soviet-backed commie regime right up against a Western ally. Oh, don't listen to the media about Vietnam, they twisted the war to make it seem like we were losing when we were winning. The only reason we "lost" Vietnam was the Johnson was micromanaging the war where he would do all the general's work. Hitler did the same thing starting in the middle of WWII and look what happened.
That containment excuse is only a half-truth.
The US was in that country to maintain it own ecomonical ends.
They only tell the people what they want to hear.
Only the things that will prevent protest.
This country is not in any position to go after Iraq.
Once we war with China the American peiople will be in for a BIG suprize.
The United States is using this War On Terror bull**** to cover up these illegal wars aganist countries that place some kind of disadvantage in one way or another to the United States.
They are using 9/11 as an excuse to do things they always wanted to do but couldn't because of politics.
Also could be partly why they diddn't do much about this intelligence before 9/11.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
America is run by idiots and one day it will burn to the ground.
We will probably live to see it too.
As with all nations. And there's nobody in the world competent enough to lead a nation properly. Got a point?;)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I dunno, you tell ME what Britain did in the Vietnam war?
Britain was too sensible to get involved thank you.
Actually i always thought the americans won in vietnam, excuse my ignorance but it just goes to show how well america covers its (numerous) mistakes.
Personally i don't like america's foriegn policey, it thinks it always right when it doesnt have half a clue whats going on 100 yards beyond its own borders.
Plus Macdonalds (grrrrr) comes from the US so it must be an evil country.
Odly enough i was discussing what motivates suicide bombers with my friends about 4 hours before it all happened on sept. 11th.
Funny old world.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
Vietnam was a war of containment/domino theory. The thinking of the time was that if South Vietnam fell to communism, then the neighboring countries would fall until you had a Soviet-backed commie regime right up against a Western ally. Oh, don't listen to the media about Vietnam, they twisted the war to make it seem like we were losing when we were winning. The only reason we "lost" Vietnam was the Johnson was micromanaging the war where he would do all the general's work. Hitler did the same thing starting in the middle of WWII and look what happened.
Make no mistake, America was winning - but at enormous cost. Final victory would probably have come as a result of uncompromising scorched earth policies, which the US public found reprehensible. And when a war with the public is lost, the physical war is over too.
As for the domino theory, that was proved disastrously wrong. The US actually pre-emptively bombed Cambodia, creating an atmosphere in which the Communists came to power that would not have existed otherwise.
Besides, what's so wrong about the 'Commies'? Stalin stated that he wanted to keep Communism within the borders established after WW2 and assisted any insurrections in other nations (except Greece) - same as the West.
-
After the Cold War the US should've gone back into Isolationism. Instead of policing the world. (Not to mention the fact that they do a very bad job at it.)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Anthrax, nerve gas, dirty nukes. And that happy man Saddamn Hussain is trying to get as much of those as possible, to blow us westerners into no, not the stone age, into oblivion. Military action is always needed when evil exists...
So, what gives us the right to research all that but not him? On a realistic scale, we're every bit as likely to misuse them as Saddam. All our missile bans and sanctions are hypocrisy in the most revolting form, considering that we have enough nukes to blow the Earth to ash many times over, strains of nearly incurable plagues in our labs, and chemical weapons of every variety.
If we were invaded by a superior ground force, you'd better believe we'd be seeing the fireworks show to end all fireworks shows, and the Iraqui army would react in xactly the same way were we to invade, since they know they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Rant all you like, Saddam has already evidenced a fair degree of stability and sanity by refraining from nuking or biobombing DC when he had the chance, and he really has to be a brilliant leader to keep his country together and more or less safe against the odds he faces. I mean, he has practically the entire world against him, and so far he's still around.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The Media does twist things a lot. Its quite true Austrailia by a technicality comes under British territory in some way(as their head of state is the same as my head of state the "Queen".)
Funny; my head of State is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Do we live in different countries? :D
And regarding 9/11 again, and Pearl Harbor too:
It irritates me that people can get greater recognition for failing to stop and event and then reacting in a popular way to it, than actually preventing the event and informing the public about it.
