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.

 

Should the U.S be stop?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
In short, yes. The U.S. has no right to be the international police. They have no right to invade other countries for oil, or whatever reason the Bush Administration gave. I will admit that the government in Iraq was by no means perfect but if the people of Iraq were really being that opressed they would revolt. People can only take so much....but i digress. If Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons or capeability let them have it. The U.S. has nuclear weapons, more than anyone else or close to. I'm not in any way saying that the U.N. has been efficent in doing things to fix what has been going on in the Middle East and Asia BUT the U.S. has a far worse method of foreign policy.

T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-That's All Folks




posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by Heartagram
Swiss didn't really have a strong military in that matter.They SHOWED military readiness by protecting their border the moment Hitler went on his invasion spree.


no, they easily couldve been invaded but swiss factories helped with german military production and they were more useful being a hostage giving germany what they needed, they had 3 choices, resource loss, war or neutrality.


Yes,that's my point namehere
.The Swiss could have easily be invaded by the German Troops because the Swiss Army wasn't that strong in the world.They have never had any foreign MAJOR wars accept the civil wars that occur in it's own soil.Though being 1/3 of the Swiss are Germans by blood and language,I doubt Hitler would want to hurt them.Swiss is better off as huge weapons-producing factory than new territories for the Nazi Empire.

It's funny if you think about it.Hitler planned that his Nazi Empire would dominate for 100yrs.Hey,they didn't even reached 10.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by firestarter666
In short, yes. The U.S. has no right to be the international police. They have no right to invade other countries for oil, or whatever reason the Bush Administration gave. I will admit that the government in Iraq was by no means perfect but if the people of Iraq were really being that opressed they would revolt. People can only take so much....but i digress. If Iran and North Korea has nuclear weapons or capeability let them have it. The U.S. has nuclear weapons, more than anyone else or close to. I'm not in any way saying that the U.N. has been efficent in doing things to fix what has been going on in the Middle East and Asia BUT the U.S. has a far worse method of foreign policy.


I agree with you that the U.S has violated the international law and the rules of war by invading countries without proper reason and policing their ideas unto others.However,I have to disagree with you about the nuclear armament issue.The moment you let Iran fully develop the nuclear weapons,hundreds of other countries WILL want to develop their own nukes.The world will be a very dangerous and unstable place with more countries having nukes.

Put it in an equation:
Nukes x Number of countries = Disaster

That's why we have the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty(NPT).

Read more on NPT:
www.un.org...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Relative Terms


Originally posted by namehere
no, they easily couldve been invaded but swiss factories helped with german military production and they were more useful being a hostage giving germany what they needed, they had 3 choices, resource loss, war or neutrality.

There is no such thing as an "easy" invasion of Switzerland.

Germany could have blockaded, invaded and defeated Switzerland, but the Swiss make it no secret that anyone choosing to do so would pay a high price for it.

So I disagree with the notion that Germany could have "easily" invaded Switzerland.

The Swiss Connection?

As for Swiss factories aiding Germany, do you have any links or references to back that up?

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that Swiss factories aided the German war effort.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
...Does it take to shingle a dog house? Simple, it takes three because ice cream has no bones!

The example above clearly demonstrates both the futility and stupidity of this argument in the first place. This is simply a forum for America-bashing in disguise. The premise in and of itself is a fallacy... that America is some out of control war monger that may or may not need to be stopped.

Let's step back for a mere moment and place our thinking caps upon our heads... Can anyone name 1 single time that the United States has acted militarily, in a unilateral sense, without first consulting the international community OR without having been attacked first? Anyone? Didn't think so because it has NEVER happened.

Frankly I would be absolutely delighted to watch America pack it all up, head home, close down the borders and watch what happens to the rest of the world. The countdown to gloabl chaos would last less than a week! Oh how quickly the rest of the world would be begging for our help. We continually aid those nations in need of financial assistance, military assistance, technological assistance, economic assistance only to be thanked by the global community in exactly this type of way... and it sickens me!

To answer the stupid, pointless and cloaked question that began this thread, "NO, the US should not be stopped!" To stop what we are trying to do for the benefit of the world is a direct assault on EVERY human being's right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Yes, I realize that we are not a perfect nation, not do we act out as appropriately as we should at times. But to even hint that there are other than noble motives for our actions is disingenious within itself. Perhaps it is time for non-Americans to brush up on their history to gain some perspective and understanding with respect to what we, as Americans, have done for humankind as a whole throughout this nations existence.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Funny last time i checked there were lots of pro americans on here and frankly the ones "against america" are simply against the war, now thik simply here people.

