RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


joether -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 10:05:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BOXMOOR74

Dear Sir,
With China,Russia,ISIS etc becoming more militaristic and wide spread a counterbalance is required and quite a number of the small nations in the FAR EAST and in EUROPE seek aid and protection from the USA and thus could start WORLD WAR III.

BOXMOOR74


There is much in the way of misinformation here.

It would be WW4, not WW3. We already went through WW3. The USA was the winner.

Cus remember WW1 was not called WW1, but the Great War. People often think that WW3 means Nuclear Armageddon. Its not. The world wars were created as a concept of one Nostradamus. That guy 'predicted' three 'Anti-Christs' whom would rise to power and bring much in the way of death and suffering. Three 'world wars' that would decide the fate of humanity. That the man placed hints for future generations to identify these evil beings and remove them before they could unless devastation.

The first world war's Anti-Christ was Napoleon Bonaparte. The second, Adolf Hitler. The third, Saddam Hussein.

Here is a quote from Nostradamus some say refers to 9/11:

"Two steel birds will fall from the sky on the Metropolis / The sky will burn at forty-five degrees latitude / Fire approaches the great new city / Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up / Within months, rivers will flow with blood / The undead will roam the earth for little time."

For years before 9/11, people thought those two 'steel birds' would be nuclear weapons. The "Great New City", would be New York City (since it was one of the largest cities in the world, and biggest in the Americas. "Fire approaches the great new city" would be 'normal' for nuclear weapon denotations. Yet, 9/11 took place with two jetliners crashing into the twin towers on the lower end of Manhattan Island. There was much fire, within months the US Military was attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The "undead" could be those walking in the cloud-dustry streets of New York City in the minutes after both towers came down (my speculation).

China is trying to make itself larger and flex its muscles. I only hope the Chinese people keep their government in check; or else that new economy of theirs will fall into dire straits due to sanctions and embargoes. Russia flexes their muscles but the economy is in sad shape right now. They take their actions with the United States to show lesser military groups from smaller nations "Hey, don't screw around with us".




joether -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 10:27:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You clearly do not have any understanding of our system.
The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator.
In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd.

It seems to me that while you are literally correct in your post, you are missing Staleek's point. My take on his post was that, in the USA, its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa.

One example of this was Obama's close personal identification with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Not only did he personally order and direct it, it was used in subsequent election campaigns as an example of how "presidential" Obama was. This seems to have struck a chord with voters as the great boost in his personal approval ratings following this exercise shows. Another aspect to be considered is the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA


Hate to tell you the issue with "militarization of police forces" is actually protected under the 2nd amendment. Yeah, conservatives think their version is correct; but "A well regulated Militia...." is the defining characteristic of police forces. "The right to bear arms, shall not be infringed" is explaining the limits of that police force to protect the society (i.e. "...security of a free state."). Can the police have armored vehicles and 'military level weapons'? Yes, under the 2nd amendment.

HOWEVER, unlike the conservative 'version' of the 2nd amendment, those police forces are under the control of government, which is under control of the people. When people do not vote, or participate in government; it allows more individuals with bad qualities to gain power and do awful things onto the people. So, if the people decide they do not want their local police force to be ready for 'any contingency', that is their right. If an event comes up that would have been neutralized or defeated by those military weapons; but the population voted it down, they'll have to live with the consequences of their actions.

Police forces, unlike the common conservative gun nut, understands the importance of 'keeping faith with the community'. That they need to justify the reason(s) to incorporate new pieces of hardware, technology, and/or arms into their arsenal against potential problems. For conservative gun nuts, they argue its their 2nd amendment right to have more arms than is sane/reasonable for an individual to have access. Comparing the two groups together, the police forces come out the clear winner. They can be held accountable for their actions and words. How many police forces you know that shoot off their mouths and spew hatred towards 'undesirable groups' of people in our nation? Gun nuts do it all the time towards non-whites, the LBGT community, and those whose religion is not Christian.




Aylee -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 12:23:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers



Oh, and your perception be may correct at least in the view of many around the world feel and at least as it relates to the role of the CIC, in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace.



Another reason to leave the UN and NATO.



but why? both were founded and "designed" by the USA





Because they are no longer serving the purpose for which they were founded. Why throw good money after bad. We should just leave them.

