What will be the end of the world as we know it?

How the world will end? Who knows, there are many posibilities, and almost all of those seem to be reasonable, and have an equal chance of happening. If we succeed in living peacefully until the sun dies out/a giant meteor strikes the earth(again, or not, who knows)/whatever other natural disaster may happen, that is when the apocalypse will happen, hopefully, most of the world will have been evacuated by then, or at least other worlds will have been colonized. But I sincerely doubt whether any person of the human race will ever see that day.
With policies and aggressiveness of several world nations, and the weapons available to them NOW, I shudder to think what will happen when new weapons are invented.....

On the Bush thing, thev MAIN thing Bush has done differently, is that he has been more and more aggressive. Yes Clinton ordered (air)strikes on Iraq, but Clinton never invaded Iraq. When Bush actually went through with the invasion, i was shocked, he didnt get any permission, it was mainly his own decision, not even the congress had given him the right to declare war, but the only thing that changed was that it wasn't an offical war.
Besides being more aggressive, Bush also ignored the UN, not just not doing anything with the UN, but purely and solely IGNORING it. The UN didn't give him any permission, while the USA did co-establish the UN, that does not give him the right to act as if he owns the world. Because that is another difference in Bush's policy, he's acting as if the USA has the right to police the world and be the almighty leader of the world. As if they have the right to say to everyone that THEIR way is the only right way.
Small example, here in The Netherlands we have a relatively small drugs problem, way and way smaller than that of the USA, yet the USA wants us to do what they are doing to counter that problem(sting operations and other methods, instead of helping the addicts), and if we won't agree, they will come with economic sanctions. Not just that, but they also ignore our laws by sending intelligence here and doing those sting-operations, and then they refuse to have any of those agents testify to prevent people from going to jail.
Another example: With the coming of the international courts in The Hague, the USA has been trying(and succeeding) to have special regulations with all of the countries involved to make the US citizens immune for any charges and such of those courts, basically placing them outside of the law!!!

And if you want a reason why the USA will fall, it is very easy: one cannot stay in power for an indefinite amount of time. Perhaps the USA will not cease to exist, but I am poisitive that their might will fall, ofcourse life will go on, the area won't cease to exist, but world-influence will deminish. And I think that that effect has already begun, with Bush making the country more and more ignorant of the international community, and focusing on his own "crusade". I think that this will alienate the USA from the rest of the world, and that is not a good thing.
History has tought us that every world-power(no matter how seemingly powerful), will fall eventually. To say that the USA wil hold because they are powerful, is ignorance or an incredible feeling of patriotism. I don't know when the "dominance" of the USA will cease, but it will....one day.
 
Sander said:
On the Bush thing, thev MAIN thing Bush has done differently, is that he has been more and more aggressive. Yes Clinton ordered (air)strikes on Iraq, but Clinton never invaded Iraq. When Bush actually went through with the invasion, i was shocked, he didnt get any permission, it was mainly his own decision, not even the congress had given him the right to declare war, but the only thing that changed was that it wasn't an offical war.
Besides being more aggressive, Bush also ignored the UN, not just not doing anything with the UN, but purely and solely IGNORING it. The UN didn't give him any permission, while the USA did co-establish the UN, that does not give him the right to act as if he owns the world. Because that is another difference in Bush's policy, he's acting as if the USA has the right to police the world and be the almighty leader of the world. As if they have the right to say to everyone that THEIR way is the only right way.
Click to expand...

Clinton was the exact same way. Hell, he constantly launched strikes against Iraq without even bothering to consult the UN as much as Bush did. This isn't a dramatic shift in policy, it's just a different president doing more of the same.
 
Gwydion said:
Clinton was the exact same way. Hell, he constantly launched strikes against Iraq without even bothering to consult the UN as much as Bush did. This isn't a dramatic shift in policy, it's just a different president doing more of the same.
Click to expand...

Clinton threw bombs. Bush declared war and changed the government. The difference IS significant. The MOST significant is the change of government Bush instituted. Clinton did no such thing.
 
1. I was talking about the political implications. Overthrowing a regime has heavier implications than throwing bombs...

2. Which one was more costly? I mean, Bush put a shitload of money into the Iraq thing...
 
If the world ends for humanity as we know it it might lead to a new civilization of another life form, and teh cycle might be repeated. Humans are flawed creatures in that some (many of us) think only of ourselves and our the people that are closest and dearest to us. For us humans it is very hard to think on a global scale. Cause and effect of what we do. One of the reasons for what might be humanitys downfall might be that we are so strongly individualists and are also so easily affected and convinced to beleieve in things. Some part of me says humanity deserves dying out and another says that we all deserve tp live in equality and happiness, but that is indeed a very hard goal to reach, if not impossible...

Sorry, too tired to go on *Great Yawn*
 
Whatever, Kharn. We're straying from the point at hand. Using the exact same rhetoric, Clinton took military action against Iraq without the "blessing" of the UN. The scale is bigger, but the political "implications" are no different as in either case the sovereignty of the regime is being violated.
 
