Greatest Threat to World Peace: A Gallup Survey

Harvey wrote

 Hatred sells.  If you are a capitalist you have to think that is our fault more than the networks.  They can only sell if there are buyers, and we are the buyers.

BINGO.

Hatred is one of the strongest emotions and get people emotional and you can make them stop thinking, get them to stop thinking for themselves and you can control them and make them think what you want them to. That is why everyone hates us, their leaders practice this age old theory. It was used by GW to get us sheep to go along with the Iraq war. It's practiced by liberals and conservatives alike. People stopped thinking when newspapers were replaced by television - to read and understand an article you have to be able to think, to listen and watch a TV show all you have to do is react.

The truth is that we go to war to keep the world stable - not for oil, not for humanity, but for stability. The US economy hates instability and loves predictability. Those that have amassed large quantities of wealth don't like change as it creates opportunities to change the balance of power and they like the balance just the way it is.

9-1-1

Wars suck.  All those country's that have the US flag covering them just stop giving them aid, they don't want it so don't give it to them.  The meaning of war seems to have changed over the generations.  This tip toe through the tulip type of war we participate in now is BS.  Either fight it or don't.  Those little pieces of shit countries don't fear us so they keep there crap up. They are like Ants you just cat get rid of them.  We set a bad example after 911.  We should have turned Afghanistan into a big giant glass plate.  BOOM done.  To simple?  May be but what is going on is Syria right now is out of control. Besides I don't like paying a grand a month to support our military and I don't think that number includes all the aid we give the rest of the world.  

No argument from me TJ ----- we have become pussified

Agreed

On this day to recall the hate that was brought on by 911 I have to think W showed remarkable restraint in not Nuking bin Ladin

W was a pussy. He should have nuked them and been done with it.  That nit wit got us into the mess we are in. I like him better now that he is not President but when he was in he was just a buffoon.

As someone who has met and befriended people from Afghanistan, this is about the most ignorant shit I've ever seen written.  You think those people deserve to die because of a few assholes?  Sounds like exactly what bin Laden did to us.  How does that solve the problem?

I'm out for another year... enjoy wallowing in your hate and ignorance...

PS you should bring the head asshole back...

As mad as we all were back then if W nuked Afghanistan it would have made us the bad guys killing innocents and creating martyrdom.  That was the best case worst would gave been an all out nuclear war.  

The Israelis will not show such restraint if Iran uses a nuke on Israel.  This is why we can't let Iran get nukes.  That is the biggest threat to the world and Obama is a fool for agreeing to the agreement.

Coach Z wrote

The Israelis will not show such restraint if Iran uses a nuke on Israel.  This is why we can't let Iran get nukes.  That is the biggest threat to the world and Obama is a fool for agreeing to the agreement.

Disagree - let them build Nuks. They will spend a ton of resources protecting them and maintaining them and they won't be able to use them. It's a money and resource pit and might actually stabilize them as they would have to grow up.

PeeTex wrote

 They will spend a ton of resources protecting them and maintaining them and they won't be able to use them. It's a money and resource pit and might actually stabilize them as they would have to grow up.

EXCEPT>>>>Iran wouldn't have to use them in order for them to be effective foreign policy tools. Possession of them is extremely weighty.

Snowballs wrote

PeeTex wrote

 They will spend a ton of resources protecting them and maintaining them and they won't be able to use them. It's a money and resource pit and might actually stabilize them as they would have to grow up.

EXCEPT>>>>Iran wouldn't have to use them in order for them to be effective foreign policy tools. Possession of them is extremely weighty.

Actually no. Historically it has either made no change or made the country more responsible. My examples; Pakistan - more responsible, N Korea, no change. Please cite yours.

That's ridiculous PT. Pakistan a responsible nation ? So why does the US spend so much money trying to keep it somewhat stable and their nukes safe ? If they didn't have them would that still be necessary ?

Suppose Iran has nukes and then uses conventional missile attacks/threats to shut the Persian gulf to oil flowing to western countries. Suppose they arm their terrorist buddies with one ?

Mutual Assured Destruction is why Iran will never launch a nuke at Israel. A nuked Israel equals a nuked Iran. Those in power in Iran enjoy their power. That would cease to exist if they launched on Israel.

Snowballs wrote

That's ridiculous PT. Pakistan a responsible nation ? So why does the US spend so much money trying to keep it somewhat stable and their nukes safe ? If they didn't have them would that still be necessary ?

Suppose Iran has nukes and then uses conventional missile attacks/threats to shut the Persian gulf to oil flowing to western countries. Suppose they arm their terrorist buddies with one ?

