The America Issue

[el Chi]

Well, the title explains it all...
Where do you, the good people of the HL2.net forums, stand on the current behaviour of the United States?

I don't want to say anything until a moderator has cleared this thread for take-off: please expect turbulance.



600th post - oh dear dear me.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Go-Go! If this turns into a flame-fest... I'll either delete/close this thread

Right, personally I think the war in Iraq was right and justified. Full Stop

what do you mean by current behavior ?

 

[el Chi]

Well, just their general behaviour and attitude that they have the right to interfere with the workings of the rest of the world. Their obliviousness to the problems they cause and their arrogance as a power.
Exactly why did they pull out of the Kyoto summit? Ridiculous.

I don't think the war with Iraq was justified and I don't think it'll solve the problems the Iraqi people have had to endure - not by a long shot. The US (and sadly us Brits too) will stay there as a military presence for a little while before Iraq's first "free" elections in about 30 or so years. The winner may have some coincidental links to the CIA, but who's counting. And then within a decade things will be back to normal except the dictator won't be called Saddam Hussein.
And let's not forget we helped Saddam out in the first place...
By meddling on a ridiculously international level, the US creates more problems than it solves. The CIA are a farcical outfit.

I have other salvos to launch but I'll cache them for a little while. Unless the weapons inspectors get them first. Oh, wait... what weapons inspectors? What weapons?

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm not going to flame, I'm going to debate :

1. The weapons issue:
Saddam wasn't stupid... he probably had destroyed most of the weapons before we got to them.
The UN found enough VX nerve agent to gas the population of the entire world in Iraq.
The UN also found tonnes of Biological growth medium, far more than is required legitimatly by countries 10 times the size of Iraq

2. The 'Saddam 2.0' arguement:
Just because something bad 'may' happen afterwards shouldn't stop you from trying in the first place

I shall counter your arguements (lets keep this friendly, eh :E )

 

[el Chi]

Oh I intend to keep things as friendly and sensible as possible!:thumbs:

There certainly is the possibility that Saddam destroyed the vast majority of his weapons before the troops got there... Wait a minute, if that was the point of the exercise then mission accomplished surely? I know that's me just being silly, but the way the desperately grasped around for reasons - any reasons - was just stupid. And highlights a desire to go in regardless of motive...
There is of course the possibility that he sold it all off, which presents another problem and probably another country to invade <Sighs>

Just because something bad 'may' happen afterwards shouldn't stop you from trying in the first place

Perhaps, but consider the CIA's frankly diabolically bad track record and it makes me think that this will change nothing for the Iraqis.
CIA intervention has given rise to some of the most brutal dictators and all because the decision was a good one at the time. These things should be treated with more scope.
For the sake of fairness, Saddam was a brutal tyrant who needed stopping and it seems that for the moment he's stopped. However, this war will simply perpetuate the suffering.
The US needs to look at WHY other countries hate it so much (although Iraq never made a direct attack on them) and not simply kill them.
If they went all out and solved the Israel conflict then their ratings in the world (particularly the Islamic world) would shoot up in a big way. All it would take is a little integrity. A strange word to politicians, I know, but still.


(PS: Badger, if you wanted to contribute to WAF - El_Chi's precious is withering On t'other hand maybe it's run its course <Sigh>)

 

[Zeus]

The war in Iraq was justified. We should have done this Iraq war earlier but Bush kept trying to get the U.N. support. They were morons and didnt help so we went on w/o them.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Zeus
The war in Iraq was justified. We should have done this Iraq war earlier but Bush kept trying to get the U.N. support. They were morons and didnt help so we went on w/o them.

And people wonder what the problem is?

The Iraq war was justified years ago, yes. Even I think a full scale invasion then would have been better, to get rid of him. However, this war was NOT "justified" (as if you ever can justify killing). It would have made no difference if UN would have sent peace keepers and inspectors instead of this war. Shortterm it would obviously have been better for the civilian population, long term I dont know.

