Everyone can be blamed on the economic crisis. It did start here, but we are the largest economy, you know.

Terrorists are to blame for terrorism.

Imperialism. You must be joking. The US didn't have colonies till 1899. The only one that really was a colony of sorts was the Philippines and we started getting out of there as soon as we got in almost. There was preparation for self rule and independence in the 20s, when Great Britain and France were still drunk with land gobbling. Our hands aren't clean, but they're cleaner than you'd expect from a nation with America's power in that period. If we were really imperialistic would Canada still exist?

The Cold War was Russia's fault. You forget that Stalin never had those pesky elections in Eastern Europe. you forget the East Germans built the Berlin Wall. You forget the Russians are the ones who put nuke in Cuba and invaded Afghanistan. Would you rather the Soviet Union had won?

Nuclear weapons were first made by America, but It could easily have been Germany or Japan. The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them, and I hope you're opposed to that at least.

Global Warming doesn't exist.

what do you mean global warming doesn't exist?the cold war was americas fault, and the fact its reappearing is americas fault.

Didn't Russia invade Georgia?

"The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them"
Well, you could just disarm them right?

What about New Imperialism Invictus? Coca Cola and McDonalds? An economic stranglehold on the world? Imperialism isn't over, it has just evolved.

I didn't even see the global warming doesn't exist point. Now you are just crazy. But thats a whole other topic I think.

what you trying to argue now?you mean recently?

But that's just business. People buy Coke and McDonalds because they like it, not because their homeland's been annexed and these places imposed.

If there wasn't demand for things they wouldn't exist.

But they can always be rearmed. We're stuck with nukes now, and hope things stay "stuck" forever.

It is a bit extreme to blame everything on the US. I don't see how they are to blame for Imperialism, Europe was far more Imperialist before the USA was even discovered. In fact, America as a whole is pretty much a result of European Imperialism.

The Cold War is not solely the US's fault, or Russia's fault. True that Russia built missile bases in Cuba, but lets look at that situation carefully - if you were Kruschev, you had nuclear missiles that could get about as far as Europe whereas the US had Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles that could get to Russia in a matter of minutes as well as missile bases in Turkey, your gonna feel a little vulnerable. Missiles on Cuba made sense.

missiles in poland, is all i will say on america reigniting the cold war

Why should Russia care about an explicitly defensive missile shield if they weren't planning aggression? They were even offered to basically co-run it, but it's the idea that they won't be able to attack Europe that's got Putin's panties in a bunch.

Indeed. Canada only still exists because our government is basically comprised of yes-men to the American agenda. We haven't had strong moves against that agenda since Trudeau. Mostly we've half ridden on your success and are forced to tip toe if we want to do anything that might offend you guys. I've been hoping for some stronger leadership that will recognize the economic and political importance of Canada. For example, we're currently being bullied on the Arctic issue, which is very much in the spectrum of American imperialism.

Imperialism is just in a different form now... just as the Cold war was a war in a different form. It's more subtle, and more economic, which suits America just fine. The world would be outraged if America invaded Canada, but it doesn't need to do that because it can issue subtle economic ultimatums. America pretty much controls the world economy with it's foreign investment and economic hitmen.

No, Invictus. Russia wouldn't invade Europe, there's no way they could away with it. The problem with a "defensive" missile shield is that it completely takes away the element of mutually assured destruction. If America was impenetrable to nuclear warheads they wouldn't have to worry so much of the ramifications of launching their own nuclear warheads, since it would negate a nuclear retaliation. It doesn't matter that America probably wouldn't launch nuclear weapons, it's that America would hold this power over Russia, and clearly Russia would not have this...

American presence in Poland is all part of the undermining of Russia's international presence and the assertion of American power.

I'm not saying America doesn't engage in Imperialism. But saying "Imperialism - your fault" implies that without the US there would be no imperialism.

Yeah, exactly. Russia wants to be bigger than it is. The crisis is hitting them very hard since the only reason there's been a resurgent Russia was oil prices and foreign investment. Guess what happened to those?

I agree, Glorious93. With a very broad definition if Imperialism.

Yeah, and I'm just saying that all these conflicts are merely people vying for pragmatic benefit for themselves, their families, and their people. It has nothing to do with religion, and America is just as guilty, it's just less apparent because America is already on top. Everyone is trying to one-up everyone else. It's "us" versus "them". It's the same everywhere you go.

Almost. I don't think you really believe Russia would do a better job as the preeminent power in the world than America. They hardly even pretend to have democracy there anymore.

Well it's ridiculous to speculate and impossible to say... I really think once we as a species abandon our us vs. them notions we'll be alright. Of course, I'm not entirely sure whether that will ever, or whether it's possible to, happen.

"But that's just business. People buy Coke and McDonalds because they like it, not because their homeland's been annexed and these places imposed."

Haha, but people don't NEED them, they just like them because they have been brainwashed.... By US imperialists ;) Cheaper and more profitable than anexation :P

"Almost. I don't think you really believe Russia would do a better job as the preeminent power in the world than America. They hardly even pretend to have democracy there anymore."

haha, I think they would Invictus. To be a world power, to control vast amounts of the world beyond your own borders, requires quite a bit of dictation and coercive force. But... Democracy's, by thier very nature shouldn't engage in such things.

For example, it made no sense for the US to territories (cough.. colonies.. cough) abroad that had no Democratic system during the late nineteenth Century. The same thing with Athens in the fifth century BC. Its a direct contraditiction to have an empire abroad and Democracy at home.

Russia would be far more consistent. Empire everywhere! :P

Oh, and Marchiosias, please clarify. Is Islam the source of terrorism, or is it just a neutral contributor?

We keep saying Islam is like other religions. You say it isn't. By degrees. But categorically, there is no difference between Chritistianity and Islam? Or are you totally contradicting yourself permanently?

Also, we say that Islam isn't the source of terrorism, and that other factors are to blame. Do you agree, or do you think that Muhammed words are the only things that cause violent acts in the Middle East?

ie. If all of the people in the Middle East were Atheists, you think there would be world peace?

Also
You seem to be saying that it is inherently bad, and that it can be good at the same time. You yourself said there was little nuance to the issue of good and bad in the world. Which is it?

We just want to know for clarity's sake.

Violence is in the hills over there.

The Bible actually says that the Middle East area will always be violent. Thoese guys are just freaking crazy.

Also, why not just combine the Cold War and Global Warming and come out with a nice happy medium?

Haha because it comes out even in terms of temperature, but also results in Global War.

US democracy at home and empire abroad...thats only going to end in tears and gulags.

but anyway,
about these muslim freidns you have March. they are people from the middle east who were muslims before? lapsed muslims? i cant believe they could be pratising muslims AND also agree with your view that islam is the most violent religion and the the koran promotes terrorism. more likley they are muslim in that i too have catholic friends, they arent really catholics, they use condoms, dont have a bible in the house and only once a year attend church - christmas with grandmother.

as for russia
thankfully they couldnt hold onto afghanistan(the US seems to be slipping there a bit too) and eastern europe let alone the world. georgia DID start the recnt flair but.

missle shield is defensive so therefor nobody should complain about it?? that logic might sell to dumb arse patriots who left school at 16 but seriously? all weapon systems are offensive in nature really. a shield means you can strike without the worry of being struck back, thus the weapon shield in eastern europe (not greece,turkey or a more logcial place for missiles heading from iran, hmmm) just means the US feels less constraints and can operate offensively without any fear of retaliation.

Wow, I go to sleep for a few hours and I lose control of the thread xD That's ok though, love the discussion.

Friendly: Islam is indirectly the source of the terrorism. The true source is people like bin Hidin', Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all the Imams and Clerics who preach militant, radical Islam. Their words are supported directly by the words of Muhammed in the Quran, and that handily explains why all these terrorists are so hardcore for Islam, believing that they're fighting Allah's fights for him and guaranteed paradise in his service.

There's not much difference, in religious mechanics, between Christianity and Islam. The difference is in the books. Biblical violence is directed at Ancient People A, Quran violence is directed at Unbelievers- who exist today. I daresay you're likely one of them.

Muhammed's words aren't the causation of violence. They're the support of it. The religious leaders who recruit the misguided youths into terrorism are also the ones who justify terrorism in their minds, even though the Quran states, in some places, that enemy combatants should be the target. In the other places its not so clear, and one unbeliever dies like any other, combatant or not.

If Islam didn't exist and all Muslims were Athiests (notice I'm speaking worldwide here, not just the Middle East- terror is happening all over the world), terrorism would still exist as a means of the weak to fight the strong. It always has existed in the form of guerilla warfare, and only recently has it become the widespread epidemic of suicide bombers that plagues the world. Without Islam, the weak would still be fighting against the strong -and- attempting to keep themselves alive to fight another day. So, yes, Islam is the indirect cause of terrorism as we know it. If Islam didn't exist, terrorism would still be happening, but in a less horrific manifestation.

You want less gray areas in life? Yes, it can be bad. Yes, it can be good. Yes, bad and good in this world can be hard to define. Thats the way the world works. If you want a more black and white definition, you have to skew your vision so that you can only see one aspect of the world- one way in which it can be good, one way in which it can be bad.

Well, there is the fact that they have said several times so far that the missile shield will only be equipped to defend against the one or two missiles that a rogue nation, Iran for example, would be able to launch. They've made it clear that it can't be a defense against Russia because Russia could easily overwhelm the missile shield with shear numbers of missiles (hundreds to thousands), the missile shield isn't stocked up enough to defend against anywhere near that many.

Now obviously it would be a completely different situation if the US does upgrade the missile shield to defend against that many, but for the moment it would only be able to stop a small handful of missiles.

Well Marchosias. I think we actually agree then. It was a good discussion and I'm glad that we were able to flesh out a response that satisfied the both of us. I might return if people still take issue with it, but otherwise I think we've closed that issue.

Now... the missile shield. =D

I definitely think that the world knows exactly where the US is going with this missile defense shield plan... They're empowering themselves in the same way they did with the Manhattan project...

No, it's Russia over reacting. The shield can only shoot down a few, it would prevent an Iranian attack or a limited Russian one. This means Russia's probably planning a piecemeal way to divide NATO. A lot of countries won't go to war to defend, say, Latvia, like they would have for West Germany. Russia wants NATO to go away and the Georgia war was what we're going to see again. Probably on Ukraine and possibly an actual member state.

The Georgian conflict... every side is right, every side is wrong. Like most things. Check out this news site. Its the only thorough examination of all three sides to the story I could find, so pardon the fact that its a Christian news source.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0819/p12s01-woeu.html

And the Georgian conflict is one of the reasons why the missile shield will exist where it does. If the missile defense system was -really- meant to defend against Iranian missiles, why not build it in Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Italy? Look at the map. Those are the countries that are between Iran and Europe. Poland is between Russia and Europe.

But Russia threatens to place offensive missiles in Kaliningrad in response to a defensive system? Thats out of line. "You're going to try and defend against some of our missiles? We're going to place more missiles in a forward position against your missile defense line! Ha! How's that?!"