News Compassion versus Military Action - Which Will End Global Terrorism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Global Military
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the implications of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran and the potential for military action. Participants express concerns about the reliability of intelligence and the rationale behind preemptive strikes, questioning whether such actions genuinely protect American lives or merely escalate tensions. The debate highlights differing perceptions of terrorism, the effectiveness of aggressive foreign policies, and the moral implications of collateral damage in military conflicts. Some argue that preemptive actions could alienate global support, while others believe they are necessary to deter threats from regimes perceived as aggressive. The conversation also touches on the historical context of Islamic expansionism and the complexities of democratization in the Middle East, with participants debating the potential consequences of U.S. actions on regional stability and the broader fight against terrorism. Overall, the thread reflects deep divides in opinion on how best to approach national security and international relations in the face of perceived threats.
  • #91
AntonioChrist said:
It is of the educated opinion that Americas political structure can not sustain a collapse.

Hypothetically: If Europe, east Asia, and soon the other independent economic systems were to say to America **** You no more importing or exporting. Americans would be left in a situation where they would have to support themselves. It is fact that you debt is so high that if you were too loose roughly 40-60% of your business capacity, ie, that of international importing and exporting the economic situation, america would in reality have no money, therefore taxes would have to go up! If you know anything about the American economy you would realize that America isn't actually self-sufficient, if it were then, its Governments would not have to win debates through roadshows and pantomime promotion, in fact no government republic or democratic would win an election if it knew taxes had to be increased, therefore its entire political structure would fall to pieces, there would be no money to promote policies, finance campaigns across its states or support its people in economic distress. If America was as powerful and rich as it assumes, why is most of its national income spent on war fare, Because they are so scared of this happening that they would rather blow the world to pieces than admit defeat. If America is to support itself without external influence then it needs the money and infrastructure to do so. America does not have a welfare state, nor does it have the capacity to accommodate its population. This is already obvious seen in the Towns that are missed out by the campaign trail, forgotten because they are the reality of Americas situation. The towns that aren't campaigned in are decided on the fact that the people in it are not affected by the government, if the governments cease to exist, which would indefinitely happen if there was no money to substantiate their existence then the whole country would be plunged into the same situation, and believe it or not, the political knowledge of the American people in many peoples opinions is one of ignorance and delusion, not to mention the fact they all have guns, anyone with anything will end up either trying to secure and protect their own piece or want to take more from those who have more of it.

P.S i am not a fanaticist or an American hater but the sooner America realizes a world exist beyond their own and that people just like them, with the same born given rights as they have exist, and that ignoring that they exist or that when they do acknowledge them they fear their abilities, is almost a crime against humanity.

No harm or insult intended

Regards

A.Christ
None taken... thank you for the explanation. From what you have just said, what type of education would be required?

smurf said:
Okay, if you find someone who's lived everyday at war, someone who hasn't ached for home when away fighting, someone who doesn't know that there's anything else to life... Well, get them laid for starts, that might open their eyes. Everyone can always learn new things.
getting laid is a funny response... i enjoyed that... but they probably been getting laid with their bunkmate or hostages already. There are no rules in a world of violence... :frown:

As for the everyone can always learn new things... I basically agree, but if you take the stereotypical "trailerpark" people for example, how easy of a task would that be? How do you prevent them from reverting back to previously learned behaviour? I'm envisioning "A Clockwork Orange"-Kubrick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Skyhunter said:
Getting back on topic.

It will require a combination of military action and compassion. Let's face it, the terrorist's that are already hard core are not going to go through a change of conscience simply because we are more compassionate and understanding.

The best way to reduce the number of future terrorist is a more equitable distribution of the worlds resources. If people are fed and happy and see that others they care for are fed and happy, they are less likely to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in a subway.

It will not be easy, but the idea that we can coax all the terrorists into Iraq and fight them there is just ludicrous.
someone give this man a nobel peace prize! ... they can have the money... give the people peace & happiness (everyone drives a vw) free internet too! :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #93
outsider said:
someone give this man a nobel peace prize! ... they can have the money... give the people peace & happiness (everyone drives a vw) free internet too! :biggrin:
I can get them all into Iraq for a few minutes at least ... Announce a state visit by George W Bush. :biggrin:
 
  • #94
Skyhunter said:
The best way to reduce the number of future terrorist is a more equitable distribution of the worlds resources. If people are fed and happy and see that others they care for are fed and happy, they are less likely to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in a subway.