I think everyone is the problem. UN is far to soft, and should be given real power to support peace (and especially become democratic, no country should have veto), not just power to rant. If there is a problem, they should be able to go in with force and protect the civilian population, whether or not a war is raging. US is far to much on their own little flank, seeing everyone (including UN) as enemies. They need to acknowledge UN and actually realize its a responsobility to be the world leaders, its giving and taking, not just taking and forcing.
But its wishfull thinking...

 

[SidewinderX]

I htink the War in Iraq was justified. but Bush could have used soem better timing.

However, I htink Bush did one of the worst things he could have by going in with out more UN or NATO support. I think that because of this, the UN is going to go the way of the Leauge of Nations and collapse.

Perhaps, but consider the CIA's frankly diabolically bad track record and it makes me think that this will change nothing for the Iraqis.

The only reason it seems bad to us is beacue we only leanr about thier failures.

You also have to think about the bigger picture. Yes, the CIA helped the taliban in afganistan, and yes, it was very bad for the people of afganistan, but if the USSR won the war in afganistan quickly, we might still be hiding under our desks today.




On the other side however.... We (the USA) are being pansies. We attacked Iraq, an easy target, while N. Korea is the bigger threat, yet we are avoding confronting them. Why? Because they might actaully fight back.

 

[Feath]

A lot of Anti Americism confuses me because it seems to come from nowhere. Americans seem not to be able to do ANYTHING right in the eyes of some countries.

I think it's due to the fact America is so big and powerful, probably if another country was so influencial everyone would hate them.

I actually supported the war in Iraq. Saddam had killed a lot of people for very little reason. Also he had two sons who were going to replace him. It seems that people didn't mind their own leaders killing them but if we did anything we'd be be evil. War isn't a nice thing, but sometimes it's neccessary to bring about change. We have the power to help these people, why should we not use it?

Also, there are some developements concerming Weapons of Mass Destruction and suchlike but they aren't announcing them yet. See these:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/220/nation/Regime_ordered_chemical_attack_investigator_says+.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030809.shtml

As for the Kyoto Treaty, it's far less than perfect. It has quite a number of flaws. Also, the blame for America no signing it should not be totally at Bush's feet as Congress had already agreed not to ratify it.

 

[dawdler]

I think it's due to the fact America is so big and powerful, probably if another country was so influencial everyone would hate them.

We've already seen it. Soviet Union anyone?

As for the Kyoto Treaty, it's far less than perfect. It has quite a number of flaws

Its still a treaty. Does it matter if its less than perfect? If the entire world would agree on a full world peace, removing all nuclear weapons and biochemical weapons and stopping all free arms dealing, but then the beduins in Saudi Arabia are allowed to keep their rifles and pistols, or that the Russians wants to keep a 2% bigger armored force than orignially agreed would you throw the treaty down the drain?

 

[el Chi]

Originally posted by SidewinderX143
We attacked Iraq, an easy target, while N. Korea is the bigger threat, yet we are avoding confronting them. Why? Because they might actaully fight back.

I love N. Korea for that. Not in that I support them but they simply make me laugh. America says: "We're gonna kick your ass!" To which N. Korea says: "Ok, bring it." To which America simply goes "Erm, well, we're gonna go for another country for NOW. But just you wait."
The war in Korea never ended officially - the US has been dropping bombs on them on a fairly regular basis ever since. The same was with Iraq - continuous bombing since Gulf War I. The US's military budget is vast amounts higher than their spending for ANYTHING else. That's just so wrong I can't even begin to explain (although personally, I think you should introduce the Welfare State but that ain't happenin any time soon)
The irony being, of course, that for all that Bush rants about WMD's, the US has more than anyone (for some reason, 1st world powers are allowed them...) but that's ok?
The US has gone about things all wrong - in trying to fight Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it's created a whole new strain of Islamophobia and in return the Middle East will despise them even more.
Plus, even if the Kyoto summit has lots of holes in it, the US has no right to produce the amount of fumes that it does and so HAS to make changes. No questions asked, or the world WILL be f*cked purely because a few lines weren't quite to your liking? Seems petty.
It's not simply that America is as powerful as it is, it's the way it USES that power that has caused it to be as hated as it is.

