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.

 

And The US is aloud to have nukes....why?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Alright first Canada is not the bitch of the world. Canada has proven to help out when they are needed here and there. They have sacrificed many lives for good causes many times fighting side by side the US. As an American I have lots of respect for Canada, and anyone who says that it is to cold for anyone to want to take the country is an idiot, because believe it or not it does have warm summers, it doesn't snow there year round, and I have visited on several occasions and truly enjoyed myself. Canadians are generally a nice group of people.

Now why should the US have nukes. Believe it or not the US is taking efforts in destroying its own Nukes... maybe not as fast as others would like, but it is kind of nice to have the most amount of nukes to use as a deterant.

The US is not a global bully either. We do what we feel is best for the world, and for our National Security. True the rest of the world may not see it as we do at times, and that is unfortuanate... also the comment about us going to free up the oil fields in iraq... go to iraq and ask around... The amount of money the US has spent on contrustion of schools, hospitals, roads, building up a Iraqi military police force, paying wages ect. will never be paid off by the oil. First if we were taking there oil, I think we would be paying less then $2.00 a gallon for gas.

Also pushing Saddam around... Please do some research before you try to make point, not aiming at insulting you or anything, but Saddam was not a man who should have been in power. He killed millions of his own people. He made them live in fear everyday. Every house had to have a picture of his face in every room of every house. They were not allowed to have the internet, most people did not have phones... the women were mutillated so that they could not enjoy sex. Saddam would not even allow his own military to go through proper training in fear they would turn against him. Only select soilders received the training and equipment that would allow them to fight and stay alive. Is this a leader you feel should be allowed to stay in power? If so... I fear what this world is comming to.




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Wow, so did school let out early or something?



oops, did I say that allowed?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Canada has no nukes because along time ago we signed a contract with the US saying that we will never try to make Nucleur weapons. We weren't scared, the US just said, your not making nukes, and we like stupid people said ok Mr. President.


You don't seriously believe that do you? It's simple. They got certain economic and military concessions for making such an agreement. It was actually a wise move on the part of the Canadian government. They have all of the protection of the US nuclear arsenal, without spending a dime on such an arsenal themselves. Damn good deal if you ask me...I think you are doing your fellow Canooks a great disservice there....



So Iran constantly threatens the security of the US, the only thing I've seen or read that remotely threatened the western world was their leader saying that if the US tried to invade Iran there would be hell to pay. He didn't say he was going to nuke the US, he is just saying your not going to push me around like you did to saddam and make me your b__ch


Are you forgetting the Iranian hostage crisis taking place when Reagan was re-elected? Since then, they've been nothing but a harborer of terrorists ever since. Hell, we even got in bed with Saddam to help HIM get rid of them!
No, I doubt Iran would ever threaten to nuke the US, but Israel...now THAT'S another story...and now you start to see the big picture, right?

Look, the big bad nuclear nations all got together and said "look, this is crazy, we need to stop this crap, no more little piss ants in the club!", so they all gang up and use their military and economic clout to keep it from happening. You may not like the ethics of it, but hey, them's the breaks....

Unfortunately, as the tech gets older and older, it's harder and harder to keep it a secret. Not to mention, the breakup of the Soviet Union saw lots of sudden "broken arrows" (missing nukes), so it's just a matter of time before more and more nuke powers pop up.

After stating a "War on Terror", do you really think it a bad idea for the US to try everything in it's power to stop a KNOWN terrorist sponsoring nation from acquiring nukes? No, I didn't think so...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by denveriv
Also pushing Saddam around... Please do some research before you try to make point, not aiming at insulting you or anything, but Saddam was not a man who should have been in power.


Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war. Waiting made the US look complacent to the rest of the world. Bush's son changing his mind and going back made it look like you had changed your mind about whether he was still useful to the US. People seem to forget that he was your "friend" when he was gassing people in the Iran-Iraq war and it was only when he started going against US Mid East policy that he was seen as an enemy. To be fair it was the whole western world in general that tolerated and even supported him during that time because of the oil in the region, same with the Shar. Considering past Mid East policy people have the right to be skeptical about your intentions.

Rumsfeld and Saddam



Chirac and Saddam



Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on December 19-20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on March 24, 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Mustard gas and Tabun Nerve Gas had been used by Iraq against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984 that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Trent]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war. Waiting made the US look complacent to the rest of the world.

True and true...
But to the second point, if we did, then you'd see alot more of what you're seeing now
"The US is a bully"
"Shame on you for not bowing to the UN"
All that crap.


[quoteBush's son changing his mind and going back made it look like you had changed your mind about whether he was still useful to the US.
?
Bush changed his mind on what?


People seem to forget that he was your "friend" when he was gassing people in the Iran-Iraq war

The enemy of my enemy....


and it was only when he started going against US Mid East policy that he was seen as an enemy.

Actually according to your own link, it started to go down hill when they used Chems against Iran

Invading Kuwait didn't help....



