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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
On the Japan nuke thing...



OK a few hundred thousand died, not all innocent as they where fuelling the Japanese military machine, but for that we saved a few hundred thousand Ally lives and freed 10's of thousand prisoners, do you know how brutal the Japanese military where, and you realise they where the aggressors?




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 06:54 AM
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


A little historical background, perhaps you forget the Iranians bombed the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. This attack is well documented. Further, they were the aggressor in a STATE SPONSERED TERRORIST ACT. Give them NUCLEAR WEAPONS. You people who try to validate why they should have nuclear weapons need to read your history books. Stop trying to validate why murderers should be given more capability to attack.......Im sure someone will say the US is to blame for the bombing and brought it amoung ourselfs. We always are the political whipping child blamed for the wrongs of the world.

[edit on 26-11-2005 by waroftheworlds]

[edit on 26-11-2005 by waroftheworlds]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Where to start with my reply to the post above this one.
Bullies, huh? Without these bullies for the last fifty plus years of the
20th century you would with out a doubt be speaking either Russian or German, maybe even Japanese. The only reason you don't is because of the bullies from the United States, and the rest of NATO, but I suppose it would be asking too much to expect that you and your ilk remember that
at least occaisionally before spouting off.
I would further suggest that you think about why it was that the "rompin', stompin' Red Army didn't come across the border into western Europe in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, it wasn't because of the fear of the awesome surrendering power of the French, or the Germans busily living down Nazism's darkness. It was because of the fear of the nuclear umbrella sitting over Western Europe.
Revisionist history doesn't really disguise that fact. Yes the U.S. is the only country ever to use the nasty atomic bomb, and quite frankly, I hope that we are the only nation that will ever do so. However, the use of the bomb did infact save lives, regardless of attempts to say otherwise. The invasion of Japan in late 1945, or early 1946, would have been a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions on both sides. Millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died, along with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of American and British soldiers. So as horrible as the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were, the alternative was even worse.
Think about that if you would.


cjf

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
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?


Mass murder?

Better look at the historical context before you attempt to pen a new ‘his-story’ book for your agenda.


Originally posted by Jakomo
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.


‘Power to Ol’Kim!’ who has starved, sacrificed and robbed his people in full view of the entire world's international community (not just the US) for the gain of a supposed modern military powerhouse…pfft

No…nothing to do with fear... treaties…yes.


Originally posted by Jakomo
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.


Etc etc etc…. Who would you have the US fight?!

You use WWII events as your ‘examples’ then accuse the US of only "picking on third world nations”…. “nobody else”? Amazing.

Which is it? Why keep treating history like a buffet, “picking the pieces you want only to leave the rest”?…or is it perhaps you want to remember history one way and not the other when it suits your pseudo-agenda and statements?

….most of the remainder has been already covered to no end.


.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by waroftheworlds

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.



The American Revolution
The War of 1812
Mexican-American War
The Civil War
The Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
The Korean War
Vietnam War
Desert Storm
Operation Enduring Freedom


You were saying again?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
cogito ergo sum.
you said it better than I did.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Wowzers.
One hell of educational reply, CogitoErgoSum1.
Well said.






seekerof



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The US is run by crooks, cowards, and criminals. But then, most countries are. Governments are by nature corrupt - and it just so happens that the US is the most powerful corruption (country) on the planet at this present time. It's all about power and money. Nothing else. The US (government) doesn't care less about its citizens. One day another superpower will take over, and it will be run by crooks, cowards, and criminals... repeat until end of world etc...



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
jsobecky:

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.


Ok, first off, just because I don’t see the entire nation of Iran as an evil, unstable gang of terrorists doesn’t mean I am an Iranian advocate.

I am an advicate for COMMON SENSE.

The United States of America’s government is for more unstable than Iran’s, by the way. Bush has 2 more years in his mandate and WHO KNOWS what kind of madness he has planned.

Has Iran illegally invaded another country in the last, oh, 20 years? Have they ignored a huge amount of treaties when it suits them? If they contribute money to Syria, does this make them terrorists?

The United States funds the country of Israel, giving it weapons and ordnance to kill Palestinians and continue 35 years iof illegal occupation. The IDF is the largest terrorist organization in the world. So there. (And never mind if it is I who think it’s true, so do BILLIONS of other people on the planet)



Would you rate Iran as a third world country?


Yes.



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.


Ok, France is Iraq’s NEIGHBOUR. They saw no threat from him.

All the countries who said no are ALL closer to Iraq than the US and yet they were not concerned. Is it US paranoia? Cowardice? Why be so afraid when other Westernized countries (France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, etc) ALL said no way.

By the way, we were right, you were wrong. Phew.


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


Pearl Harbor was a military installation. Dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations is totally different, or can’t you see that? No tit for tat at all. It’s all tit. Or tat.

Waroftheworlds:

A little historical background, perhaps you forget the Iranians bombed the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. This attack is well documented. Further, they were the aggressor in a STATE SPONSERED TERRORIST ACT. Give them NUCLEAR WEAPONS. You people who try to validate why they should have nuclear weapons need to read your history books. Stop trying to validate why murderers should be given more capability to attack.......Im sure someone will say the US is to blame for the bombing and brought it amoung ourselfs. We always are the political whipping child blamed for the wrongs of the world.


Historical background? How many countries has Iran invaded? How many governments has it toppled and placed their own puppet in power?

