If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I am actually scared sitting in my chair now, thinking what the youth of tomorrow will be like.
We are a world of people hell bent on destroying people over issues based on things that cant be proved!
(religion).
Why are you scared? The worlds always been like this since we figured out how to convey ideas to one another. Were people. People are stupid, so they argue over stupid things. But then arguments lead further and further and you know what happens. Humans have been fighting since their existence. If you worry about the youth of tomorow, what about their offspring, and the generations after that? I dont think we should worry all that much, I mean we'll all be long gone and see wheter or not those things are true.
Alright Iceman, you're right. I shouldn't have said that thing about America being the most paranoid country because I simply don't got sufficient proof.
I still however stand behind my opinion of your media being way worse than ours. Not because I got some lame national pride thing going but for the simple fact that I see way worse things the American media does. The British are also pretty horrible when it comes to media, the country is flooded with tabloid papers.
Lastly, you're right that I worded my post bad. I didn't mean for it to sound as insulting as you might have found it.
Myblock. I lived in Canada most of my life. I don't think the Canadian media is really that much better. And I do think it's some lame national pride thing because I was that way too when I was your age.
And there is no good or bad way to word an insult. And insult is an insult and always will be that way. Just go ahead and be straight about something if you want to say it. Or better, if you have something insulting to say, don't say it at all.
I don't think that if WW3 does occur, US would be the main headline maker. The fact that today offensive actions are equally taken by nations other than the US clearly means that if such a war was to occur, it would be fought on a wider scale, would involve many more armies, would be fought on a longer duration and US or the other major armies would be busy fighting their own battles instead of automatically being slated as the rescuer.
PT737SWA,
It is true that as you put it 'sky is NOT falling' but one should never forget that it was the international political crisis and the difference of opinions of the nations which led to WWI and to WWII. Just recently we all saw that how the 'allies' were divided on Iraq and if US or any other nation was to go against war on another nation, more divisions can be expected. In other words, same old story seems to be cooking.
Aaron Kearney,
Any nation can declare another nation a 'terrorist regime' and with today's media technology, can easily manipulate majority of their own people. So, I say that what many of us think about today's wars involving the Good V.S. Evil is just absurd and the reality is that increasing number of wars between nations are being fought and we must remember that wounds inflicting upon anyone can not be healed easily nor quickly.
kaddyuk,
People not only attack or harm others just because of their religion. It also involves difference in political opinions, it also involves economic advantages and disadvantages and it also involves geographic matters. In some cases, it might even mean culture, ethinicity and colour (as in race).
Any nation can declare another nation a 'terrorist regime' and with today's media technology, can easily manipulate majority of their own people. So, I say that what many of us think about today's wars involving the Good V.S. Evil is just absurd and the reality is that increasing number of wars between nations are being fought and we must remember that wounds inflicting upon anyone can not be healed easily nor quickly.
kaddyuk,
People not only attack or harm others just because of their religion. It also involves difference in political opinions, it also involves economic advantages and disadvantages and it also involves geographic matters. In some cases, it might even mean culture, ethinicity and colour (as in race).
Wars happen, but what isn't there now is the formula for a powder keg. There are no modern day "Triple Alliances" or "Triple Ententes" that involve groups of nations opposing each other bitterly. Conflict today is very much regionalized. It stays in one region of the world, and the stakes aren't there to invoke the possibility of many other nations simultaneously declaring war on an enemy. Even with the controversial US liberation of Iraq, no other nations came to arms against the US, nor did they threaten to do so. And why would they? Sure, their economies would be affected, but would they lose any lives (besides those in the military deployed to assist their ally)? Territory?
