Some people don't like the " what if " theory..
A hundred years ago, that type of person undoubtedly sneered at the idea there would be flying machines that could move 200 - 300 people from one city to another halfway around the globe.
Or that it was possible to send people to the moon and safely bring them back.
No future invention can be put in the realm of impossibility, so what if one of our enemies had a weapon which was silent, the most powerful killing force ever invented, as fast as the speed of light. It would be called " The Death Ray ".
From high, high up in the sky it would be programmed with pin point accuracy to obliterate every living thing in an area of dozens of miles, perhaps more according to how it was set.
What if only that one country had been able to come up with the scientific knowledge to produce this death ray?
And that one country was not the United States of America.
On the contrary, it was one of our most bitter enemies.
They also would be able to monitor our facilities and any attempt to produce a weapon like this would cause a warning to immediately cease or we would be the first target.
What if?
What if they had some responsible people in their government who realized that this horrifying weapon might be the beginning of the end of life on the planet earth, and so when the U.S. asked them for the opportunity to meet and talk, they agreed?
Would this not make some sense?
Or the alternative, they said no. Or even worse, we did not ask because our philosophy was not to communicate with our enemies?
The " what if " type of thinking is not a game.
IMO it is a guide and warning to all countries to not look at themselves as invincible,
In this day, there is no invincible country.
Bullying and arrogance is passe'.
It just does not work anymore.
A.B.
Full Version: The Super Death Ray
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ May 19 2008, 10:53 AM) 
Some people don't like the " what if " theory..
A hundred years ago, that type of person undoubtedly sneered at the idea there would be flying machines that could move 200 - 300 people from one city to another halfway around the globe.
Or that it was possible to send people to the moon and safely bring them back.
No future invention can be put in the realm of impossibility, so what if one of our enemies had a weapon which was silent, the most powerful killing force ever invented, as fast as the speed of light. It would be called " The Death Ray ".
From high, high up in the sky it would be programmed with pin point accuracy to obliterate every living thing in an area of dozens of miles, perhaps more according to how it was set.
What if only that one country had been able to come up with the scientific knowledge to produce this death ray?
And that one country was not the United States of America.
On the contrary, it was one of our most bitter enemies.
They also would be able to monitor our facilities and any attempt to produce a weapon like this would cause a warning to immediately cease or we would be the first target.
What if?
What if they had some responsible people in their government who realized that this horrifying weapon might be the beginning of the end of life on the planet earth, and so when the U.S. asked them for the opportunity to meet and talk, they agreed?
Would this not make some sense?
Or the alternative, they said no. Or even worse, we did not ask because our philosophy was not to communicate with our enemies?
The " what if " type of thinking is not a game.
IMO it is a guide and warning to all countries to not look at themselves as invincible,
In this day, there is no invincible country.
Bullying and arrogance is passe'.
It just does not work anymore.
A.B.
A hundred years ago, that type of person undoubtedly sneered at the idea there would be flying machines that could move 200 - 300 people from one city to another halfway around the globe.
Or that it was possible to send people to the moon and safely bring them back.
No future invention can be put in the realm of impossibility, so what if one of our enemies had a weapon which was silent, the most powerful killing force ever invented, as fast as the speed of light. It would be called " The Death Ray ".
From high, high up in the sky it would be programmed with pin point accuracy to obliterate every living thing in an area of dozens of miles, perhaps more according to how it was set.
What if only that one country had been able to come up with the scientific knowledge to produce this death ray?
And that one country was not the United States of America.
On the contrary, it was one of our most bitter enemies.
They also would be able to monitor our facilities and any attempt to produce a weapon like this would cause a warning to immediately cease or we would be the first target.
What if?
What if they had some responsible people in their government who realized that this horrifying weapon might be the beginning of the end of life on the planet earth, and so when the U.S. asked them for the opportunity to meet and talk, they agreed?
Would this not make some sense?
Or the alternative, they said no. Or even worse, we did not ask because our philosophy was not to communicate with our enemies?
The " what if " type of thinking is not a game.
IMO it is a guide and warning to all countries to not look at themselves as invincible,
In this day, there is no invincible country.
Bullying and arrogance is passe'.
It just does not work anymore.
A.B.
Very true and very significant in my opinion. We can not improve our world or even save it unless
we get rid of much of our arrogance and bullying.
QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ May 19 2008, 09:53 AM)
Some people don't like the " what if " theory..
A hundred years ago, that type of person undoubtedly sneered at the idea there would be flying machines that could move 200 - 300 people from one city to another halfway around the globe.
Or that it was possible to send people to the moon and safely bring them back.
No future invention can be put in the realm of impossibility, so what if one of our enemies had a weapon which was silent, the most powerful killing force ever invented, as fast as the speed of light. It would be called " The Death Ray ".
From high, high up in the sky it would be programmed with pin point accuracy to obliterate every living thing in an area of dozens of miles, perhaps more according to how it was set.