It will not be easy, but the idea that we can coax all the terrorists into Iraq and fight them there is just ludicrous.
Base on what you said, US is trying to increase the number of future terrorist because they're always speaking about next wars they are going to start them. I don't know why but perhaps more terrorist attak could give them more opportunity and support to start another war. And more wars mean they can sell more weapons.
 
  • #95
outsider said:
someone give this man a nobel peace prize! ... they can have the money... give the people peace & happiness (everyone drives a vw) free internet too! :biggrin:
Yeah! Then in 20 years we have to come up with a real plan because we've destroyed the planet and the insurgency is now fighting for a few miles of clean land to grow food on.
 
  • #96
Lisa! said:
Base on what you said, US is trying to increase the number of future terrorist because they're always speaking about next wars they are going to start them. I don't know why but perhaps more terrorist attak could give them more opportunity and support to start another war. And more wars mean they can sell more weapons.
Oh yeah... how could we forget about americas thriving weapons industry?... peace would put them out of business... so, US is basically in the war business... hightech, germ, political, financial and literal
 
  • #97
Smurf said:
Yeah! Then in 20 years we have to come up with a real plan because we've destroyed the planet and the insurgency is now fighting for a few miles of clean land to grow food on.
science will advance agriculture to produce larger tastier crops faster by 10 years... so, no need for the insurgents :-p

no war means concentration of scientific community to solve environmental issues globally... all countries send a rep to an annual workshop hosted by Dr. David Suzuki to report progress and set new goals.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Antonio Christ said:
This is already obvious seen in the Towns that are missed out by the campaign trail, forgotten because they are the reality of Americas situation. The towns that aren't campaigned in are decided on the fact that the people in it are not affected by the government, if the governments cease to exist, which would indefinitely happen if there was no money to substantiate their existence then the whole country would be plunged into the same situation, and believe it or not, the political knowledge of the American people in many peoples opinions is one of ignorance and delusion, not to mention the fact they all have guns, anyone with anything will end up either trying to secure and protect their own piece or want to take more from those who have more of it.

Just a quick note: The parts of the country that aren't campaigned in are usually skipped over because one party or candidate already has such a grip on that region that there is no way he will lose it (for instance, there was little to no campaigning in California and Massachusetts because Kerry was going to win those states either way; there was little to no campaigning in Texas and Oklahoma because Bush was going to win those states either way). It isn't that if the government were to cease to exist, the rest of the country would join the reality that these towns are already in and that people with ignorant guns will start pillaging and whatever else that terrible run-on was trying to say.
 
  • #99
outsider said:
science will advance agriculture to produce larger tastier crops faster by 10 years... so, no need for the insurgents :-p
In that case they're fighting for the right to eat food that's not been chemically and genetically altered by American corporations. Same deal, just different business.
no war means concentration of scientific community to solve environmental issues globally... all countries send a rep to an annual workshop hosted by Dr. David Suzuki to report progress and set new goals.
David Suzuki would never support the production of another 3-4 billion or so vehicles. He also wouldn't support you're so called advanced agriculture, as he as expressed, like any smart person, a sever distrust for the genetic and chemical engineering of nature.
 
  • #100
Smurf said:
In that case they're fighting for the right to eat food that's not been chemically and genetically altered by American corporations. Same deal, just different business.

People would fight not to eat larger, tastier crops that grow faster and use up less land?

David Suzuki would never support the production of another 3-4 billion or so vehicles. He also wouldn't support you're so called advanced agriculture, as he as expressed, like any smart person, a sever distrust for the genetic and chemical engineering of nature.

Is there a crop in use today that hasn't been genetically altered? Or is he only opposed to splicing and would rather wait several generations to insert new genes through cross-breeding?
 
  • #101
loseyourname said:
People would fight not to eat larger, tastier crops that grow faster and use up less land?

Yeah, it's a b!tch when your bite of a sandwich kicks off a deadly food allergy becasue sombody spliced in a Shellfish Gene into wheat.

loseyourname said:
Is there a crop in use today that hasn't been genetically altered? Or is he only opposed to splicing and would rather wait several generations to insert new genes through cross-breeding?
The problems is not necessarily with what is known but with the UNKNOWN. Some cross contamination has happened with crops in the UK where certain weeds are now resistant to herbicides.

Do we need to engineer our own Kudzu now?
 
  • #102
Smurf said:
In that case they're fighting for the right to eat food that's not been chemically and genetically altered by American corporations. Same deal, just different business.