As you can see, the deployments listed are all relatively minor, with the largest being Desert Shield/Storm. Also notice that a lot of these incidents were to a) provide aide, b) oust unstable foreign governments, or c) rescue American citizens/protect American interests. None of these incidents are going to spark worldwide war. One unstable nation is not going to cause the entire world to go to arms, as is evidenced by the latest Iraqi conflict, not to mention Libya, Somalia, etc. Hundreds of years ago, wars were faught between large nations and covered large portions of continents. Today, however, conflicts are on a smaller scale, and are often fought not between large nations, but between large nations and small terrorist organizations.
Originally posted by kaddyuk
I am actually scared sitting in my chair now, thinking what the youth of tomorrow will be like.
We are a world of people hell bent on destroying people over issues based on things that cant be proved!
(religion).
Kaddyuk,
Would you mind giving me examples of this occurring? One not involving Islam?
I do agree that you have a point in this matter but still, I tend to look at the whole situation from the outmost side and even though there might not be marked alliances, there still are groupings among nations. Even though today's battles maybe be regional and on smaller scales, sooner or later, war between two major countries would occur and this may be the only event that may trigger a huge conflict.
I do agree that you have a point in this matter but still, I tend to look at the whole situation from the outmost side and even though there might not be marked alliances, there still are groupings among nations. Even though today's battles maybe be regional and on smaller scales, sooner or later, war between two major countries would occur and this may be the only event that may trigger a huge conflict.
I can see why you're thinking what you are, but I still disagree. Nations see the shift towards small-scale conflict, and as such are preparing their armed forces for those conflicts, not massive worldwide conflicts. Older, Cold War-era equipment is now being retired in favor of smaller numbers of much more advanced weaponry. Military buying strategies today are no longer about mucho firepower, they are about cost efficiency, and cost efficiency doesn't allow for a world war.
who knows if it'll happen. Why would you even think about that? The only sure thing is that our greed will be the end of us all....so yeah maybe greed will cause another world war??? it's what caused the others
It might be weird for you but not for me. I am simply thinking and there is nothing awkward about that. I do agree with you though that greed can be a very harmful thing.
It is true that as you put it 'sky is NOT falling' but one should never forget that it was the international political crisis and the difference of opinions of the nations which led to WWI and to WWII. Just recently we all saw that how the 'allies' were divided on Iraq and if US or any other nation was to go against war on another nation, more divisions can be expected. In other words, same old story seems to be cooking.
You and others are correct that the American media is bad, in that they like to blow things out of proportion in order to attract viewers/readers. BUT there is also room to blame people who over-react to the media's actions. Like someone else said, Americans are not running for cover, we're not building bomb shelters and we're still flying airplanes!
We're just more aware of possible danger, and that's a GOOD place to be.
I don't believe that WWIII will ever happen. There may be other wars or skirmishes, but not on a global scale. Any country with half a brain knows if you go up against U.S. Armed Forces in a war they will lose - simply based on the advantage of technology, weapon stockpile and number of soldiers. Why would they deliberately go into a suicide mission like that?
Please refrain from turning this thread into another America V.S. The World thread. I don't care about American people or their media or their military. I was talking about World in general.
Cubana,
If you think this thread is stupid, I request that you post here no more.
Thats what i don't understand why does Iraq and Libya them type of countries not allowed nukes where the US does and there is considerable proof that they have them. You would argue back the US wouldn't use them but they could. Especially when we argue Iraq had the capability to launch within 45 minutes where was the proof in that i doubt there is any WMD's in Iraq.
Thats what i don't understand why does Iraq and Libya them type of countries not allowed nukes where the US does and there is considerable proof that they have them. You would argue back the US wouldn't use them but they could. Especially when we argue Iraq had the capability to launch within 45 minutes where was the proof in that i doubt there is any WMD's in Iraq.
The US nuclear arsenal is being dismantled as we speak. Just look at all those aircraft sitting in the desert...put there so the Russians and the rest of the world can see for themselves that we're getting rid of nukes. As for the warheads, locations are being looked at in which to store them thousands of feet beneath the surface of the earth. It is a very controversial issue, because the warheads will need to be able to be stored for many many years and not harm the environment or people living near them.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment