[LordOpie]

I suppose the first question to ask is... what do you see for planet Earth and humanity 50 years from now?

I can't say whether it's 50 years, 200, or whatever, but I see humanity in its current state destroying itself. I believe the only way for humanity to survive is to colonize space or have one type of government structure ruling the planet with an iron fist.

Ok, I'm being a bit melodramtic but you get the idea.

Point is, can earth/man continue on its technological development path while having so many conflicting views on how to survive?

TODAY
The US needs a strong military foothold/presence in the middle east. Heck, look at what's happening in N. Iraq... we had to send in paratroopers cuz Turkey wouldn't give us permission to land and move in ground forces. That put a wrench in the plan.

With a strong presence in Iraq, we can better control the region. Did you really think it was about oil?

you can see from the following link that many members of the current administration have been thinking along these lines for sometime now -- http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

If one gov't. type must control the planet in order for man to survive, then I'm thinking it might as well be our type. I really wouldn't care if I lived under the "rule" of Canada, France, Australia -- we're all similar enough. I think we have a good system that would allow for all cultures to not just survive, but thrive. The one thing "our" gov't. type won't allow is oppression, so those of different religions, etc. won't have to fear persecution. Well, no worse than Americans do to each other already... which ain't all that bad.

So, what's your thinking? Can mankind survive under the current structure or does someone have to take control?

PS: I would have preferred taking the $75 billion that the US is spending, adding it to the UK's and everyone elses contribution and putting forth a serious effort for space colonization... but that probably makes me a bit too out there for most people's thinking. This wouldn't solve the oppression the Iraqis live under, but I'm thinking long term.

thanks for indulging me

 

[LordOpie]

20+ views and no replies?

Come on, I mean, come on (south.park.reference++)

surely *you* have an opinion!

 

[Tenchiro]

I think that we would be better off taking that $75 billion and sinking in our school systems. I think it is wrong to have missiles that cost $600k each, and then deny children lunch programs in schools and to force them to use outdated text books.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I think that we would be better off taking that $75 billion and sinking in our school systems. I think it is wrong to have missiles that cost $600k each, and then deny children lunch programs in schools and to force them to use outdated text books.

If we could take half of the research that goes into developing our weapons technology and put it toward education or alternative fuel use/sources, we'd be better off. (Not that I think we shouldn't spend something on defense with all the wackos about.)

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by LordOpie
With a strong presence in Iraq, we can better control the region.

Why do we want/need to?

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Tweek

If we could take half of the research that goes into developing our weapons technology and put it toward education or alternative fuel use/sources, we'd be better off. (Not that I think we shouldn't spend something on defense with all the wackos about.)

Well, $75 billion out of the $350+ they budget for wouldn't really effect our defense.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Tweek

If we could take half of the research that goes into developing our weapons technology and put it toward education or alternative fuel use/sources, we'd be better off. (Not that I think we shouldn't spend something on defense with all the wackos about.)

A bit of lateral thinking is required here. How about we develop tanks that run on methane? Methane should be the one energy source that we will never run short of if all the bullsh*t on this forum is anything to go by
(not a stab at you tweek, just being a smart ass )

 

[LordOpie]

No comment on the PNAC?

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by LordOpie
No comment on the PNAC?

Arrogence, that what I think about it.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by LordOpie
With a strong presence in Iraq, we can better control the region. Did you really think it was about oil?

you can see from the following link that many members of the current administration have been thinking along these lines for sometime now -- http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

So, what's your thinking? Can mankind survive under the current structure or does someone have to take control?

thanks for indulging me

With the first thing-- controlling the region and controlling the oil go hand in hand, imo. It is about the oil in that sense.

New American Century? Yep, scary stuff. "....good for America and for the rest of the world...." We need to fight this kind of thinking.

I don't know if it will ever happen, but the hippie idealist side of thinks: Once people realize that we've got more in common than not-- that our most basic goals require cooperation instead of competition..... it will be easier for us to get along. Posted the whole thing in the thread "Iraq war, quotes, pics, comics," there's this philosophy guy who says "A general universalism is possible, but only after fighting Patiotism and Nationalism." But hey, we like to fight, and we like having teams, so we may always be stuck with nation/states. I don't think a world order could last too long.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by patconnole
With the first thing-- controlling the region and controlling the oil go hand in hand, imo. It is about the oil in that sense.

New American Century? Yep, scary stuff. "....good for America and for the rest of the world...." We need to fight this kind of thinking.

I don't know if it will ever happen, but the hippie idealist side of thinks: Once people realize that we've got more in common than not-- that our most basic goals require cooperation instead of competition..... it will be easier for us to get along. Posted the whole thing in the thread "Iraq war, quotes, pics, comics," there's this philosophy guy who says "A general universalism is possible, but only after fighting Patiotism and Nationalism." But hey, we like to fight, and we like having teams, so we may always be stuck with nation/states. I don't think a world order could last too long.

 

[Damn True]

I don't consider it imperialism. Neither does Colin Powell.

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the former Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He gave a long and eloquent answer highlighted by the passage, "Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for
freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

 

[Silver]

That's true, but most of our dirty work has been done by foreign nationals backed by the American govenment.

Chile and Central America are great examples of this.

 

[rbx]

PNAC is some scary $hit and i dont want to even know what that nut job wolfowitz and his gang have in store for the rest of the world and especially for the middle east!