It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

52% of Americans Think Congress Should Kill Iran Nuclear Deal? Clearly They Love Being At War

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Wolfenz

We (the US) have NOT been constantly at war since the Revolutionary War. LOOK at your own stats.



Apparently you looked at a MEME and if you look above that MEME Photo

I mentioned NOT All War's/Conflict Showed


as one Major Forgotten War that Should of Been in that Meme is the Korean War and a Whole mess load

NOT to be an ASS but here ya go!


Look ON ! yes Native American Conflicts are Included! So Feel Free to make the Total Tally Count
I Don't have the Energy and Time Right Now .. LOL So many on the List!!

as I said USA love's WAR!

List of wars involving the United States
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh you didn't mentioned what your Meaning of Living Free, Freedom in the good OLD U.S.A.

Well Part of my Heritage. Has been Still in Conflict's with ol British ( Canada ) and (USA) Still for the last 230 years..

from a Native American Reservation Caught between 2 Nations USA & Canada, and there a history of resistance.

Ooh yeah we are still kinda sorta in a Cold War with North Korea !

and we Had Puppet Show Wars since the 50s right to the mid 70s

aka USA & USSR playing Battle Chess! mostly in Indochina
trying out New Toys from jets to helicopters , and Arsenal's
doing practice test out runs..

then it lead to the Middle East and has not stopped since !




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura
A new CNN/ORC Poll states that 52% of Americans think Congress should kill the Iran Nuclear Deal. Clearly, the majority of American people like being at war. Everybody thinks Iran is so evil. Well, I challenge the American people to read history for a moment. Take a look at what the United States has done to Iran... How would you feel about a country if they came into our country, overthrew our elected president, and gave us a dictator that kowtowed to them, not you, for the next 20 to 25 years?

Did they interview the entire population of the USA? Yeah, you could use statistics based on small pool of populations. Yet, it will never reflect all our opinions. Got anything better?
edit on KThu, 30 Jul 2015 00:33:29 -0500am3120152940 by Kratos40 because: grammar, punctuation, and syntax..I like to say..ssssssssiiinttaaxxxxss. Oh my!



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

Here's a fact Jesse,

The united states is the first and only country to use a atomic weapon against another nation.

There has also been scares-the bay of pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, botched simulations...all of those include the united states.

India and Pakistan have nukes and they haven't seen eye to eye for decades-why aren't we wagging the finger at them? If the global elites are so adamant of nuclear non proliferation then why isn't this a global issue instead of an Iranian issue?


edit on 30-7-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kratos40
Did they interview the entire population of the USA? Yeah, you could use statistics based on small pool of populations. Yet, it will never reflect all our opinions. Got anything better?


That's not how sampling works. You can get a pretty good estimation of the whole from a very small population size. What 52% means in this context is that there's a 95% chance that between 47% and 57% of Americans feel a specific way about an issue. Considering our two party system pushes people into a dichotomous belief system, it being split down the middle is pretty much exactly as presumed.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus
I wouldn’t be counting my money yet if I were you. Like many gamblers, you’re putting too much faith in the luck of the draw. Put away the crystal ball, come down to Earth, and try to think of this logically.

One could easily replace the word “Iran” with “Israel” in your imagined scenarios, BTW. And unlike Iran, Israel is a warring nation.

Now, if the U.S. is the lone nation to reject the deal, and it falls apart, then what would you project the consequences to be? Iran will be within a year or less of joining the nuclear club. Of course, we can’t allow that - Netenyahu said so. And we don’t wanna ruffle his feathers. Congress is chomping at the bit to offload a few bunker busters in the region. If you listened to any of the grilling Congress gave to John Kerry over the deal recently, it’s quite clear what their intention is. BOOM! BOOM!!

I guess it’s not enough that we totally decimated Iraq, opening the gates for ISIS to move in. Now we need to finish the job, demolish Iran, and then claim what a righteous nation we are. I get the picture. If we keep our noses to the grindstone, with a little luck we’ll soon convert the entire ME to one big American amusement park.