If you need a people's support what do you do?
Use a thing from gobbels book, fear.
The fear of ; the british (during pre independance years) , the fear of the germans ww1, the fear of the red's (1920's), the fear of the nazi's (1938- 1945), the fear of the soviets (1945-1980's), the fear of rogue states or dictators (1980-2001) and now the fear of terrorists (2001- present).

The american governemnt is pummeling propaganda down our necks about terrorists, makeing them evil.
They are evil in the acts they do but many are not to disimilar to some people YOU know and mabye infact YOU yourself.

The US and the UK have went through the world together on a joy ride takeing and doing as they please since no one would challange them.

Go and tell me what the US does under its own control to keep world peace?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   


I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.


This will happen only after the last real American dies and that might be sooner than anyone thinks. Then tyranny will have its way with those weaklings who are left. They will deserve their fate.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
...Does it take to shingle a dog house? Simple, it takes three because ice cream has no bones!

The example above clearly demonstrates both the futility and stupidity of this argument in the first place. This is simply a forum for America-bashing in disguise. The premise in and of itself is a fallacy... that America is some out of control war monger that may or may not need to be stopped.

Let's step back for a mere moment and place our thinking caps upon our heads... Can anyone name 1 single time that the United States has acted militarily, in a unilateral sense, without first consulting the international community OR without having been attacked first? Anyone? Didn't think so because it has NEVER happened.

Frankly I would be absolutely delighted to watch America pack it all up, head home, close down the borders and watch what happens to the rest of the world. The countdown to gloabl chaos would last less than a week! Oh how quickly the rest of the world would be begging for our help. We continually aid those nations in need of financial assistance, military assistance, technological assistance, economic assistance only to be thanked by the global community in exactly this type of way... and it sickens me!

To answer the stupid, pointless and cloaked question that began this thread, "NO, the US should not be stopped!" To stop what we are trying to do for the benefit of the world is a direct assault on EVERY human being's right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Yes, I realize that we are not a perfect nation, not do we act out as appropriately as we should at times. But to even hint that there are other than noble motives for our actions is disingenious within itself. Perhaps it is time for non-Americans to brush up on their history to gain some perspective and understanding with respect to what we, as Americans, have done for humankind as a whole throughout this nations existence.


Who in the hell says this thread is about anti-America disguise with sugarcoatings kozmo?My point is straight and frank-SHOULD the U.S be stop?See at the end of the phrase there's a question mark and this shows a question.I am asking and not shutting everyone up and saying America should be stop.

Anyways,I'd love for you to explain to me and the others about the "WMD,oh no!let's change it to operation Iraqi freedom!" issue,kozmo.Explained with full details and links than I'll shut my gap up and call myself naughty.


[edit on 25/2/05 by Heartagram]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I dunno heartagram, should you be stopped from raping your mother again?
See why your question is bull# now?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by mwm1331]

[edit on 25-2-2005 by mwm1331]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
I dunno heartagram, should you be stopped from raping your mother again?
See why your question is bull# now?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by mwm1331]

[edit on 25-2-2005 by mwm1331]


Nope.I don't see why my question is BS.It's all good BS my friend.Oh well,maybe with your question you're implying that should U.S be stopped from raping the rules of war and international law again?I'd say yes.Hell yes!

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer my WMD question.Anyone want to give it a shot?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
No heartgram, I really want to know f you think you should be stopped from raping your mother again.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
No heartgram, I really want to know f you think you should be stopped from raping your mother again.


Ok,out of courtesy I'll answer that.Yes.It should be stopped.Now tell me whether that question of yours has anything to do with the topic?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Simple, you ask a question with a false presumption it can not be awnsered honestly.
You cant awnser my question honestly unless you have in fact raped your mother n the past.
Glad to know you can admit you have raped your mother.
However since the basis of your question re the USA is false it cant be.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram

I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.


Great, you want to let a bunch of corrupt dictators decide whether or not to stop a bunch of corrupt dictators. The interest of the US in stopping Iran, Syria, and North Korea from nuclear proliferation is not only a cause important to the survival of the US.

Your argument in favor of the human rights issues each leader of these countries carries out makes me worry about you. Of course, its easy to let others suffer from the comfort and protection of the liberties we all take for granted.