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Yes your right about Bush not changing his mind since it was his father that made the mistake. However since it was the same party in power it did seem like their mind had changed about whether they should continue to tolerate Saddam. The first gulf war really would have been the best time to get rid of him because it had both support from the UN and international community in general. Afterall it was Iraq who was the agressor then and they started the war by invading Kuwait, the current war it can be argued was started by the US. Big difference when it comes to winning support. What I'm trying to say more or less is that America, France, the UK and others have in the past had policies that seem more geared towards oil interests than the freedom of the Mid East people. Their past tolerence and support of the Shar and Saddam suggests this, as does their current tolerence of the royalty in Saudi Arabia. Which is why i remain skeptical about present Mid East policies and i intend to remain skeptical.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Here is how it works:

OIL:
Bush and Cheney are in charge of the entire U.S. budget. However, it is not theirs and they cannot simply deposit some of it into their checking accounts. Congress and a myriad of watchdog groups would be all over them. So how can they get a piece of the pie? They and their families have interests in oil and construction companies. They invade Iraq. The companies they have interests in get fat government contracts and they make a ton of money. Simple.

Nukes:
Let us say that the U.S. wants to invade North Korea. So why don’t we do it? We don’t invade North Korea lightly because North Korea has enough conventional artillery in range to turn major South Korean cities, such as their capital Seoul, into rubble within seconds and threatens to do so if invaded. What if they also had longer range nukes? Maybe then they would be able to invade South Korea and threaten to level Tokyo if the U.S. were to intervene. The same is true of Iran/Iraq and Israel (remember where those Scuds were aimed during the first Iraq war?).

This is one of the reasons why the U.S. and other nuclear powers don’t want every little country out there to have nukes.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snap
Here is how it works:


Bush and Cheney are in charge of the entire U.S. budget.




LOL
Now THAT'S funny!!


Saying this can mean only one of two things:

1) You're joking, and trying to get us to laugh

or

2) You're under 12 years old


I'm sure it's #1 - good one!



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
A bit simplified, I agree.


I said it because many people seem to think "Bush is the leader of the most powerful and wealthy country in the world thus Bush is the most powerful and wealthy person in the world" They don't quite get that it's not HIS money and he can't go dipping into the cookie jar whenever he wants.


[edit on 7-3-2005 by Snap]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Let me revise my philosophical thinking a bit.

The U.S. wants to not only destroy itself someday, but it also wants the record to state that the U.S. was responsible for the destruction of the world. To our government, that is an honor, not a disgrace.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Why is the US allowed nukes but not a country say like iran?
"Because they are radicals!" , "They will try and kill us and isreal" , they will threaten people world wide" ect ect ect
One thing in EVERY excuse I see for another country not to have nukes is , "They might/will/could/proably would hurt us/people/our allies and might support our enemies/terrorists/rogue states." This creates 2 sides.
Iran= bad
USA= good
Nukes for USA= good
Nukes for iran= bad.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is why Donald Rumsfeld had visits to Iraq over Iran.

The facts remain Iran is on the largest oil reserve in the world. It would be like Michigan USA importing water to the largest fresh water state in the US.

Second, Iran doesnt need nuclear reactors for energy, they have enough oil for centurys to come. Posing the second answer? Why would the want nuclear capabilities? Simple answer, Nuclear Weapons....

And last to answer your question, why shouldnt a Iran have nuclear weapons...

Iran is governed by a RADICAL muslim faction. If you are not of the Muslim faith you under their belief are worthy of death and destruction. Just watch world events. They didnt have a problem saying Isreal should be wiped off the face of the earth.

The world has no room for a lets wait and see when it comes to aniliation of countries. So yes, the US has the capabilities to play policeman at this time, maybe China will be the next superpower and they will protect you. Oh, thats right, its a communist state without democracy and a dictator country with media control and sub-servent more deserving people suppressed by their government.

One day, in the near future, you will wish the US was their for you. I don't however agree with the all US policies by this administration, but this is the right call for all of humanity. Yes I will succeed that the major players, Cheney and Bush Co are out for personal gain. What is a middle income family to do when the other 50 percent of your country think he is doing a great job. Thats democracy.....

You don't give a child molester the keys to the school now do you, you don't allow Iran to have Nukes to harm other nations.

Its called pre-emptive.......

It would be nice for the personal attacks to stop in this thread and keep it at a educated debate.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by waroftheworlds]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by waroftheworlds]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Well, Iran hasnt DIRECTLY attacked the US, but groups, and Funding have come out of iran that have been involved in MANY attacks against the US.
Beirut, Kohbar towers.

I think its logical, the most trusted person in the room will be given the gun, because he's not EXPECTED to use it without nessecary cause.

Sure the US stuffed up going into Iraq,

but come on, lets be reasonable, who would you rather be the superpowre of the world?.. the policeman if you would?

The US may have done many things wrong, but its always them willing to sacrifice money, soilders and equipment for a cause that needs assistance.

Theoretically, just because the prisonguards have guns and battons, why shouldnt the prisoners, especiallly the ones who robbed somewhere..
i mean they didnt KILL anyone... they just stole a car or something, wouldnt it be fair to give them some weapons?