Why, as a German, would you care?




Aylee -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 12:26:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: BOXMOOR74

Dear Sir,
With China,Russia,ISIS etc becoming more militaristic and wide spread a counterbalance is required and quite a number of the small nations in the FAR EAST and in EUROPE seek aid and protection from the USA and thus could start WORLD WAR III.

BOXMOOR74


There is much in the way of misinformation here.

It would be WW4, not WW3. We already went through WW3. The USA was the winner.

Cus remember WW1 was not called WW1, but the Great War. People often think that WW3 means Nuclear Armageddon. Its not. The world wars were created as a concept of one Nostradamus. That guy 'predicted' three 'Anti-Christs' whom would rise to power and bring much in the way of death and suffering. Three 'world wars' that would decide the fate of humanity. That the man placed hints for future generations to identify these evil beings and remove them before they could unless devastation.

The first world war's Anti-Christ was Napoleon Bonaparte. The second, Adolf Hitler. The third, Saddam Hussein.

Here is a quote from Nostradamus some say refers to 9/11:

"Two steel birds will fall from the sky on the Metropolis / The sky will burn at forty-five degrees latitude / Fire approaches the great new city / Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up / Within months, rivers will flow with blood / The undead will roam the earth for little time."

For years before 9/11, people thought those two 'steel birds' would be nuclear weapons. The "Great New City", would be New York City (since it was one of the largest cities in the world, and biggest in the Americas. "Fire approaches the great new city" would be 'normal' for nuclear weapon denotations. Yet, 9/11 took place with two jetliners crashing into the twin towers on the lower end of Manhattan Island. There was much fire, within months the US Military was attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The "undead" could be those walking in the cloud-dustry streets of New York City in the minutes after both towers came down (my speculation).

China is trying to make itself larger and flex its muscles. I only hope the Chinese people keep their government in check; or else that new economy of theirs will fall into dire straits due to sanctions and embargoes. Russia flexes their muscles but the economy is in sad shape right now. They take their actions with the United States to show lesser military groups from smaller nations "Hey, don't screw around with us".




Please tell me you are not seriously using Nostradamus as the way to count the World Wars?

Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the numbering and which one would be coming. . . but Nostradamus? Really?




joether -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 12:50:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: BOXMOOR74

Dear Sir,
With China,Russia,ISIS etc becoming more militaristic and wide spread a counterbalance is required and quite a number of the small nations in the FAR EAST and in EUROPE seek aid and protection from the USA and thus could start WORLD WAR III.

BOXMOOR74


There is much in the way of misinformation here.

It would be WW4, not WW3. We already went through WW3. The USA was the winner.

Cus remember WW1 was not called WW1, but the Great War. People often think that WW3 means Nuclear Armageddon. Its not. The world wars were created as a concept of one Nostradamus. That guy 'predicted' three 'Anti-Christs' whom would rise to power and bring much in the way of death and suffering. Three 'world wars' that would decide the fate of humanity. That the man placed hints for future generations to identify these evil beings and remove them before they could unless devastation.

The first world war's Anti-Christ was Napoleon Bonaparte. The second, Adolf Hitler. The third, Saddam Hussein.

Here is a quote from Nostradamus some say refers to 9/11:

"Two steel birds will fall from the sky on the Metropolis / The sky will burn at forty-five degrees latitude / Fire approaches the great new city / Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up / Within months, rivers will flow with blood / The undead will roam the earth for little time."

For years before 9/11, people thought those two 'steel birds' would be nuclear weapons. The "Great New City", would be New York City (since it was one of the largest cities in the world, and biggest in the Americas. "Fire approaches the great new city" would be 'normal' for nuclear weapon denotations. Yet, 9/11 took place with two jetliners crashing into the twin towers on the lower end of Manhattan Island. There was much fire, within months the US Military was attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The "undead" could be those walking in the cloud-dustry streets of New York City in the minutes after both towers came down (my speculation).

China is trying to make itself larger and flex its muscles. I only hope the Chinese people keep their government in check; or else that new economy of theirs will fall into dire straits due to sanctions and embargoes. Russia flexes their muscles but the economy is in sad shape right now. They take their actions with the United States to show lesser military groups from smaller nations "Hey, don't screw around with us".




Please tell me you are not seriously using Nostradamus as the way to count the World Wars?

Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the numbering and which one would be coming. . . but Nostradamus? Really?


That REALLY is how the numbering works. I too was a bit skeptical when I first heard the set of arguments. More I thought on it, the more it makes sense. WW1 was not known by people as WW1 during the conflict or in the few years after it. It was "The Great War" and "The War to End All Wars". How would people understand the nature of WW2, if WW1 was suppose to have ended all wars?

Doesn't 'fit' logically, right? So they made The Great War, WW1. Now, who is 'they'? I have no idea....

But the concept of 'world wars' was directly from Nostradamus. He predicted three of them. He wrote his predictions in a funny and weird manner; this was to keep the Church (back when it was spelled with a capital 'C') from burning him at the stake. He thought he placed a 'cheat sheet' to help future generations understand his predictions and thus, keep the evil from happening.

So ask yourself: Why is your first view to dismiss the concept out right? Because if it was true, that would imply what you learned, and HOW you learned it came from some political view point. What that is, I could not tell you. You might not even know it either!

According to Nostradamus, Persia was to have an army that was a million men strong. It would launch a land war south before hitting Egypt then crossing the Mediterranean to attack Italy. Recall Desert Storm back in the early 90's with then, President George H. W. Bush? Iraq (the modern day Persia) had a million men and invaded Kuwait (a nation just south of it). They were getting ready to attack Saudi Arabia....which is also south of Persia. Apparently the Bush family reads Nostradamus's material.....

Trust me when I say, it feels like all bullshit. Yet, can not help but wonder....




Lucylastic -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 12:57:06 PM)

I believe nostradamus about as much as I believe revelations




blnymph -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 12:58:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...
According to Nostradamus, Persia was to have an army that was a million men strong. It would launch a land war south before hitting Egypt then crossing the Mediterranean to attack Italy. Recall Desert Storm back in the early 90's with then, President George H. W. Bush? Iraq (the modern day Persia) had a million men and invaded Kuwait (a nation just south of it). They were getting ready to attack Saudi Arabia....which is also south of Persia. Apparently the Bush family reads Nostradamus's material.....

Trust me when I say, it feels like all bullshit. Yet, can not help but wonder....


Yes it not only feels like it. Btw not Iraq is the modern Persia but Iran. Just one letter but big difference.

But I guess the Bush family didn't get the geography right either. (And not only that ...)




Blank101 -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 4:45:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

But I guess the Bush family didn't get the geography right either. (And not only that ...)


Wait.. . are you saying Iraq didn't have WMD's?

[img]http://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/13.gif[/img]





WhoreMods -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/26/2016 5:00:39 AM)

Of course they didn't. They'd used tham all on the Kurds.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/26/2016 2:25:03 PM)

quote:

According to Nostradamus

Bullshit.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/26/2016 2:34:21 PM)

quote:

That REALLY is how the numbering works. I too was a bit skeptical when I first heard the set of arguments. More I thought on it, the more it makes sense. WW1 was not known by people as WW1 during the conflict or in the few years after it.

Bullshit. The US media referred to WW1 as "the World War" starting in 1917 when the US entered the war. And Churchill referred to it as "the World War" in his memoirs published in 1927. Also the term "Second World War" was used as far back as 1919 in an article in the Manchester Guardian.




PeonForHer -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/26/2016 3:14:22 PM)

quote:

As a European looking in from the outside I have to say that the current state of the USA political climate is a cause for concern. Watching the election cycle is sometimes reminiscent of military junta making victory speeches after a coup. Unless Sanders is speaking there is little to no debate about the requirements of the people voting.

It's mostly either who is going to keep people safe, who is ironically going to allow people to own the most guns, and who is going to kill the most terrorists.


Also as a European looking in from the outside, what I mainly see is the *stupid*. From both right and left (well, what's considered 'right' and 'left' in the USA, anyway - that's a whole 'nother thread). The period before a national election always seems to see the stupidest arguments being deployed as each of the candidates gets progressively desperate. I don't think the USA is unusual in that respect: we see the same here in the UK. But, by thunder, the USA *really* goes for it, and most especially this time round. It's come time for the strategy of 'Shout it Simple and Shout it Loud!' - and military matters just lend themselves to simple and loud better than just about anything.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/26/2016 7:01:57 PM)

that's a good point PFH




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02