What if only that one country had been able to come up with the scientific knowledge to produce this death ray?
And that one country was not the United States of America.
On the contrary, it was one of our most bitter enemies.
They also would be able to monitor our facilities and any attempt to produce a weapon like this would cause a warning to immediately cease or we would be the first target.
What if?
What if they had some responsible people in their government who realized that this horrifying weapon might be the beginning of the end of life on the planet earth, and so when the U.S. asked them for the opportunity to meet and talk, they agreed?
Would this not make some sense?
Or the alternative, they said no. Or even worse, we did not ask because our philosophy was not to communicate with our enemies?
The " what if " type of thinking is not a game.
IMO it is a guide and warning to all countries to not look at themselves as invincible,
In this day, there is no invincible country.
Bullying and arrogance is passe'.
It just does not work anymore.
A.B.
A hundred years ago, that type of person undoubtedly sneered at the idea there would be flying machines that could move 200 - 300 people from one city to another halfway around the globe.
Or that it was possible to send people to the moon and safely bring them back.
No future invention can be put in the realm of impossibility, so what if one of our enemies had a weapon which was silent, the most powerful killing force ever invented, as fast as the speed of light. It would be called " The Death Ray ".
From high, high up in the sky it would be programmed with pin point accuracy to obliterate every living thing in an area of dozens of miles, perhaps more according to how it was set.
What if only that one country had been able to come up with the scientific knowledge to produce this death ray?
And that one country was not the United States of America.
On the contrary, it was one of our most bitter enemies.
They also would be able to monitor our facilities and any attempt to produce a weapon like this would cause a warning to immediately cease or we would be the first target.
What if?
What if they had some responsible people in their government who realized that this horrifying weapon might be the beginning of the end of life on the planet earth, and so when the U.S. asked them for the opportunity to meet and talk, they agreed?
Would this not make some sense?
Or the alternative, they said no. Or even worse, we did not ask because our philosophy was not to communicate with our enemies?
The " what if " type of thinking is not a game.
IMO it is a guide and warning to all countries to not look at themselves as invincible,
In this day, there is no invincible country.
Bullying and arrogance is passe'.
It just does not work anymore.
A.B.
Amazing to me that Bush cannot bring himself to directly speak with the leaders of countries with whom he does not agree.
Although he is unable to bring himself to talk TO them, he can sure expend a lot of verbiage talking ABOUT them, unfortunately what he says is incredibly stupid.
One of his latest follies is his asinine conversations/speeches concerning the Mideast.
He is not only rude, crude, and stupid, but as becomes more and more evident, he is a real danger to the U.S.
It appears to me that he is determined to cause as much damage as possible before they change the locks on the White House doors.
Following is an editorial in its entirety from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Bush way off key in Mideast
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
President Bush's triumphal, hectoring speeches in Israel and Egypt were troubling not merely because they were largely silent about Israel's obligations to do more to promote the peace process while full of prescriptions about Arab and Palestinian shortcomings. Far more worrying was a White House in denial about the negative ideas the president's words conveyed to an Arab audience it's supposed to be wooing.
The tone was pep talk, double-talk and, worse, the improper intrusion of campaign talk into a major overseas speech.
Although President Bush's staff vehemently denied it, the president's words in Israel equating negotiating with "terrorists and radicals" to "appeasement" seemed an obvious slap at Democratic hopeful Barack Obama for offering to talk to Iran. The irony is that U.S. diplomats were talking to Iranians until Iran recently halted the talks.
The president's remarks were also counterproductive. Instead of pragmatic commonal- ities, he talked about the "moral" superiority of the democracy and economic systems that Israel and America share.
His words offended people throughout the Arab world. Little wonder Saudi Arabia was unwilling to turn its oil spigot even a few more degrees to help take the heat off the Republicans during this presidential season.
Without Arab engagement, Washington cannot hope to corral Iran's nuclear ambitions or block its terrorist outreach to Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. But instead of seeking that engagement, the president appeared to spurn it.
At the outset of his trip, Bush stood next to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as Olmert spoke almost dismissively of the latest high-level Egyptian efforts to broker a Palestinian cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Never once - either in Israel or in his later speech in Egypt - did the president publicly voice U.S. support for such efforts.
To the contrary, the president's messianic speech to the Knesset lauding Israeli policies as apparently without blemish and creating a new quartet of evil populated by Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden and Iran appeared to encourage whatever retaliation the Israelis might choose.
The Hamas that America now spurns was the victor in a democratic process that America supported. This unmentioned fact constitutes a fundamental disconnect in U.S. policies that continues to erode progress toward a Middle East peace.
Bush was at great pains on this trip to say the peace process rolls forward. But his actions speak as loudly as his undiplomatic words - offering no hope that this is the case.
© 2008 The Plain Dealer
© 2008 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.