You're ont seeing the point here, Gwydion. The entire point, is that Bush INVADED and Clinton left the guy alone except for the bombs(which were, by the way, thrown when he didn't cooperate, not when he DID cooperate). Bush is much more aggressive, and self-centered. Also, Bush has a crusade kind of view of his presidency, he thinks it is his god-given task to rid the world of "evils" such as communism and terrorism(I hate to put those two in the same sentence...).
You see, there isn't even a SMALL difference but a very LARGE difference between invading and throwing bombs. While when you throw bombs, you still leave the regime in power, and don't take action against the government of the country, but more against some of it's actions, when invading a country, you are almost always overthrowing a government, and therefore changing the entire way the country works, and every single political part involved.

There is a big and significant difference between invading and bombing, please, try to understand taht, because if you can't, what would be the difference for you between bombing a country and taking over that country?
 
Sander said:
You're ont seeing the point here, Gwydion. The entire point, is that Bush INVADED and Clinton left the guy alone except for the bombs
Click to expand...

Both of these represent attacks on the sovereignty of the regime. However, that being said, it's still somewhat disingenuous to compare the two because they didn't happen concurrently in different worlds. That is to say, the invasion is ultimately the result of the years of involvement combined with the 9/11 attacks. I believe that if Clinton and Bush's positions were switched, we'd have seen essentially the same things happen.

(which were, by the way, thrown when he didn't cooperate, not when he DID cooperate)
Click to expand...

Sure, he began destroying missiles he wasn't supposed to have... once there was an invasion force sitting right next door. He's a regular boyscout.
 
Sure, he began destroying missiles he wasn't supposed to have... once there was an invasion force sitting right next door. He's a regular boyscout.
Click to expand...
First off, I'm not saying he's a good guy, but I'm not saying he was doing hundreds of things wrong preparing to fire nukes and funding Osama either.
Second: Now you're assuming things, I don't recall EVER seeing any evidence about any missiles, and you shouldn't use assumptions as if they were facts. But please, let's not get into a debate about whether or not the invasion was justified( I think you can guess my stance), but rather see what the difference is.

And, I doubt that this invasion is actually the result of those attacks. YOu see, on the day of 9/11, the first thing I heard after the attacks was "SADDAM DID IT!!!!" Obvioously, that wasn't true, even though the USA tried everything they could to prove ANY link between Osama and Saddam, all they could find was ONE follower of Osama remaining in Iraq for a week or so. Now you can call me stupid, but I don't see any link between 9/11 and Saddam himself.
That Bush has some problems with Saddam(Probably due to his father) seems rather obvious to me(Maybe not to you, though...), and I think that invading Iraq was in no means a consequence of 9/11, other than the fact that 9/11 kind of gave Bush the freedom to do what he wants to confront terrorism, and when he did that, he went further, and went into Iraq. And seeing as how the public opinion was behind him with Afghanistan, he thought "Hah, I could do AFghanistan, let's do Iraq as well.". IN any case, the point I'm trying to make, is that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 itself, and that Clinton would undoubtedly NOT have invaded Iraq if he had in power, since there is no link. NO link at all.
 
Gwydion said:
Both of these represent attacks on the sovereignty of the regime. However, that being said, it's still somewhat disingenuous to compare the two because they didn't happen concurrently in different worlds. That is to say, the invasion is ultimately the result of the years of involvement combined with the 9/11 attacks. I believe that if Clinton and Bush's positions were switched, we'd have seen essentially the same things happen.
Click to expand...

Gwydion, I know the praising to high heavens of Clinton annoys you, but I don't nuderstand why you won't see why the stuff Bush did and the stuff Clinton did are COMPLETELY different.

The bombing of countries in "peace actions" is standard. International politicians don't actually care about it, unless they can whinge about it to win over votes.

The invasion of a country is different. You're actually changed the government of a country. When this country is as important as Iraq, people are going to care, because it effects their country pretty much directly. This is the reason there was an outrage about Iraq, and not about the unimportant "who cares?" Afghanistan.

What Clinton was doing was NOT "overstretch", because it didn't really affect the standing or military expenses of the US either way. What Bush is doing IS "overstretch" (it's a bit hard to judge this simply, but I'll take a shot) because of the effect on the EU, on America's international expenses and (independant from the attack) the huge budget increases in defense.

Clinton good, Bush bad.
 
Simply dunno!!!

Hmm... just like Moslem said: "Wallahu alam." Only god's know....

Well, thanks to Bush, Our rep in government made a resolution that "The military and police in any circumstances shall not purchase any military Hardware from United States and Great Britain."
Yup, we turned to other such as French, Russian, Chinese, Belgian and (sobb...sobb... hopefully not) Canadian...
As I write this we purchase 2 Sukhoi 27 and 2 Sukhoi 30MKI (thats the beginning. We are going to have 4 Squadron in 2 years), several Mi35 Hind, T85 tanks, BMPs and Panhard APCs.
 