Thats the same mentality of those who , in their own righteousness, decide its best to "preserve" the culture of Africans from a climate controlled cafe or lush apartment. Its always easier to make decisions for someone else isn't it? Why should you care of millions of people are living under tyranny or buildings are bombed in a far away city? Just so long as it doesn't directly affect you, I dare say its an easy decision to make.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Simple, you ask a question with a false presumption it can not be awnsered honestly.
You cant awnser my question honestly unless you have in fact raped your mother n the past.
Glad to know you can admit you have raped your mother.
However since the basis of your question re the USA is false it cant be.


awww,so cute of you to pull a prank on heartagram.

Well,all I can say is it's either you're a too proud of an American to say you're country is wrong(well that normal so I just close one eye) or you as yourself just don't want to accept the fact.

U.S is not perfect my friend.You are NOT the chosen people.There is NO such thing as chosen people.There is something called the international LAW.The moment you broke the rules,you are a CRIMINAL.

And guess what,U.S has broken these rules.Do some soul-searching while you're at it.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram

And guess what,U.S has broken these rules.Do some soul-searching while you're at it.


Can you elaborate a bit on the rules which were broken? If you mean Iraq, I suggest you do some researching of your own. It was called UN resolution 1441. Every other country knew Saddam was a time bomb. They passed it hoping to buy time and that maybe he's honor the deals he made "under the table" before the clock ran out. Russia, the French and Anon were all skimming off the top and trading for cheap oil illegally. The proof, they feared would be uncovered if Saddam was toppled. He was, it was, and we decided to turn the other cheek. In retrospect, a handful of UN big wigs were profiting from the misery of an entire country. Thats the true crime.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by astrocreep]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
The US isn't a party to the ICC and therfore interantional law doesn't apply. Just ag belgium has no uthority to arrest chinese citizens in china. Its called jursdiction and internatonal law has none over the US.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Heartagram

I say we should put a stop to this and let the U.N decide what's best.


Great, you want to let a bunch of corrupt dictators decide whether or not to stop a bunch of corrupt dictators. The interest of the US in stopping Iran, Syria, and North Korea from nuclear proliferation is not only a cause important to the survival of the US.

Your argument in favor of the human rights issues each leader of these countries carries out makes me worry about you. Of course, its easy to let others suffer from the comfort and protection of the liberties we all take for granted.

Thats the same mentality of those who , in their own righteousness, decide its best to "preserve" the culture of Africans from a climate controlled cafe or lush apartment. Its always easier to make decisions for someone else isn't it? Why should you care of millions of people are living under tyranny or buildings are bombed in a far away city? Just so long as it doesn't directly affect you, I dare say its an easy decision to make.


Read on and you'll see that I said U.N isn't even good enough to do anything.Even deciding what's best for the future.Oh well,you say a bunch of dictators in the U.N,so you're trying to imply that the hundreds of U.N member countries is a dictator.Assume not my mod.Guess Kofi Annan is just another Stalin under a skin of an African man?

No,it's never easy making a decision of anyone.What about the U.S,you think they ever think about the casualties of war?Both civilians and soldiers?Should I remind you about the stamping of Rumsfeld signature on the death certs of your American soldiers without going through each of them and feeling sad for them while he sits in his comfort of his chair?

Maybe it's your nature to feel heartless for the dead I don't know.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Heartagram

And guess what,U.S has broken these rules.Do some soul-searching while you're at it.


Can you elaborate a bit on the rules which were broken? If you mean Iraq, I suggest you do some researching of your own. It was called UN resolution 1441. Every other country knew Saddam was a time bomb. They passed it hoping to buy time and that maybe he's honor the deals he made "under the table" before the clock ran out. Russia, the French and Anon were all skimming off the top and trading for cheap oil illegally. The proof, they feared would be uncovered if Saddam was toppled. He was, it was, and we decided to turn the other cheek. In retrospect, a handful of UN big wigs were profiting from the misery of an entire country. Thats the true crime.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by astrocreep]


Oh,indeed U.S had committed war crimes.You can go ahead and deny it and counter it with some other country's problem.We're talking about U.S crimes and not any other.

Read on:
deoxy.org...

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

So what you're saying...we're hopeless?Sad.....



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The US isn't a party to the ICC and therfore interantional law doesn't apply. Just ag belgium has no uthority to arrest chinese citizens in china. Its called jursdiction and internatonal law has none over the US.


Can I ask you this,why did U.S withdrew from the ICC?Reminds me of Japan when it withdrew from the League of Nations and went on it's invasion spree.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join