How many has the US? The United States has done far more damage to the world than Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Your country is seen by the majority of the planet as more of a rogue state than Iran. That’s fact, whether you like to believe it or not.

cjf:

‘Power to Ol’Kim!’ who has starved, sacrificed and robbed his people in full view of the entire world's international community (not just the US) for the gain of a supposed modern military powerhouse…pfft



Oh, right. How long has Kim Jong Il been in power? His father was just as much of a dictator, and you never did anything about that.

However, you’ve supported some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen. Suharto, Pinochet (who you put into power), Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, just to mention a few.

Here’s what Jimmy Carter said about the Shah of Iran on New Year’s Eve 1977: “"Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect and admiration and love which your people give to you." “

Of course he’s a dictator, and a terrible thing for the Koreans to have to live under, but you have SUPPORTED worse dictators in the past, and continue to do so.

If you want to somehow show the United States to be a kind benefactor, saving the world from dictators, then try to ignore the fact that you support(ed) so many, and in fact put many in power and helped them STAY in power.

As to the fact that the US picks on 3rd world countries, let's look at the years since WWII. Not wars, but military actions. Or even just wars. Vietnam was a 3rd world country. Korea, too. Iraq. The trifecta.




[edit on 29-11-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waroftheworlds

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.

This was not my quote


cjf

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
You state this………


Originally posted by Jakomo
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.


Then you stated this?..........


Originally posted by Jakomo
Oh, right. How long has Kim Jong Il been in power? His father was just as much of a dictator, and you never did anything about that.


You can not be serious!
Did “nothing”! What!?

What the hell do you think in which Korean conflict was rooted and entrenched? The communist party and who positioned and aligned? Kim-II-sung!

There was “no war in Korea”, is this next at the tips of your fingers?


Originally posted by Jakomo
However, you’ve supported some of the worst dictators the world has ever seen. Suharto, Pinochet (who you put into power), Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, just to mention a few.


Pardon, I forgot…..the US is the only nation to have ever played these types of cards…and lost right?



Originally posted by Jakomo
If you want to somehow show the United States to be a kind benefactor, saving the world from dictators, then try to ignore the fact that you support(ed) so many, and in fact put many in power and helped them STAY in power.


These are “your” general statements, not mine…assigning these words loosely to “me” allows “you” to establish "your" alleged points which were not even minutely mentioned by “me”. (unless "you" are referencing “your” pseudo-agenda "I" mentioned in "my" previous post then 'it' becomes obvious).


Originally posted by Jakomo
Here’s what Jimmy Carter said about the Shah of Iran on New Year’s Eve 1977: “"Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect and admiration and love which your people give to you." “


Ok, diplomatic conveyances, context etal…the people of Iran are obviously much better-off than prior to the revolution… Model to the world! btw, from the ‘hostage thing’ I am sure that was Iran’s way of saying how much Iran’s revolutionaries loved the US; these types of ‘passive-aggressive’ actions make great friends, alliances and build international trust…Iran has earned global respect, right!...oh of course… France and Great Britain are absolved of all their specific actions and inactions during the era and all prior history…..focus=“US bad guy”…got it.


Originally posted by Jakomo
Of course he’s a dictator, and a terrible thing for the Koreans to have to live under, but you have SUPPORTED worse dictators in the past, and continue to do so.


Please cite where I have personally mentioned supporting any ‘dictator’…your flagrant hatred is blinding your reasoning.

Changing the subject does very little as well.


Originally posted by Jakomo
As to the fact that the US picks on 3rd world countries, let's look at the years since WWII. Not wars, but military actions. Or even just wars. Vietnam was a 3rd world country. Korea, too. Iraq. The trifecta.


Oh, now it is since WWII..... the atomic bomb deal is moot? Typical….

Let’s not talk about the face of ‘wars’ and ‘conflicts’ world wide since WWII, solely try and hold the US feet to a fire…those big US bullies.


The afore mentioned were directly fought by the United States and allied supporting nations, yes two were proxy wars; sourcing China and the Soviets; however we don’t want to discuss this because it clouds your statements. (oh, or by no means blame them and certainly not France’s failures and colonialism for Viet Nam, Africa etc)…

....the other little-one you mentioned was once the fourth largest contemporary army in existence (Iraq) and even after crushed, sought to thumb their nose internationally and begin rebuilding (not for the people) a military presence (note the repititious theme here).

Whether or not the ‘three’ you mention were ‘third world’ is fully irrelevant as the leaders of these “US bullied” nations chose to invest in their military, sought power, starved their populace to overtly exert prowess as a paramount goal; rather than raise their people to a contemporary acceptable economic level; rather than attempt to 'get-along'. (of course, don’t blame them either and by all means ignore the greater picture).

When you bit the hand that fed you……..



.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
do we like need a forum with 100 threads repeating the text in the npt and facts about it? it seems nobody even thinks before posting the "hypocracy" tirades about nukes.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I obtained the following from www.infoplease.com:

Countries with Nuclear Weapons Capability

Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States
Unacknowledged: Israel
Seeking: North Korea,1 Iran2
Abandoned: South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.

Now, I need to ask something. With the possible exception of N. Korea, which of these countries DOESN'T have a problem with overzealous Muslims? Obviously, being in the Nuclear Club doesn't immunize you from hatred by religious whack jobs.

Now, imagine Iran with a nuke. Do you really think they would target the U.S. first? They blew up trains in Madrid...set thousands of fires in Paris...leveleded whole apartment complexes in their OWN COUNTRY...what makes you think they wouldn't target Toronto...or Quebec...or Montreal? (Assuming sooner or later, you do something to peez theem off.)


[edit on 3-12-2005 by Toelint]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join