Gwydion said:
Sure, he began destroying missiles he wasn't supposed to have... once there was an invasion force sitting right next door. He's a regular boyscout.
Click to expand...

Yup really dangerous those missiles. They could probably have killed maximum 1000-2000 people armed with ordinary explosives.

And we are all certain that saddam would go to a war against the us or european countries with those missiles when the western world is waging a war on terror.
 
Hehe, mind changing you're post so it doesn't seem as if I actually wrote that?? ;)

And ehmm...Gwydion, are you still here to possibly reply??

In any case, I was wondering what would've happened if Saddam atually had those weapons of mass destruction(Say an A-bomb), and long-range missiles to fire them, and fired them(or detonated them in some other way) in the middle of London. IN what kind of world would we be living now? Would the world be consumed in nuclear fire now? Would we be on our way to the Wasteland? Would Iraq be flat as a pie, and we just continuing our ways??
 
Sander-

You make a good point about the danger of nuclear proliferation. What if Saddam really did have the bomb?

Well the Bush and Blair folks are still trying to make their case that the Weapons of Mass Destruction are there, and now are trying to change the tune to "Well it didn't really matter 'cause Saddam was a bad."

Had Saddam nuked London, or Paris, or Tel Aviv or Istanbul or Washington, I think the world would have united against him, much like the world united against the US after 9/11 and even were willing to justify invasion of Afghanistan (But then who really liked the Taliban- anyone who blows up two of the world's biggest Buddhas for spite can't be good).

The problem is two fold-
(1) does the mere existence of a fear of attack give a state the right to go to war? Do you need more.

(2) how to stop nations from developing weapons in the first place?

Iraq's ability to threaten the Persian Gulf wsa one of two reasons why the US established a Rapid Deployment Force, that became CENTCOM in the late 1970. THe program was begun under Carter after the Russians invaded Afghanistan and seemed the threaten the Persian Gulf. Reagan expanded the mission against threats within the Gulf (meaning Iran and Iraq). It would have continued to be a US interest to stop either country from acquiring nuclear ability. Did Saddam have that capacity- probably not. The best missile systems he had would have threatened local units. So perhaps he might have been able to nuke a US base in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. But there hasn't been proof yet that he had the bomb.

Mere fear of a state without more doesn't justify war, pre-emptive or otherwise. Otherwise, there would be no end to your willing to invade. Not every threat to your country is a threat to security.

Mere ownership of nuclear weapons doesn't justify a war either- If it did the French and Brits might be in trouble.

It is interesting to note that some countries have given up their projects to build the bomb. From what I have heard, Argentina and Brazil were both working on nuclear weapons and were deterred from continuing. I think South Africa still has the bomb, but I'm not sure. India's BJP tested the bomb for national pride, which forced the Pakistani hand to test their own bomb. Now both countries are pointing bombs at each other.

But quite a few countries have the bomb, how to get rid of them? Countries develop weapons in response of security threats and for prestige.

There also needs to be a distinction between why countries go to war and why countries tell their people they are going to war. The advertising might not be the same as the reality.

But to come to the question, would Clinton have done the same thing as Bush with regard to Iraq. I would guess that if Gore were in office, yes, in the end Saddam was going to go, and I think regardless of weapons of mass destruction.

Whether Saddam and the Baath party would have been removed by invasion or by other means- I think Gore might have gone with other means. But I think that it would have been very difficult to change Iraq without getting rid of the Baath party in addition to Saddam.
 
I think South Africa still has the bomb, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

When the Apartheid regime ended the new government decided to end the nuclear weapons program that was under way with the help of the governement of Israel. So for two years (yeah, that long) South African scientists and members of the International Atomic Energy Agency worked together in dismantling everything. After those two years South Africa was considered to be nuclear weapons free by the U.N. .

(2) how to stop weapons from developing weapons in the first place?
Click to expand...

It`s a typo right?
 
Dear Briosafreak-

I had thought that the South Africans were getting rid of the bomb, but wasn't sure if they had done it yet.

ANd yes, typo. My bad. Is fixed.

Cheers
 
Sander said:
Second: Now you're assuming things, I don't recall EVER seeing any evidence about any missiles, and you shouldn't use assumptions as if they were facts.
Click to expand...

Does "Al-Samoud 2" ring a bell?

Also reading this and knowing where some of you are from, I love how foreigners really like to delve into U.S. politics, it just shows how much more important we are.
 
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
Does "Al-Samoud 2" ring a bell?

Also reading this and knowing where some of you are from, I love how foreigners really like to delve into U.S. politics, it just shows how much more important we are.
Click to expand...

And its those kinds of thoughts that explain why so many foreigner don't like us. I only hope that most non-americans don't think the rest of us are such arrogant assholes. Please dude, and as an American I ask you, stopping giving us such a bad name.

Oh, and even modified, the Al-Samoud 2 didn't have that much range. Definitely not enough to hit the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top