Not to be a conspiracy theorist regarding Bush, but what else would be as effective at increasing the popularity of a President 50% of people think isn't legitimate and others criticize on a number of key policy issues?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
If we were invaded by a superior ground force, you'd better believe we'd be seeing the fireworks show to end all fireworks shows.
Agreed; it's not for nothing that they call nuclear weapons "weapons of last resort". Although they may not be used first, they will be used last. And since they're a weapon they are designed to be used.
Originally posted by Albert Einstein
I do not know what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Funny; my head of State is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Do we live in different countries? :D
Not true if i were to be technical. :p
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Not true if i were to be technical. :p
I don't recognise the Queen as my sovereign. :p
As McCarthy in FS1 said "I answer to a higher authority!" :D
It's not that I hate the Queen per se, she's just been badly advised. Nobody advised her to declare a Republic.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I don't recognise the Queen as my sovereign. :p
As McCarthy in FS1 said "I answer to a higher authority!" :D
It's not that I hate the Queen per se, she's just been badly advised. Nobody advised her to declare a Republic.
Im a Republican, i was just stating the facts. Still we could never get rid of them funny as they run that religion.
Also World War 4 would not be fought with sticks and stones, because we have computer power. We can store information in bunkers(which they did/do during the late 20th) etc and store equipment for war.
About Saddamn, the only thing keeping him around is the Muslim states around him and pretty soon its going to turn sour for him, when we start bombing all his complexes. Saddamn is luckily enough so insane, he believes he could win, Saddamn has never had the chance to nuke anyone because theres a big no fly zone which we patrol. Stability in Iraq? Well i dont know what you call stability these days oh yes, he used to bomb and use bio/chem weapons his own people before we set up the no-fly zone, such a "brilliant" leader isnt he?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Im a Republican, i was just stating the facts. Still we could never get rid of them funny as they run that religion.
:wtf: Uuumm, how does religion come into this? The government could abolish the monarchy at any time it wished, if it had majority support.
Also World War 4 would not be fought with sticks and stones, because we have computer power. We can store information in bunkers(which they did/do during the late 20th) etc and store equipment for war.[/b]
That would not make a cool and catchy quote. :D Besides, if nuclear war happened so quickly who would be around to remember where the weapons were, how to use them - or indeed put them there to begin with?
Anyway, 'twas a figure of speech. You can imagine the devastation necessary to fight a war with sticks. And besides, you could never fight a world war with sticks and stones. They don't have a long enough range, and it implies that communications and power, as well as transport, are all defunct. :p
About Saddamn, the only thing keeping him around is the Muslim states around him and pretty soon its going to turn sour for him, when we start bombing all his complexes.[/B]
I can barely wait. Gulf War II: The Vengeance, showing in theatres of combat thousands of miles away from you this Autumn. A Saturday Matinee treat.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
:wtf: Uuumm, how does religion come into this? The government could abolish the monarchy at any time it wished, if it had majority support.
That would not make a cool and catchy quote. :D Besides, if nuclear war happened so quickly who would be around to remember where the weapons were, how to use them - or indeed put them there to begin with?
Anyway, 'twas a figure of speech. You can imagine the devastation necessary to fight a war with sticks. And besides, you could never fight a world war with sticks and stones. They don't have a long enough range, and it implies that communications and power, as well as transport, are all defunct. :p
I can barely wait. Gulf War II: The Vengeance, showing in theatres of combat thousands of miles away from you this Autumn. A Saturday Matinee treat.
The Queen is the head of the church of england, nuclear war isnt quick, nukes dont suddenly arrive out of no where and i dont think war is something to be made a joke out of, "War is hell".
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The Queen is the head of the church of england
Yes. And? How does this stop anyone from removing her from the position of monarch? She can either be head of the CoE without being monarch or the Church of England can be disestablished. I don't see why it should get my tax money.
nuclear war isnt quick, nukes dont suddenly arrive out of no where and i dont think war is something to be made a joke out of, "War is hell". [/B]
Indeed. Well, nukes could be 'relatively' quick when used as a first-strike weapon - as in, 16 minutes to cross the globe. I don't think you'd get ever-so-much stowed away in those minutes. :D
I agree though that if a war is sustained or an army prepared, stuff can be stored. Still, if nobody remembers where it is...