God Bless America!



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I think now that we are allready this deep into the deal it would be foolish to back out now. We should have never started the deal talks in the first place. Now that we are this far, we would look weak if we couldn't keep our end of the deal. Just like any type of deal making, if you're going to start a deal then back out at the very end. Thats just not right.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: taylor73
I think now that we are allready this deep into the deal it would be foolish to back out now. We should have never started the deal talks in the first place. Now that we are this far, we would look weak if we couldn't keep our end of the deal. Just like any type of deal making, if you're going to start a deal then back out at the very end. Thats just not right.


It goes further than that. This is an international deal, if the US backs out any concessions we worked for are removed and the US loses any say. The majority of the sanctions will still be lifted by the other nations in the deal and now Iran gets their nuclear program with even less oversight.

Backing out of the deal is the absolute worst thing we could do. We won't even be able to put our sanctions back in place because the rest of the world will punish us for doing so.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Well, yeah, you’re right. We don’t yell “death to Iran” we just go over and do it. In the early 1950s, Iran had a democratic elected president who we didn’t like because he nationalized their oil. So we came in secretly and caused a coup d’etat and gave them the brutal dictator the Shah. Do you think that might be why they say “death to America”? Take a look at the country from the outside looking in instead of just the inside looking out. Read your history and find out that most of the time when people are anti-American, we’ve given them a reason to be that way.


originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: JesseVentura

We don't stand in the streets chanting, "Death to Iran" do we? Why do you think 52% of people find Iran untrustwrthy? Because of their ongoing threats, rhetoric, and covert actions. Iran was supporting our stance against ISIS and turning around and funding g, providing military support for the Houdis in Yemen.

And you wonder why most do not want to have a nuke deal with this country?.

No, we do not want war...on the contrary. We are war weary. We want life. Our own to continue in our country, our FREE country.

Get it?



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I did an interview with Henry Rollins who went to Iran and they loved him over there and they begged him for peace. They don’t want to fight a war. The problem is we have mainstream media controlled by our government who only lets us hear the things they want us to hear. They aren’t letting us hear directly from the Iranian people. They might let us hear from Iranian radicals who are anti-US because that helps promote the military-industrial machine. People have got to take off the blinders and take a look at the big picture before you make a decision or form an opinion.


originally posted by: EightTF
We're #ed either way. I don't blame them for hating us and they have every right, but justified or not they do hate us. I doubt they're going to follow any deal with any more good will than Washington has shown them over the years. So while I hope the deal goes through and my cynicism is wrong I think it's going to end poorly regardless



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well first of all, conspiracy isn’t insanity. Conspiracy theorists are seen by a study in England to have superior intellect. So put that in the pipe and smoke it. There’s only conspiracy theories because they lie to us. By definition, conspiracy means there’s more than one. Two people can have a conspiracy theory between them. That’s all it takes. You're right though, let’s do it more wide open. But then what would we do with the term 'national security'?


originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: JesseVentura

Personally I think we should televise all talks like this. We don't need secret closed door agreements.

All the secrets lead to speculation, the speculation leads to conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories lead to conspiracy insanity.

Why can't the leaders of the world allow everyone to watch the negotiations? If Iran believes they are right in protecting sovereignty and the US and other nations believe they are right in containing Nuclear Proliferation then neither side should be against allowing the public to watch the negotiations.




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I will say this about Ronald Reagan: he was president when our brave marines were hit by a car bomb in Lebanon. 260-some of them killed. Did Ronald Reagan go to war? No. I back that 100%. We have got to get our egos out of the way. Every time someone offends us we don’t need to go to war. It doesn’t have to be “our way or the highway.” Isn’t talking better than a bullet? Or is it better to shoot the bullet and talk after? I think it’s always better to talk first and keep the bullet for second.
We can always go to war at any time, can’t we?


originally posted by: roadgravel
If Iran is so evil and a threat both before the installing of the Shah and after and the need for sanctions, then wouldn't that make the popular president named Reagan a traitor?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join