NR

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Guys we have never ever threatened another country, WE HAVE BANNED THAT 10 YEARS AGO. THE ONLY PERSON EVER SAYING THAT WAS AHMADINEJAD WHICH NOW HE IS NOT LIKED ANYMORE BY THE GOVERNEMT AND THE SUPREME COUNCIL I'M SURE HES GOING TO BE KICKED OUT SOON. HE CAN'T EVEN HIRE OUR THIRD NOMINEE OIL MINISTER AND HES BEING SLAMMED FOR THAT!!. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO START WARS ONLY THE SUPREME COUNCIL DOES AND SUCH ACTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN!!! END OF STORY



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
Guys we have never ever threatened another country, WE HAVE BANNED THAT 10 YEARS AGO. THE ONLY PERSON EVER SAYING THAT WAS AHMADINEJAD WHICH NOW HE IS NOT LIKED ANYMORE BY THE GOVERNEMT AND THE SUPREME COUNCIL I'M SURE HES GOING TO BE KICKED OUT SOON. HE CAN'T EVEN HIRE OUR THIRD NOMINEE OIL MINISTER AND HES BEING SLAMMED FOR THAT!!. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO START WARS ONLY THE SUPREME COUNCIL DOES AND SUCH ACTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN!!! END OF STORY


I have time sir. Educate me on why Iran would require WMD, is a country threating overthrow. Do they or you feel Iran is going to be annexed by the US. What threat requires Iran to acquire WMD. Do you need energy from Nuclear Energy when you are on the largest oil reserve in the world. Help me to understand. Thanks



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by e 2 e k 1 a 7
Canada has no nukes, and we are not scared we are going to get nuked, why?


Ummm....oh hell I dunno....could it be you live next door to the friggn USA?




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
alright do the knowledge

the guy who made this thread, your argument has too many holes in it. you should have worked on it before making this thread....

BUT, i do agree with you on the position that its bull for the U.S. to have nukes but no one else is allowed to. and yo, the canadian bashers in here are ridiculous. we do not need the united states of america to watch over us. lets kick the ballistics, how many terrorists own an aircraft carrier? what are they going to do? normandy style invasion in BC? hahahah yeah right! the plain and simple fact is the only country canada needs protection from is the united states. i can handle myself, and so can the rest of canada. we dont need someone elses nukes to feel secure. the united states has never done anything for us, except screw us over economically through nafta. andif their ever is a terrorsit attack up here we willhandle it ourselves.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Iran should definitely be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's the safest way for them to guarantee that they won't be invaded by the U.S.. The U.S. would only invade Iran if they knew 100% they had no nukes, and only after serious attrition to their army.

The United States of America only fights Third World countries, nobody else. Only when they are sure they will win. Does that make them cowards? Maybe. Bullies? Most definitely.

North Korea knows this. That's why they're happily thumbing their nose at treaties when they can. With their military power and the threat of them having a nuclear weapon, the US is far too afraid to invade.

Nobody knows what the US will do next, and there is absolutely no reason to think they will do things legally. They snubbed the United Nations and most of the rest of the world when invading Iraq, under false pretenses, so what is to make people think they won't do it again.

Since the US is the only country to have used an atomic weapon to mass murder civilian populations, I would think they are the country who SHOULDN'T have them, but hey, what do I know, right?



jako



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The reason Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is the same reason why you decided to start this thread in the "War On "Terrorism" forums.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Iran should definitely be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's the safest way for them to guarantee that they won't be invaded by the U.S.. The U.S. would only invade Iran if they knew 100% they had no nukes, and only after serious attrition to their army.

You are looking at this through the eyes of an Iranian advocate. It's therefore natural for you to want nukes for Iraq.

But there are two sides to this. We see it entirely differently. Iran is too unstable to have nuclear weapons.



The United States of America only fights Third World countries, nobody else. Only when they are sure they will win. Does that make them cowards? Maybe. Bullies? Most definitely.

We go there because that is where the instability in the world is. Most developed nations rely upon each other economically, regardless of their political and philosophical differences. There is too much to lose by fighting a China or Russia.

Would you rate Iran as a third world country?



North Korea knows this. That's why they're happily thumbing their nose at treaties when they can. With their military power and the threat of them having a nuclear weapon, the US is far too afraid to invade.

Of course the US is not afraid of NK. Cautious, for the reasons you mentioned, but not paralyzed by fear. A little dose of fear is good for the reflexes, anyway.


They snubbed the United Nations and most of the rest of the world when invading Iraq, under false pretenses, so what is to make people think they won't do it again.

This "UN and the rest of the world" ground has been covered so many times it isn't funny. Want to discuss France and Russia and Germany and illegal oil contracts? If we're going to discuss the US decision to go into Iraq alone, we need to say why France refused to go in.


Since the US is the only country to have used an atomic weapon to mass murder civilian populations, I would think they are the country who SHOULDN'T have them, but hey, what do I know, right?

The Japanese should have never attacked Pearl Harbor. They asked for it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join