 

[Korgoth]

The war in Iraq had its purpose i suppose but what i find funniest of all is how at the start of the war we went in and made sure to secure those oil fields before we did anything else, now the war is over and guess who has the oil contract? Haliburton, hmmm who used to be vice president of haliburton, oh yeah the current vice president dick cheney... kinda funny don't you think? But its not the war in Iraq that pisses me off, its this "homeland security" and this "total information awareness" (name has recently changed to "terrorism information awareness") thats stepping all over our constitution and our bill of rights, and its bush's "your either with us or against us" attitude that makes it seem if you don't agree with him then you must be hung up by your gills cuz your a terrorist. That is bs, all the news media is under this spell too, watch shows like the o'reily factor, or scarborough country, its rediculous they have actually said that if you speak out against bush or this war then you should be thrown in jail for being a terrorist supporter and that is just dumb... Do the math here, compare the innocent lives lost in 911 to the innocent lives lost in afghanistan and iraq and you will definately be suprised. You will never justify pre-emptive violence and you can not gain peace through violence... I hope this changes in 2004 or we are definately in trouble.... (as if the election matters, he cheated the first one i guess he can cheat the second one to)

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I like watching debates like this. Ive decided not to actually include myself in it, but it interesting seeing everyones perspectives on things. We are influenced so much by our surroundings its amazing.

Especially after doing 20th century history for a year, its interesting to see everyones arguments. Because to be honest a lot are based purely on current events and very few people are really looking at the reasons why things are as they are. For instance, the USA's huge military spending. Even as late if just before World War II, the US considered an army of about 200,000 to be enough (the same size as Portugal's army!). Of course that changed when it looked like Japan could walk all over them, especially after half their navy was sunk.

Anyway. Il keep watching this argument to see how it goes.

 

[dawdler]

Do the math here, compare the innocent lives lost in 911 to the innocent lives lost in afghanistan and iraq and you will definately be suprised

Only counting that? We can surerly do a quite longer list
But yes its small potatoes... When millions died in Europe (and we shall not mention the destruction that cant even be put in perspective with 911), its like "Yeah, we support you... But we dont really want a war"... When 3000 die in the US its "You are either with us or against us, and we will do whatever we have to do stop all terrorists".

 

[Murray_H]

USA + N. Korea -> Nuclear Winter + Extinction

I am scared of a war breaking out between these two. Very scared

 

[Fat Tony!]

i think that basicly we can say america has done lots of things to ruin the world but also lots to help however i cant help saying that the bad out weighs the good

 

[Korgoth]

Yeah me too, you can never tell what either one will do.. (yes im american) but im really dissapointed in my government and I don't agree with how they are handling any of this.. I also feel really bad for our allies, especially the brits, they have gotten drug into this mess by their government and now they are faced with alot of these uncertainties... But i do also have to say that america does a lot of good in the world, and there are always people who will hate america for one reason or another, but we are a major part of this planet and we keep a lot of hungry people fed, and a lot of useless wars from happening. But we aren't with out our flaws because if we spent a fraction of what we spend on our military for food aid and medical aid to places like iraq and afghanistan then there wouldn't be as many radicals who hate us.. We have troops all over the planet and we police the globe and i don't think it should be our job, and although i disagree with the war i also disagree with the way france handled it in the UN. We have helped france out so much and they are very ungrateful lets face it without the US we could all be under hitlers rule and that wouldn't be any good... I wish people wouldn't hate america, or at least americans because no matter how much we would like to think we control our country we really don't

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Originally posted by Murray_H
USA + N. Korea -> Nuclear Winter + Extinction

I am scared of a war breaking out between these two. Very scared

Dont worry. Its M.A.D....Mutually Assured Destruction. That means that you can guarantee that you will be destroyed if you attack. So unless eithr side have a death wish, they wont use nukes.