-
Well thats true, i meant you couldnt totally disband them from existance. But i agree the CoE should be disestablished and NI should be given back to Ireland.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Personally i don't like america's foriegn policey, it thinks it always right when it doesnt have half a clue whats going on 100 yards beyond its own borders.
Plus Macdonalds (grrrrr) comes from the US so it must be an evil country.
Oh, boo boo kitty ****. Every superpower throughout history has done the same.
-
Originally posted by killadonuts
That containment excuse is only a half-truth.
The US was in that country to maintain it own ecomonical ends.
economics? Vietnam had nothing that we wanted from them economically, its all forest and rice paddies.
-
do you know how many times bin laden threatened us? he never carried out any of the other stuff he said he was gonna do, so there was no reason to believe him this ime.
-
You know why all you people are anti-American? Because the Americans are on top. If it was the brits on top you'd the spewing the exact same thing except replacing 'Bush' with 'Blair'.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Im a Republican, i was just stating the facts. Still we could never get rid of them funny as they run that religion.
Also World War 4 would not be fought with sticks and stones, because we have computer power. We can store information in bunkers(which they did/do during the late 20th) etc and store equipment for war.
About Saddamn, the only thing keeping him around is the Muslim states around him and pretty soon its going to turn sour for him, when we start bombing all his complexes. Saddamn is luckily enough so insane, he believes he could win, Saddamn has never had the chance to nuke anyone because theres a big no fly zone which we patrol. Stability in Iraq? Well i dont know what you call stability these days oh yes, he used to bomb and use bio/chem weapons his own people before we set up the no-fly zone, such a "brilliant" leader isnt he?
I really don't know where to begin- whether with the fact that nuclear weapons have a tendency toward catastrophic electromagnetic distortion, which would wipe everything computer-based within a quite large radius, or whether to point out that Saddam isn't really very popular with his neighbors, either, and doesn't think he could win, and has made that fact quite apparent.
And when, exactly, did he use bioweapons on his own people? Part of the problem with saying asnything coherent about Saddam is that in the past few decades literally NO solid infarmation has gotten to the public about him, and what there is is given an obvious, and rather silly, propogandic spin. Perhaps he really is the Antichrist and planning to dominate the world and kill everybody including himself with an incurable anthrax plague, but if that's not true, next to nothing that is ever reported about him is, and considering how he has yet to actually USE any bioweapons, it seems to me to be highly unlikely. In short: You don't know ****, I don't know ****, nobody knows ****, so let's talk about something else.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You know why all you people are anti-American? Because the Americans are on top. If it was the brits on top you'd the spewing the exact same thing except replacing 'Bush' with 'Blair'.
Too true.
-
Shrike: Your point being? Nobody likes an imperialist superpower. The name makes no difference, nor does which foreign culture is being imposed on the oppressed majority of he world. Doesn't vindicate the US.
-
Yes we in the "All Mighty Evilly Over-Powering United States" are just bastards :wtf:
Yea we only fight for the $$ right? Hitler....that jerk had SO much cash flow and oil rigs and tech that we just HAD to kick his tail and end WW2 ...but for our OWN reasons.
PPl....get a clue...K Mart $1.99
Thank you have a nice day :D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Shrike: Your point being? Nobody likes an imperialist superpower. The name makes no difference, nor does which foreign culture is being imposed on the opressed majority of he world. Doesn't vindicate the US.
I fully agree. The US should lock it's borders for the next 25 years....then reopen...sweep up the dust and make 50,000 more strip malls.
:snipe:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Shrike: Your point being? Nobody likes an imperialist superpower. The name makes no difference, nor does which foreign culture is being imposed on the oppressed majority of he world. Doesn't vindicate the US.
Well, I suppose we should build a mile-high wall around the entire North American continent. Stop foreign aid, stuff like that.
-
YOu start on the west and I'll take the east ? ;)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And when, exactly, did he use bioweapons on his own people? Part of the problem with saying asnything coherent about Saddam is that in the past few decades literally NO solid infarmation has gotten to the public about him, and what there is is given an obvious, and rather silly, propogandic spin. Perhaps he really is the Antichrist and planning to dominate the world and kill everybody including himself with an incurable anthrax plague, but if that's not true, next to nothing that is ever reported about him is, and considering how he has yet to actually USE any bioweapons, it seems to me to be highly unlikely. In short: You don't know ****, I don't know ****, nobody knows ****, so let's talk about something else.
He might not have used bioweapons, but he did nerve gas his own citizens. Do a google search for "halabja" (the city that was gassed)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Well, I suppose we should build a mile-high wall around the entire North American continent. Stop foreign aid, stuff like that.
Who says there's a solution that the country would go through with? Eventually, the US will wane in power, until it reaches a certain crisis point, and then it will collapse. After a while, some new superpower will appear. Happens all the time- nothing particularly new, shocking, or wrong with it, in fact it's likely life will continue much as always after a short disruption.
-
"Happens all the time" eh ? :wtf:
And just HOW many countries that were superpowers HAVE fallen ?
USSR Gee wonder why? Possibly the fact that most of the general public couldn't afford a decent lifestyle ?
Hmmmm....others........hmmmmmm .......NONE
Japan COULD be argued as falling with the bombing in WW2 ....yet in under 50 years they're even stronger...thus...not fallen.
So...WHEN are you referring to happens all the time? TV or Movies?
-
British Empire, Spain, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Ur. To name a few.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You know why all you people are anti-American? Because the Americans are on top. If it was the brits on top you'd the spewing the exact same thing except replacing 'Bush' with 'Blair'.
I've been saying some of the most anti-American things on this thread. Yet I myself am American.
-
And you said super powers....not just powers dude.
Rome's the closest to a Super Power in the list...yet the simple concept of the time of Rome AND the fact that ONE man ran the boat closed them out.
I'm talking countires that could become self reliant if they had to. Not getting into the Trade debate lol But you know what I mean.
China...Japan...the old USSR,...USA...the ones that could hold their own in and out of combat.
-
This should help :)
su·per·pow·er Pronunciation Key (spr-pour)
n.
A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
And you said super powers....not just powers dude.
Rome's the closest to a Super Power in the list...yet the simple concept of the time of Rome AND the fact that ONE man ran the boat closed them out.
I'm talking countires that could become self reliant if they had to. Not getting into the Trade debate lol But you know what I mean.
China...Japan...the old USSR,...USA...the ones that could hold their own in and out of combat.
Er... I restate my list. In their time, they ALL were superpowers, and there were many more like them. You need to brush up on your history, dude. Babylon in its heyday would have made the US look like a microstate in relative influence.
-
So they all held sway of international politics and so forth ?
Besides...you can't say Babylon collapsed...didn't God smite them or something ?
-
There was no "international" to have politics with. They didn't ever know of anything more than 500 miles from their own nation, and thus their power over their world was absolute.
Er... no.
Why are you trying to make excuses for these formerly powerful nations anyway? Does nothing ever happen to the US, or something? Yes, they all fell because of something, they didn't just magically vanish. So?:wtf:
-
Bush isn't evil. He's stupid. And Clinton was a good president. Sure, there was Monica Lewinski, but America was at the best condition in years thanks to him. And more importantly he wasn't lazy or stupid like Bush.
bad president=popular
good president=unpopular
Bin Laden is also responsible for making Bush popular! Arrrrrrgggggg!!!!!!
-
You just made most of my point. You listed "super" powers that didn't even KNOW anything but themselves for the most point. A True superpower isn't a "big badass with a nuke" it's a country that is a MAJOR factor in global politics and economy. Thus citing thus examples wasn't truely correct. They aren't even classified as superpowers by definition.