David Suzuki would never support the production of another 3-4 billion or so vehicles. He also wouldn't support you're so called advanced agriculture, as he as expressed, like any smart person, a sever distrust for the genetic and chemical engineering of nature.

Let's see... most people are not "smart"... but all people get hungry...

Red meat will kill ya?... no, in this case, green meat will kill ya...

people of the future will not know what REAL organic food will be... it's just not possible (unless you think we will stop reproducing)... Dr. Suzuki will have to face it and work with the factors and truths that exist... he will have to adjust his beliefs a bit.
 
  • #103
loseyourname said:
People would fight not to eat larger, tastier crops that grow faster and use up less land?
Not everyone judges with the same criteria as the US government.
 
  • #104
people of the future will not know what REAL organic food will be...
I fear you might be correct about that.
Let's see... most people are not "smart"... but all people get hungry...

snip

he will have to adjust his beliefs a bit.
What? Make a point dude, stop talking gibberish.
 
  • #105
Smurf said:
David Suzuki would never support the production of another 3-4 billion or so vehicles.
what vehicles are you talkin bout?
He also wouldn't support you're so called advanced agriculture, as he as expressed,
He will need to make some concessions on his beliefs as it's not likely organic food will exist for him to support...

like any smart person, a sever distrust for the genetic and chemical engineering of nature.
again, most people are not smart... but everyone gets hungry...

Choice is there for those who can afford it... everyone else will be shopping at walmart and costco
 
  • #106
outsider said:
what vehicles are you talkin bout?
The volkswagons.
He will need to make some concessions on his beliefs as it's not likely organic food will exist for him to support...
You don't think organic food will exist in 10 years?

again, most people are not smart... but everyone gets hungry...

Choice is there for those who can afford it... everyone else will be shopping at walmart and costco
once again, what's your point?
 
  • #107
Smurf said:
once again, what's your point?
like any smart person, a sever distrust for the genetic and chemical engineering of nature.
you asked this... so i said.. most people are not smart... but everyone gets hungry... world's population will continue to grow... hence the need for vast amounts of food... no choice, so we will have to eat genetically modified foods that can grow faster, larger and tastier... and since there will be no real organic alternatives, Dr. Suzuki, who you said would never support genetically altered foods, will have to make concessions to continue to help humanity...

You started the suppository statements, so I was just playing along... nevermind... let's get back to how compassion will end global terrorism vs militia.
 
  • #108
What? You think there's not enough food in the world? Honestly? Look around you man! We're paying farmers not to grow more food because we have too much! The problem is distribution, not growth methods. It's not hard to grow food and unless you can give them wings GMing them isn't going to fix any problems.
 
  • #109
Smurf said:
Yeah! Then in 20 years we have to come up with a real plan because we've destroyed the planet and the insurgency is now fighting for a few miles of clean land to grow food on.
let's just say that I was playing along with this... never expected to clarify it for you so that we'd make it into a discussion :bugeye:
 
  • #110
Smurf said:
What? You think there's not enough food in the world? Honestly? Look around you man! We're paying farmers not to grow more food because we have too much! The problem is distribution, not growth methods. It's not hard to grow food and unless you can give them wings GMing them isn't going to fix any problems.
This is relevant to the thread.

When the cheap energy (fossil fuels) is gone, food will need to be produced locally. Eliminating hunger is compassion. I know this because my children are much happier when I feed them. :biggrin:

Gary Hart in his essay "The Fourth Power" talks about switching from a consumption based economy, to a production based economy. I never did any further research into the topic, but I think I will now because he may just be on to something.
 
  • #111
Skyhunter said:
This is relevant to the thread.

When the cheap energy (fossil fuels) is gone, food will need to be produced locally. Eliminating hunger is compassion. I know this because my children are much happier when I feed them. :biggrin:

Gary Hart in his essay "The Fourth Power" talks about switching from a consumption based economy, to a production based economy. I never did any further research into the topic, but I think I will now because he may just be on to something.
Well, the Kushi Foundation stated they did research into increasing crops 4 fold by mixed cropping with organic seed but I doubt Monsanto will fund any further research into this.

You'll also find a theoretical approach to desert recovery in One World.
 
  • #112
Clearly compassion will end the circle of madness... if everyone understood how pointless capitalism is... then we would all have fun playing internet games all day... going for jogs... doing regular jobs... eat decent meals and sleep a full 8hrs every night (except for PFers who are on 25hrs a day).
 
  • #113
I'm on a 16 hour day right now actually. I sleep twice a day and PF inbetween.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
23K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K