 

[Archangel]

well, the thing with iraq is, in my opinion, the reason why America says it did it: to get rid of any hidden WMD (wich the US has brought to iraq, but thats another story). They could have done that with weapon inspectors (even if I had supported a more aggressiv mandatory - like support from special forces, who seize a facility prior to a search and open "locked doors"), but no..they had to make an ultimatum that they knew of saddam would never follow (and its not like he did not comply at first...he started to disassemble that illeagal missiles, didn't he?). So the whole world (except the US and the official part of britain) says it was for the oil (the fact that only the ministery of oil was protected in bagdad while chaos was all around is, of course, a coincidence...) and I agree.

if the US had gone into Iraq saying "We will bring the people of iraq freedom, democracy and self goverment", then france and Germany could have hardly said "thats totally wrong" (we have an image to defend, you know...). probably a little "can't we solve this diplomaticaly?", but they for sure either votet pro an invasion or had at least not voted against it.

you know, there is a popular saying in germany: "Wenn Nordkorea Ölfelder hätte, würde die amerikanischen Panzer jetzt in Pjöngjang stehn" (If north korea had oilfields, american tanks would now be standing in pjoengjang).

 

[Korgoth]

thats true... sad but true, but we americans our being lied to and sadly not many people see whats going on right in front of them... when the government owns your news media (much like saddam in iraq) they will tell you what they want you to hear and fill your head with half truths and you will believe it becuase its the government, they don't lie! hahaha yeah right, i just wish that more americans were free thinkers, maybe i wouldn't feel so alone (can i move to germany think i'll fit in there lol)

 

[theotherguy]

yes, I know I posted this in another thread which was closed, but its related, so here it is:

I am an american, but I certainly dont see anything against the war on iraq as being "anti-american", but rather see it as being pro-american, the thing that alot of people in the world didnt ssee was that quite a bit of the people in the U.S were strongly against a pre-emptive war on iraq, and were protesting it strongly. Not all americans have the same veiws as the president, and not all of them dont. I feel it is pro-american to critisize the war, because it is showing that you do have the right to protest it, and in an essence, you are supporting the views of many of the people, it is also pro-american to support the war for the very same reason.

the UN did not need to take action in the war, simply because they did not agree with it. In what they saw, iraq was not threatening the peace of the world, and had not attacked anybody, and was not responsible for anything major for some time, therefore, they were classified as a peaceful nation. If they had taken action at all, it wjust might have been against the US forces, for of course, the US was invading Iraq, and threatening the peace of the world itself, for it was indeed, a conquring agressor. and this of course would not be good, if the UN attacked the US forces, as it would lead to a horrible world war, which is probably why they did not take action.

In fact, this was the first american war that had taken place against another country that were not for reasons of tthe other country attacking the U.S first, or the U.S going in to save a smaller country from the agressing countries invasion since the Revolutionary War. (on a side note, the war against mexico is disputed, as both american and mexican forces were on the disputed land north of the rio grande)

In conclusion, the UN did not have to step in, nor is it anti-american to not support a war, andnot all americans agree with mr.bush, despite all of the steryotypes

Also, with europeans and the rest of the world not liking america has many credible reasons. First off, americans are extremley inward-facing, very few americans realize what the opinions of other people in the world are, nor do they care what is happening all around the world, just as long as it doesnt concern the US, if it has anything to do with the US, however, the press is all over it, and americans discuss it, but it is quickly lost to some sort of event that has happened within the US. Another reason is, many americans take advantage of foreigners in buisness situations, for example, how many items have you come across that are manufactured by an american company but say "made in china" on them? probably very many, because US companies like cheap labor, and they go all around the eastern countries to get it, usually, the chinese workers are cheated out of a great deal of money, and the american companies couldnt care less. Every day, giant american corporations go all over the place to take advantage of opportunities around the world, often by cheating another country out of a fair sum of money (most of these deals relate to oil or other natural resources) this often gives other countries a bad impression of americans, and they get the impression that all americans are like the buisnessmen that go around and swindle people out of money. Generally, when an american goes to another country, many of them treat service people in the tourist industry like trash, and they flaunt their patriotic symbols on their t-shirts and such all over the place, this often gives the impression to other countries that americans are arrogant and rude, which in many cases is very true (see a reply some ways above this one) many people in the US feel that other countries are "jealous of our succsess" but this is simply not true, most industrialized countries in europe are equalling if not surpassing the technilogical and financial acheivents of the US companies, and have no real reason to be "jealous" of the US.