So the comment of "it happens to them all" doesn't really fit. Most of the examples you gave for it fell do to reasons that didn't even involve another country,...or with Babylon another human :p (If you go for the bible...as for true history...noone has a clue. )
Honestly if the US "falls" I seriously belive it would be because we stretch ourselves too thin to assist other countries that just ***** about us for other things or because too many times we've "turned the other cheek" or "been the bigger 'man/woman/ppl/whatever". That's why I was impressed with the US finally saying enough and going to kick some ass after 9/11.
But the truest fact of all. The US ....for better or worse...has always attempted to help other countries .....and been **** on for it,...conclusion...screw them and look out for #1.
-
So... a superpower isn't a nation that rules over the entire known world, it's a nation that rules EVERYTHING.
In which case, we have yet to conquer Mars, much less Alpha Proximae and the galaxies beyond our own. So the US is not a superpower. Nor is any other nation that is, was, or will be.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Bush isn't evil. He's stupid. And Clinton was a good president. Sure, there was Monica Lewinski, but America was at the best condition in years thanks to him. And more importantly he wasn't lazy or stupid like Bush.
bad president=popular
good president=unpopular
Bin Laden is also responsible for making Bush popular! Arrrrrrgggggg!!!!!!
Ummm you do realize most of what a President does in office that would effect the general public isn't even seen until long after he's out of office right ? Not everything ...but alot of it.
Besides....everyone loves to down Bush Jr...yet how many of those that "hate" him cashed in that extra Tax refund check that HE gave you? Hmmm?
Any of you send it back ? Donate it to schools or something else that you feel the money should be going to?
Just curious
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So... a superpower isn't a nation that rules over the entire known world, it's a nation that rules EVERYTHING.
In which case, we have yet to conquer Mars, much less Alpha Proximae and the galaxies beyond our own. So the US is not a superpower. Nor is any other nation that is, was, or will be.
So you're saying you've failed basic reading and understanding ?
I POSTED the definition of Superpower on page two lol
Check it out.
It doesn't say RULEs ANYthing.
-
I'm not attacking America itself, just Bush. You think he came up with the refund idea to make the public happier to him? He's a spokesperson, nothing more.
-
Tax my ass. That's money that got cut out of an imaginary surplus, and simultaneously went to the public for their discretionary shopping and to the defense department for revolutionary new ways to kill the public.
Anyway, it makes little or no difference who's in office- for all the furor over the 2000 election, how much subtantially changed in your life afterward?
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I'm not attacking America itself, just Bush. You think he came up with the refund idea to make the public happier to him? He's a spokesperson, nothing more.
Well I'll never be on the Clinton side for ONE reason....draft dodging.
Ex-Army thing.
-
A powerful and influential nation
...Yeah?:rolleyes:
-
Oh, and
Originally posted by Warlock
draft dodging.
"Texan National Guard".:p
-
Taxes. You mean that $300 check that I didn't qualify for because I don't have kids? (Or dependants of any kind.)
Might not be the exact reason why they didn't give it to me but it's close enough. (It's been many moons that I've slept through since then.)
But at any rate, Osama HAS commited other acts against the U.S. Just not lately, and not on our side of the Atlantic. He's bombed several embasies over the years.
What the original post was talking about that I don't agree to.
Okay, so the FBI says, "Mr. President, we think that Osama is going to use an airliner as a bomb. We don't know when, or where, but sometime within the next few months."
Now, you're the president... *waits patiently for the screaming in terror to stop* What do you do?
Airline security is heightened, though even today it's more annoying than it is securing.
And what if we had planes scrambled that terrible morning? What COULD they do? Shoot down two airliners full of fuel somewhere over manhattan? Scatter flaming debris though the residential areas outside of it maybe?
Hell, at least there's a CHANCE that the one that hit the pentagon might have crashed in the yard and not the side of the building itself.
And noone here can really think they would shut all airlines down for any 'undetermined' time for something that has no set date. It's like a bomb threat. You get the call, you lock down, get everyone out, but sooner or later you gotta let it get back to normal.
It all boils down to if they DID have the information, even if just the city it would happen in, What could they do to stop it?
-
(http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/26-Apr-2002/hammer.gif)