Member Avatar

Could a new cold war be on the brew?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6717119.stm

The russians are aiming nukes back at europe after the americans annoyed them by building missle defences and pulling out of the ABM treaty

Member Avatar

"Strategic Balance" mmmmm
never heard that one before ~ oh wait, the last cold war.

Member Avatar

lol and did u hear the americans are bringing back Star Wars

Member Avatar

What they going to war with light sabres?
now that will be fun!
I cut u with light! ~ jumping while using a mystic power. Oh wait it's all done with green screens ~ boo

commented: reptime +16
Member Avatar

Could a new cold war be on the brew?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6717119.stm

The russians are aiming nukes back at europe after the americans annoyed them by building missle defences and pulling out of the ABM treaty

hey, we've already had our cold war with the damn russians.. now it's yalls turn to put up with them lol..

lol and did u hear the americans are bringing back Star Wars

huh? no kidding? An episode 7? I always thought it would be awesome to make movies after "The Return of the Jedi" Where'd u get this info from?

Member Avatar

Star wars = big space lazers for shooting down nukes. Started in the 60s but was gonna cost trillions but bush wants to make it for north korean defence

Member Avatar

What they going to war with light sabres?
now that will be fun!
I cut u with light! ~ jumping while using a mystic power. Oh wait it's all done with green screens ~ boo

Don't laugh too hard -- many objects of science finction have become reality. The communicators in Star Trek are already in common use around the world, and we have had lazer beams for quite a few years too.

You can think of Russia as Dark Vador and USA as young Starbuck. Not sure where europe would fit in, unless maybe Palpatine

Member Avatar

>Not sure where europe would fit in, unless maybe Palpatine

No, I'll say more like Padme Amidala, that gets used and then disposed.

Member Avatar

President Reagan was sold on the concept of using lasers and or plasma beams as a missile defence, but the practicality of the concept was fraught with problems. Chief among these was getting a generating plant large enough to make it run into space and keep it running unmanned. We now have the technology to build lasers that don't require the tremendous amounts of energy to operate.

As for the north Koreans, with their current technology they stand a better chance of nuking themselves. Their ICBM technology is doing well to get off of the main land. Basically as is stands today they couldn't hit an elephant in the arse with a surf board.

Russia's state of military readiness is an oxymoron, their military has been routed by economic demise and pilfering. My biggest concern regarding their military is what parts of their nuclear arsenal have been sold to what third world power.

Member Avatar

Here's a good question. What right does the United States have to build a missile defence station in a nation that doesn't want us to build onw in their country? And why would they want to when it threatens peace? It really defeats the purpose if you ask me. Build a DEFENSE station at the risk of going to WAR. There's no logic.

Member Avatar

>What right does the United States have to build a missile defence station in a nation that doesn't want us to build onw in their country?

The right that the power of money buys.
If a country REALLY doesn't want it, there's nothing that USA could build there.

Member Avatar

The USA is stationed in nations all over the world. It seems threatening and almost opressive. It's the most powerful nation in the world, why does it need to station troops in all of these nations?

Member Avatar

>why does it need to station troops in all of these nations?
I have been a militar. But I am not a militar advisor, so I could not tell you why we need troops everywhere, if I accept your statement. However, could it be because:
>It's the most powerful nation in the world

and that's how you keep it that way?

>It seems threatening and almost opressive.
What literature or who have you been listening lately?.

Member Avatar

Not opressive, I take that back, but it seems threatening. If Cuban troops were stationed in Cleveland I'd feel threatened. So I'm sure they feel threatened that we're stationed there.

What do you meen you've been a militar? You were in the military? Which nation? I have a few friends that have fought. And btw, although I don't always agree with the politics of war I have always supported the troops.

Member Avatar

>What do you meen you've been a militar?
I meant that.
>You were in the military?
I believe that's what being a militar means. ;)
>Which nation?
I was a corporal in the Spanish Air Force. No, I wasn't a pilot. I worked in a telecommunication section, when teletypes were high
tech in Spain.

Member Avatar

I can understand the radar facility being installed in the Czech Republic, as a defensive position it has merit in that region, and I sure that the Czech government will benefit financially from the exchange. What I don't understand is why in the world would we need to have interceptor rockets in Poland.