Sorry for the incredibally long post, I was just trying to give a civilized impression on the matter, and express my opinion, but for all I know, Im just proving fuel for a flame war...

 

[theotherguy]

Originally posted by Farrowlesparrow
Dont worry. Its M.A.D....Mutually Assured Destruction. That means that you can guarantee that you will be destroyed if you attack. So unless eithr side have a death wish, they wont use nukes.

well, the US would not want to attack first, it would hurt the world image, and the US has far many more nukes than N.korea, so if the U.S does launch nukes first, then they most certainly wouldnt be destroyed by N.Korea, and probably would have left korea a wasteland of pre-emptive nuclear/non nuclear strikes, while only having a few major west-cost cities destroyed (yes I know, thats not very pretty) but, like you said, the US wouldnt want precious west coast cities decimated, so its not likely either would want to attack.

 

[Korgoth]

I agree with a lot of what you said there very good read, and kinda points what i think into better words....

 

[el Chi]

Originally posted by Innervision961
The war in Iraq had its purpose i suppose but what i find funniest of all is how at the start of the war we went in and made sure to secure those oil fields before we did anything else, now the war is over and guess who has the oil contract? Haliburton, hmmm who used to be vice president of haliburton, oh yeah the current vice president dick cheney... kinda funny don't you think?

Well, not to want to cast aspertions on the otherwise spotlessly idealistic and integrity-inforced careers of certain US politicians (in fact, MOST...) by linking them and their motives to huge corporations, but it's certainly an interesting point to ponder...

But its not the war in Iraq that pisses me off, its this "homeland security" and this "total information awareness" ...bush's "your either with us or against us" attitude that makes it seem if you don't agree with him then you must be hung up by your gills cuz your a terrorist.

That kind of attitude has ALWAYS happened though - it happened in the Cold War and it is through this kind of policy of simple black and white (or red and white, as was) that America creates enemies by pushing away potential allies. One prime example being Egypt who were a leading figure in the non-alligned world until America said "With or against" and essentially ostracised Egypt and pushed them further towards the USSR (alright Nasser was a Lefty to start with but then so what?). So much of the time, the US creates its own problems and enemies.

I hope this changes in 2004 or we are definately in trouble.... (as if the election matters, he cheated the first one i guess he can cheat the second one to)

The way Bush stole the election is so shocking its practically unbearable. Chances are he'll get away with a second term. Even if Bush weren't in the position of power he's in, he symbolises a great problem in the world: he's breezed through life and the best education systems and into high-paying jobs and into office purely because of his daddy and the Bush dynasty. It doesn't matter that he's mentally decrepit because daddy'll pay your way in life. The world should not be allowed to work that way. It's disgusting.

If north korea had oilfields, american tanks would now be standing in pjoengjang - Archangel

The same goes for Zimbabwe. More's the pity.
And to round of my exceedingly long post, I'd like to concur with theotherguy and say that being a patriot and being spoon-fed are two different things. Question what the government is doing because it is your name attached to it. And for the love of God vote. People died for the right and now it's treated too flippantly.
And you know - if you wanted to vote Bush out, it's all good :cheers:

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

It doesn't matter that he's mentally decrepit because daddy'll pay your way in life

When will people learn that Bush is not an idiot? He really isn't stupid ok. For some stupid little reasons he has become known as an idiot and its just not true, people get told something and then they try to fit everything into it. Not being able to spell one word doesn't make you dumb. People get told something, so they try to fit everything into that. For instance a guy i know was calling Bush stupid because he choked on a pretzel....how does choking make you stupid? Unlucky maybe, but not stupid.

This is all i have to say on the matter.

By the way, if you hadnt guessed i support Bush

Im quite a good judge of character (yes i know i havent met him in real life) and i can tell that he was the better man for the job.