How often has Pakistan attacked India since they got the bomb, they got it in 1998 and there was a small border skirmish in 1999. Prior to that there are 3 major wars, 71, 65 and 47. Since Pakistan had the capability the rest of the world as well as Palistan itself must make sure not to let it leak to a rouge group. This actually brings us all closer together. Think about it.

Eeeeregghhhhh trying to keep silent here ' oooH. Man  just put a sock init WARPY , opinions are like assholes ,everyone has them dammit ... ?C'mom Warp just bite yer friggen tongue and this thread will self destruct


OOOOOO Sheeeeeit i cant ,dammit !!!  

Wars are fn Useless , No one Wins , there is no such thing as a GOOD war ,  Dont friggen go to war  BUT if you do , it isnt a damn dress rehearsal. , go to win.

But repeat wars are useless , No one wins anymore , innocents are wasted on the  greed and egomaniacal blood lust of the insane ....... I like you all DETEST what is happening and absolutely refuse ro advance the causes of egomaniacs, greed hogs or other miscreants who roam the world seeking destruction for their own advancement .

the media is biased , the leadership is for the most part symbolic rather than actual and ends are ALWAYS FOGGY at best

Ok kick my ass as a old man who has seen his best day , BUT i detest War and feel its utter futility to my very core . If absolutely necessary and our security is threatened in the first instance fine , but based on hypotheticals , feelings , false flag operations or any other juxtaposition of logic versus greed ..NO FN WAY !

NEVER AGAIN BABY !!

Peace out

The resident old fart here

PeeTex wrote

How often has Pakistan attacked India since they got the bomb, they got it in 1998 and there was a small border skirmish in 1999. Prior to that there are 3 major wars, 71, 65 and 47. Since Pakistan had the capability the rest of the world as well as Palistan itself must make sure not to let it leak to a rouge group. This actually brings us all closer together. Think about it.

Iran and Pakistan are similar in that they both tolerate and fund terror groups to promote their ends. They realize an all-out war would cost them more -- in lives and their power. But they still do it. Pakistan funds the neverending fight in Kashmir, as well as al qaeda assholes that they think they can control, even when those guys kill their soldiers. The list of proxy wars Iran is involved in is quite long, which is the biggest downside to the deal. They've actually never openly attacked another country, unlike us and lots of our friends AFAIK. They may have participated in some the pan-arab wars against Israel, but probably not since those guys all hate the persians.
So while it will make them more of economic power and better able to fund proxy crap unless more moderate hands take the reign, the hope is that they see the upside in participating in the world stage, not just the regional one. But this is not a deal to allow Iran to get nukes, and it shouldn't be construed that way by anyone.

MikeK, one person says one ignorant thing and you throw a tantrum? We don't need the chief asshole here but if you're that sensitive, maybe it isn't the best place for you anyway?

warp daddy wrote

NEVER AGAIN BABY !!

Peace out

The resident old fart here

None of my protesting ever did any good (I was at the WH against Iraq and Afganistan), but you're welcome to join me. I don't think I've seen a "good war" in my lifetime, and while I'm glad we carry a big stick just in case, it would be nice not to have to flash it to impress the other kids at the playground quite so much.

Ignorance I don't think so. If a country knows if they harbor terrorist and they do what they did to us they will be wiped off the face of the earth they might think twice letting that happen. To simple? To cruel? To effective? War is war. If we wiped Afghanistan of the mao the day after it happened no one would have done anything other than posture. What everyone would hate is around the globe.

ml242 wrote

PeeTex wrote

How often has Pakistan attacked India since they got the bomb, they got it in 1998 and there was a small border skirmish in 1999. Prior to that there are 3 major wars, 71, 65 and 47. Since Pakistan had the capability the rest of the world as well as Palistan itself must make sure not to let it leak to a rouge group. This actually brings us all closer together. Think about it.

Iran and Pakistan are similar in that they both tolerate and fund terror groups to promote their ends. They realize an all-out war would cost them more -- in lives and their power. But they still do it. Pakistan funds the neverending fight in Kashmir, as well as al qaeda assholes that they think they can control, even when those guys kill their soldiers. The list of proxy wars Iran is involved in is quite long, which is the biggest downside to the deal. They've actually never openly attacked another country, unlike us and lots of our friends AFAIK. They may have participated in some the pan-arab wars against Israel, but probably not since those guys all hate the persians.
So while it will make them more of economic power and better able to fund proxy crap unless more moderate hands take the reign, the hope is that they see the upside in participating in the world stage, not just the regional one. But this is not a deal to allow Iran to get nukes, and it shouldn't be construed that way by anyone.

MikeK, one person says one ignorant thing and you throw a tantrum? We don't need the chief asshole here but if you're that sensitive, maybe it isn't the best place for you anyway?

So my point was that things either don't change or they get better - do you dispute that?