Citing Iran as a potential threat also has merit, they may have the ability to build nuclear weapons in the near future. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just enough of a religious zealot that he is worth worrying about, I wouldn't be surprised to see him threaten or use those weapons. One thing that always comes to mind is that no atrocities have been committed more gleefully than those done in the name of God.

I started to make a remark questioning Ahmadinejad's sanity, but then I thought about what Bush has done during his administration and I realize that I would have to include him as well.

Speaking of nut cases, the other country mentioned as a "rogue state" is North Korea which is led by Kim Jong il, this guy definitely is not playing with a full deck of cards. The only thing working in the favor of the world in general is their technological ineptitude.

Member Avatar

The USA is stationed in nations all over the world. It seems threatening and almost opressive. It's the most powerful nation in the world, why does it need to station troops in all of these nations?

b/c we can. We are the most powerful nation on this planet, and we love to get involved in other's affairs. We love to think that we are the police of the world, and we are 'helping' the world by spreading democracy.

I completely agree about North Korea, it will take those idiots centuries to develop an accuracy similar to the musket. As for the Russians, they have had it rough in the transition between communism and democracy.. tougher than most other countries b/c it is so large and sparsely populated..

And for the missile defense system.. we are basically using the Europeans to test our own devices.. obviously the Patriot missile system failed quite miserably, as it is almost impossible to hit a missile with another missile (the laws of physics, I'm sure sk8 would agree with me :))

Look at Israel, we give that country more military and economic support than any other country in the world.. and why? To test our military weapons of course! Israel is always at war, and the Americans want them to test our military might. The same is true for the Europeans and this new missile defense system.. It appears that we are doing them a favor, but in reality it is our selfish desire..

Member Avatar

mmm im afraid this will just add to the sense of hate most peope here fell toward the american government

Member Avatar

mmm im afraid this will just add to the sense of hate most peope here fell toward the american government

President Bush has not exactly been a good will ambassador for the U.S., the results of his actions will take decades to get over.

Member Avatar

well Bush has made a mess of things!

Member Avatar

so has blair. they are both idiots

i fear gordon brown will be the same

Member Avatar

Hes the new prime minister right? I doubt it, I mean he will probably want to go in an opposite direction and try to distance himself from bush and blair.

I really do not see why America is considered a "good", "democratic", and "free" country. We are supposed to stand for justice, yet we hold supposed "terrorists" in jail without trial, we kidnap suspicious looking people (basically arabs) and send them to be tortured, we hold rigged elections, the president blatantly lies constantly, and we are hypocritical enough to consider Iran and North Korea "rogue" states. What country invaded Iraq for no reason other than oil? No it wasn't North Korea or Iran, it was the US. Face it, America sucks.

commented: Fully agree... +3
Member Avatar

Several points:

1. 'Good' for a nation is in many ways meaningless; even more so when you consider that it's generally also a worthless term when applied to individuals. 'Good' usually means 'I agree with that person|statement|idea'.

2. We aren't really democratic, no. We're a republic. If America were a true democracy, then it would take forever for any decisions to be made; I think I prefer things the way they are. It's worked out quite well so far.

3. Freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences. If the actions someone takes, or the views someone espouses, are seen to present a danger to the safety or livelihood of those around him, then he can be penalized for that. Or would you prefer to just give a lifetime guaranteed 'get out of jail free' card to everyone and let them do whatever they want?

4. Exactly which elections are you referring to? The only rigging I can think of in recent or semi-recent history was when Al Gore tried to claim Florida in the 2000 election by 1) Requesting recounts in only strongly-democratic-oriented voting precincts, 2) Attempted to violate Florida State Law by insisting that recounts be run beyond the mandatory deadline established in the state laws concerning elections.

5. If someone gives a statement with a truth-value of '0', but they believe, on the best evidence they have, that the statement has a truth-value of '1', it's not a lie. It is simply an inaccurate statement. Where is your proof that the current administration is deliberately stating inaccuracies while knowing them to be false? Note: The ability to scream 'BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!' ad infinitum does not constitute proof.

6. So you're saying that the attempt to eliminate the threat of a near-nuclear nation, run by an individual known for his mistreatement of those under his 'ministrations', and who had the desire to destroy the United States, isn't a reason?

Member Avatar


6. So you're saying that the attempt to eliminate the threat of a near-nuclear nation, run by an individual known for his mistreatement of those under his 'ministrations', and who had the desire to destroy the United States, isn't a reason?

War is never a good option. Second of all countries might like us more if we did not invade so many countries for no reason. Good thing is, since Iraq is a mess, the american public will not stand for another war.

America is screwed up and bush knows it. No longer is he and his increasingly uneasy republican party screaming statements such as "cut and run" and "we must stay the course". You know why? Because america is tired of that propaganda. The was in Iraq is a failure, and thus the Bush administration.

There is a reason why terrorists hate us. Its because 1) we are to materialistic, and 2) we support srael which has occupied Palestine for quite some time. Its ironic that Israel was created for the jews to escape persecution, yet that is what they are doing to arabs. That sounds hypocritical to me.

Member Avatar

Iraq / Afgnaistan = new Northern Ireland for us, or vietnam for you

Member Avatar

.
I really do not see why America is considered a "good", "democratic", and "free" country. We are supposed to stand for justice, yet we hold supposed "terrorists" in jail without trial, we kidnap suspicious looking people (basically arabs) and send them to be tortured, we hold rigged elections, the president blatantly lies constantly, and we are hypocritical enough to consider Iran and North Korea "rogue" states. What country invaded Iraq for no reason other than oil? No it wasn't North Korea or Iran, it was the US. Face it, America sucks.

Hey, I'd rather that they arrest on the basis of discrimination and torture them in hopes that they do find the terrorist.. Personally, I'd rather that they were tortured than fear an airplane flying into my home, work, or somewhere for vacation. Sure, it's not democratic, but it's for our own safety.

America is screwed up and bush knows it. No longer is he and his increasingly uneasy republican party screaming statements such as "cut and run" and "we must stay the course". You know why? Because america is tired of that propaganda. The was in Iraq is a failure, and thus the Bush administration.

There is a reason why terrorists hate us. Its because 1) we are to materialistic, and 2) we support srael which has occupied Palestine for quite some time. Its ironic that Israel was created for the jews to escape persecution, yet that is what they are doing to arabs. That sounds hypocritical to me.

True. The only reason we invaded Iraq was for oil.. Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and I seriously doubt he could hit us from Iraq anyway. Bush used this and September 11th to emotionally connect with the American people, and he manipulated our feelings in order to go to war (Well, I seriously doubt that Bush thought that up on his own.. he was probably just following orders). We should have only stuck with Afghanistan and catching Osama b/c he is the one who organized that attacks on September 11th.

People hate us because we are wealthy, pigheaded, and so laid back. Many countries have really low standards of living, and personally, I think they are jealous of the American way of life. But others are upset that we act as the "World Police"

Member Avatar

Hey, I'd rather that they arrest on the basis of discrimination and torture them in hopes that they do find the terrorist.. Personally, I'd rather that they were tortured than fear an airplane flying into my home, work, or somewhere for vacation. Sure, it's not democratic, but it's for our own safety.

You may be right, but regardless its against the constitution. But we should give them a trial right? In fact, we are actually making this nation more susceptible to terrorism by torturing people. By torturing people, we make the world hate us even more, which in turn creates more terrorists.

Member Avatar

How is it against the constitution? The constitution protects the rights of its people.. most of the people that we torture are not American citizens... so I don't see a legal conflict at all.

We have spurred terrorism by acting like terrorists ourselves.. We shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq at the beginning.. and we should just let them go to civil war and kill each other off now. However, if we are to stay in Iraq, I say we do it right. Get the damn media out of there, and have our troops do whatever they have to.. if this involves doing stuff considered 'immoral' then so be it.

Member Avatar

Get the damn media out of there, and have our troops do whatever they have to.. if this involves doing stuff considered 'immoral' then so be it.

That will create more terrorists. The US cannot win the war on terror. A country cannot win against a group with limitless resources and limitless support, it is impossible. Just as microsoft cannot win against linux.

Member Avatar

haha.. you've got to throw in linux ;)

I do agree, America cannot win the war on terror by playing by the rules. We can win if we use our strong and technologically advanced military to its full efficiency. IE, killing innocent civilians, using neutron bombs, bombing the **** out of every city, using more advanced missiles and state-of-the-art weaponry. We have yet to utilize our military strength, because people back home might consider it 'wrong'. However, we are at WAR. We should do whatever necessary to make sure we win quickly. None of this 'civilized' rules of war bs.. there are no rules in war.