 

[Stone]

Right, my opinions this shal be my first and my last post in here, because I do like to debate......alot, and i'm trying to kick the habit.

Right, I don't think the war was justified at all, I really don't think killing people can be justified at all, and i don't see how people can say, "oh it's ok we lost more on the 911 incident than they did, these are human beings you are talking about and war is not a game....

Saying that I do think a world war would be a good thing, but only for the reason that countries like the USA are starting to believe they are indestructable and are trying things like what are happening, and also there is becoming a hatered between the countries...between old allies... and a war would make them have to get closer together, these are the only reasons....

The loss of life, the loss of life wheter human or animal is an unexceptable cost for anything, who is anyone to judge if people die or not?....in the wise words of Tolkien "Many that live deserve death, and many that Die deserve Life....Can you give it to them?"

This is my first and my last comment, I hope this comes to a peace resolution, and a heart felt sorrow goes out to all the people lost in this fruitless and pointless stuggle on both sides of the field......

 

[el Chi]

Oh God - I don't have any links to the plethora of Bushisms at my fingertips right now (I'm sure someone will), but the man is a moron and not suited for the intellectual rigours of world diplomacy.
"The problem with the French is that they have no word for entrepeneur"
"Most of our imports come from abroad."
Shortly after "winning" the "election" an interviewer asked him if he'd spoken to Yasser Arafat yet. To which he simply responded: "Who?"
Mmm-hmmm. Not a clever man.

 

[Korgoth]

wow el_chi that was a fantastic read... The fact of the matter is, is that here in America there are a lot of unanswered questions, questions about government motives, and questions as to what is happening. It seems this administration, more so than any other is trying to keep us in the dark about far to many issues, very relavant issues at that. For instance, 9/11, it is a very tricky subject, but the bush administration has been dancing around all questions pretaining to the attacks and they seem to have some information that they don't want to cough up... Take the report they released which linked saudi arabia to the attacks.. they still won't release the whole document (for national security reasons?) or so they say. Truth be told this administration as well as the clinton administration had information and intelligence that said "terrorists are planning to fly planes into buildings and or landmarks" now, they knew it was coming, several government intelligence agencies (including russia's) had told them this prior to the attack.
Why weren't any jets scrambled after the first plane hit... if i recall there was almost an hours time after the first plane hit before the last plane went down... not to mention an hour or better since communications was lost with the planes, so why didn't they scramble?
Why, when told of the attacks, did bush continue to read to the school kids on that day with out even a look of surprise on his face, you would figure that the leader of a country under attack and blanketed in uncertainty would at least pack up and call for an emergency meeting, not read dr sues to a bunch of kindergarteners.
How did these terrorists get on these planes in the first place? From the reports that were released they used knives box cutters and some knock out gas to sub due the passengers and take over the aircrafts, now how did 5 to 6 arabs get onboard planes together each carrying thses items?
Another unanswered question, how did the fbi discover who these terrorists were in a span of 3 days? They said the terrorists used fake passports, yet they also say that the ring leaders passport was found in the wreckage at the wtc, now if he used a fake passport and he knew he was going to die why would he bring a fake and a real passport with him? Also they found their rental car with a flight manual in arabic... wtf these guys have been training to fly for several months to a year... was this guy reading how to fly on the way to the airport?
Also it was said that the night before the attacks the terrorists (or at least 2 of them) were known to have gotten drunk in a bar... not only would this be a mistake on their part, but why would they risk being discovered if they knew that they were to lead an attack in concert with other groups....
So why haven't any of these questions be answered? What is there to hide here... why can't the administration release the info, and why will they not allow an independant investigation...
Better yet what happened to osama bin laden? When is the last you heard his name, hmmm thats right it was right before our troops went to iraq when they were telling us saddam was linked to osama, they saddiest thing is actual polls have shown that a large percent of americans think osama and saddam are the same person... We are being lied to every day... and im not saying bush conspired to fly planes into building so we could go to afghanistan and iraq for their oil, but what im saying is why are they being so tight lipped about something so major, is it because they knew it was going to happen and they allowed it? I dunno, and probably will never know, but i just hope bush isn't getting us into all these conflicts so he can stay in office because if so he has a lot of blood on his hands

 

[el Chi]

Without wanting to get into any conspiracy theories here (I may have a pre-emptive feeling where you might want to go but I think that ought to be left alone...), there are some bizarre holes in the story and events that seem unaccountable.
More discussion later... I'm off to bed.
But before I go, I'd like to leave you with this lovely picture of the most powerful man on the planet.

