The world is about to drastically change

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pakistan_military

Musharraf does not want U.S. help. He's stubborn, and will not accept it. Al-Qaeda troops overran a fort recently, defeating the Paki troops there. As you might know, Pakistan is a nuclear power. This sort of instability in a nuclear power is extremely bad.

Discuss.

 

10 bucks says Bush goes into Pakistan -_-

 

20 ^ says bush goes to iran first

 

Who cares what Bush does, as long as it provides stability? It benefits everyone, since no one wants some crazy terrorists or political leaders getting a hold of nukes.

 

I agree. People say that America shouldn't be the world police, but he were not, who will?

Lets talk about it in terms of systems.

A Town is a system. The world is a system.

Systems need regulations and people to keep those regulations.

Lets take a look at components.

The USA being a military super power, could, should, and does govern the rest of the world. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.. Those are the rule breakers, murderers, etc.. The UK, Russia, etc.. are all the higher-ups in society helping the US govern. And countries like Mexico, Canada, etc.. are all the law abiding citizens.

Thats the way I look at it.

 

Bush is an idiot, he will just get other ppl to make his decisions.

 

Jesus Christ, stop listening to what your parents say and get some of your own views.

 

You have a very twisted view of the world, and one that any non American would disagree with.

 

America is #1. superpower. and i agree with shakaka

 

I think Bush is going to let it play out a little more before he does anything. Pakistan won't nuke itself, and as long as the fort doesn't hold those nukes, nobody else is in immediate danger. I'm sure Musharraf will try to take it back, so I doubt Bush will object to him helping us do our job.

I don't agree with you to quite to that extent. To not make this an Iraq thread, I won't go into why I was against initial invasion but am now for staying (you break it, you buy it), but I will say that in some ways you are correct.

Nobody else would ever consider playing what you call "world police". Now, I think it's a good thing to do if the place we'd be "policing" would be an imminant threat to the rest of the world if we didn't (i.e. Al-Qaeda troops manage to destroy most of Musharraf's Army). In cases like fighting amongst nations (like Israel and Pakistan, Saddam and his citizens, fighting in Africa) it may be morally great to want to help (trying to create a compromise, removing a dictator, stopping the rebels), but we get too much crap if we do. The UN doesn't have the guts to do anything, but just because people are being slaughtered in Rwanda or Bosnia doesn't mean that we won't be critized when the first machete wielding guy is killed while running at a soldier. It's impossible to win, so if the rest of the world wants us to keep to ourselves, fine. History remembers what happened when we did that in 1939.

​

I fail to see how you find that attractive.

 

The US has, and had no bussiness in the Middle East.
They have their own piece of land, which they stole from the Indians (wrong term, I know...)/
Now they are trying to take over the rest of the world, starting with the Middle East, for their oil. Than they will invade Africa, because there is a social and economic instability too, so it will be easy to invade. After that (or they already have) try to bring over Europe to their side, as allies. After that, they try to make 1 whole union, and ofcourse take the Dollar as their currency. Now it's 1 big union, including Africa, and the Middle East. Now East Asia can't do anything about it, and they will provide the rich western countries with cheap labour and cheap goods.

And that is how the US will create one big superiour nation.
Believe it or not, I did not read this anywhere, this is my point of view.

 

That is what the United Nations is for, not the United States.

 

The U.S. won't invade Africa until a valuable substance that the U.S. has vested interests in is discovered there.

Also, you speak as if there was some dark, shadowy figure overseeing all of this, as if there was a conspiracy of evil running the U.S. If you have some evidence of it, I'd be happy to see it.

 

Maybe that is what makes him smart...

Anyways this definatley isn't a good thing, nuclear instabilty seems to cause problems. Pakistan and Iran will be an issue sooner than latter. We can only hope bush/our next prez handles the situation right. How it should be handled is beyond me.

 

I believe it, nobody else would want to take credit for an "idea" like that.

Taking note of your concept that we invaded Iraq to appease oil tycoons (from the last thread), why wouldn't the same logic be true for diamonds in Africa?

 

Ha ha ha nice, racist.

 

The diamond industry doesn't really have a say in our government. Big Oil does.

Also, oil is critical to maintaining power. Diamonds aren't.

 

if we send troops to pakistan it will be to help the government to detroy al-quida we wouldent attack pakistans goverment

my friends Pakistanian he knows all this stuff

 

Sorry, but I have no proof, these are just my predictions. It has a little bit of '1984' in it.