 

[SidewinderX]

One of the things that annoys me the most about many of the "anti-american" people is that whatever we do is wrong. We have to play gaurd. If we jsut pick up and take our troops back to America, you'll hate us sayignt hat we're leaving our commitments.

 

[Korgoth]

lol el_chi that picture is pretty good, and yes sidewinder thats how it is, but i would rather we didn't go in the first place, we are commited now so we can't and won't leave till its over... but my point of view is like i said that we shouldn't have went in the first place, and im not anti america, i live in Ky for crying out loud lol but i am anti government nothing wrong with that eh?

 

[Ridic]

well i dont think we have to worry about anything. The world is supposed to end in 2012 so i wouldnt worry about much.


if you dont believe me then let me tell you this.

The ancient people called the myans(sp) predicted the world would end in 2012. Sounds like a joke right? No.

The same ancient ppl were able to do somethign VERY troubling....

believe me or not, but the myans are like thousands of years ago, yet they were able to map out ALL of our planets in our solar system. Including the 10th planet, planet X.

Ask yourself how a thousand year old civilization was able to map out our solar system...the same system that we were just recently able to map out.

Every 3600 years the 10 planet comes close to Earth. They preclaimed that their "Gods" came every 3600 years, the next 3600 year is 2012.



That scares me.


Im locked and loaded though.

 

[Argyll]

No comment. If I comment on the US of A, I will be flamed to hell by all the Americans

 

[Korgoth]

I am american and i wouldn't flame you, this is supposed to be a civil debate and discussion not to ridicule what anyone thinks or believes and speaking as an american i am interested to hear what other people in other countries have to say... because i think we all live on this planet we are all global citizens and no race or national is better than another and the only way we can reach peace and greatness is to be friends and respect eachothers thoughts and beliefs

 

[Zeus]

Originally posted by [Hunter]Ridic
well i dont think we have to worry about anything. The world is supposed to end in 2012 so i wouldnt worry about much.


if you dont believe me then let me tell you this.

The ancient people called the myans(sp) predicted the world would end in 2012. Sounds like a joke right? No.

The same ancient ppl were able to do somethign VERY troubling....

believe me or not, but the myans are like thousands of years ago, yet they were able to map out ALL of our planets in our solar system. Including the 10th planet, planet X.

Ask yourself how a thousand year old civilization was able to map out our solar system...the same system that we were just recently able to map out.

Every 3600 years the 10 planet comes close to Earth. They preclaimed that their "Gods" came every 3600 years, the next 3600 year is 2012.



That scares me.


Im locked and loaded though.

Dude you read too much SUN magazine. They said the world was supposed to end May 15 2003 then June 15 2003 then it was August something. Also, did the world end 3600 years ago? I don't think so.

 

[nw909]

Originally posted by Zeus
Also, did the world end 3600 years ago? I don't think so.

Yeah, explain that fartface.

 

[RabidMeatloaf]

If there is an end of the world some time, it'll be caused by a massive flood of ducks!

Anyway......


The world will end when the sun explodes....nuff said:cheese: :cheers:

 

[nw909]

Yeah, 5 billion years they say.

 

[Korgoth]

hey! we can't go off topic, in the off topic forum! j/k well everyone thought the world was going to end in 2000 also but it didn't so im not too worried about it

 

[Feath]

Originally posted by El_Chi
Without wanting to get into any conspiracy theories here (I may have a pre-emptive feeling where you might want to go but I think that ought to be left alone...), there are some bizarre holes in the story and events that seem unaccountable.
More discussion later... I'm off to bed.
But before I go, I'd like to leave you with this lovely picture of the most powerful man on the planet.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp