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.

 

Ayatollah warns U.S. needs punch in mouth!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   


yeah the Iranians are copying the U.S.

They're just doing what they think they can get away with, just like we do.

Has no-one on the right considered that these constant rumblings that the US needs to "preemptively" strike Iran are, in fact, frightening the Iranians into demanding their .gov develop a nuclear deterrent? If I lived in Iran, I might be more eager to support my country's nuclear program, if a country with the world's largest military and 17,000 nuclear warheads was constantly talking about the "option" of bombing my home.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by xmotex]




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
They're just doing what they think they can get away with, just like we do.

Has no-one on the right considered that these constant rumblings that the US needs to "preemptively" strike Iran are, in fact, frightening the Iranians into demanding their .gov develop a nuclear deterrant? If I lived in Iran, I might be more eager to support my country's nuclear program, if a country with the world's largest military and 17,000 nuclear warheads was constantly talking about the "option" of bombing my home.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by xmotex]


Now THAT was well said.


Let me propose something here. The right seems to embrace the Fox News mantra of "Fair and Balanced". What is so fair and balanced about denying another country an effective deterrant agianst a country threatening them with 15000+ nukes?


[edit on 5/2/05 by Kidfinger]


cjf

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
The fact is, there is to much bravado in both governments. However, that doesnt change the fact that Iran has as much right to Nuke tech as the US does. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, isnt it?


There is too much bravado on both sides and standards do apply; however placing this specific technology in the hands of the Mullaharchy thus creating 'Atomic Ayatollahs' is not as plainly simple as providing or denying 'Nuke tech' to the good people of Iran.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
however placing this specific technology in the hands of the Mullaharchy thus creating 'Atomic Ayatollahs' is not as plainly simple as providing or denying 'Nuke tech' to the good people of Iran.


I guess that depends on which of the ethic models you follow. To me, it is quite clear. We are telling Iran, "Do as I say, not as I do", which is hypicritical at best, a bestial attack on another countries soverigenity at worst.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Looks like the Ayatollah might have a point. Would've been better if he referred specifically to the U.S. government.


I find it very interesting that so many people have no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. At one time, the mark of a civilization was the works it created like the, Parthenon, or the Taj Mahal. Now, it seems that everyone wants the 'big gun.'

Maybe we should do nothing while they start their nuclear program. We should stand aside while they produce plutonium (which has only one purpose.) We should definitely stand aside when they have a delivery system for their creation... wait, they ALREADY have one.

Let us do the math shall we?
1 delivery system
1 desire to have nuclear weapons (not a nuclear power generator)
1 theocracy who feels that it is God's will that evil be destroyed and that the West is evil and has no problem with martyrdom.

Add this to:
1 nuclear weapon

It looks to me like it adds up to one nasty scenario.

When Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and Americans see mushroom clouds in their back yard, we will see what you think of every nut job having a nuke. Who do you think they will use it against? If just one person uses it, the whole planet can go into relaliation mode. The more people who have it, the more likely we are to have a nuclear armageddon occur in some surreal domino effect.

If you really think this is a wise endeavor, maybe it is indeed time for our civilization to end. As soon as the 'non thinking cap' people let 'non thinking cap' things occur, we are doomed. When did nuclear weapons become a 'right?' When did killing millions of people with a push of a button become a 'right?'

You have all lost your minds. Everyone says "Why would they do it, they would only destroy themselves!"

Wouldn't that be nice if EVERYONE had that kind of clarity all the time? Well, just in case you haven't noticed, people have moments of very irrational thought.

The assasination of one person started World War I and changed the face of our planet. Was this rational thought? I am sure the people who did it had no idea it would have such consequenses.

We are all in this together.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   


I find it very interesting that so many people have no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons.


It's not that I have no problem with it.
It's just that I think the methods we have been using to discourage it are having precisely the opposite effect.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's not that I have no problem with it.
It's just that I think the methods we have been using to discourage it are having precisely the opposite effect.


And what methods would you sugest, after the North Korea fiasco?


cjf

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I guess that depends on which of the ethic models you follow. To me, it is quite clear. We are telling Iran, "Do as I say, not as I do", which is hypicritical at best, a bestial attack on another countries soverigenity at worst.


Application of any universal standard proves difficult in applying to a 'country's sovereignty ' if the sovereignty of a country is based upon what it may internally recognize as a 'higher calling', such as in the case of a theocracy. The internal perceptions of a universal standard will not exist unless it is in compliance with the theology of the regime. The regime will act according its' belief and 'higher' law can easily veto any rational basic universalities in ethics and dismiss conventional reason as well as international law. Iran, currently, is more a 'sovereign theocracy' rather than a 'sovereign nation'.

Placing a technology which has the potential to create unimaginable destruction in the hands of zealot leadership or a theocratic dictatorship does not bode well for international peace, especially in this case, where any ‘sovereign’ action taken can be construed as derived from a deity and therefore above any law of man. Western views of double standards are difficult to apply and the logic is not the same. The world may judge the US accordingly and in some cases appropriately; however giving the current Iranian regime the ability to enact judgment is irresponsible and Iran presently should be protected from herself.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alias Jones
Siroos

You seem like an intelligent person and I respect your position, however I am not in agreement with you. While it seems logical that any country with the will to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes should be allowed to, it can not be overstated that Iran does not need nuclear power as they sit on some of the largest oil reserves on the planet.


That's not true. The oil is limited and the day will be here much sooner than you could imagine when there won't be enough oil left. Iran does have a legitimate need to invest in alternative energy sources - Not only for its own use, but to export to other countries. It would be very lucrative for Iran to export nuclear fuel to other countries, and it's a waste to not do so when Iran has the expertise and technology needed. Many people would be surprised to find out that Iran actually imports much of its fossile fuel. Another thing many people do not know is that it was actually the U.S. that pressured and persuaded Iran prior to the revolution pursue nuclear technology, and the Bushehr plant is a result of that. Its construction began prior to the revolution in 1979. The U.S. persuaded the Shah to realize how lucrative and beneficial nuclear energy would be for Iran. The U.S. wanted to sell the Shah nuclear reactors, but the Shah thought the price was too high and instead turned to the French and Germans and got a better deal.

Here are some links that I recommend which shed some light on just why Iran has an absolutely legitimate reason to pursue nuclear energy:

www.iranian.com...

And here's an excerpt from a very interesting article:

"Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. US Vice President Dick Cheney recently said: "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.''

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the administration of Gerald Ford made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Teheran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium - the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders."

"Ford's team commended Iran's decision to build a massive nuclear energy industry, noting in a declassified 1975 strategy paper that Teheran needed to ``prepare against the time - about 15 years in the future - when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply.''

Estimates of Iran's oil reserves were smaller then than they are now, but energy experts and US intelligence estimates continue to project that Iran will need an alternative energy source in the coming decades. Iran's population has more than doubled since the 1970s, and its energy demands have increased even more."


You can read the rest here:

www.energybulletin.net...





It is obvious that the intent of the Iranain nuclear program is to produce
nuclear weapons either for use through 3 rd parties ( terrorists ) on the USA or as a deterrent force against Israel.


Why is that so obvious? There is not one single piece of evidence that supports your claim. And all I can say is that you really must have a very exaggerated and biased opinion of the Iranian leadership to think that they would allow terrorists to use nukes against the U.S. Al Qaida, the Taliban, Pakistan, and Saddam, yes, they would. Iran's leadership? Never! They're not that radical and reactionary as you seem to think.

Iran has very legitimate needs to pursue nuclear technology for its energy supplies, and the U.S. recognized that need and pushed for Iran to pursue nuclear technology back then because of it.





To assume any onther reason is illogical at best and extremely dangerous at worst.


I do not agree with you. Your assumptions are based on the faulty U.S. and Israeli anti-Iranian propaganda, not on facts. Pakistan has the nukes, and did the U.S. try to stop them? Pakistan is and has been the breeding ground of the WORST and most RADICAL and religiously BACKWARDED terrorists, and except for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan was the major backer and supporter of both the Al Qaida and the Taliban. The U.S. is selling Pakistan its latest high-tech weapons!



Israel is on record stating that they will not permit the mullah regime in Iran to acquire an operative nuclear detternt force. I think if the Iranian governement was that concerned, they would heed such warnings.


Concerned with what? Should Iran, an ancient country, the world's second oldest civilization, the size of all of Western Europe, and a population of 75 million, cease to pursue its energy needs because Israel, a fifty year old nation, a tiny country not much larger than Monaco, and with a population of 2 million, is threatening Iran that it may attack Iran if it does pursue its energy needs? That doesn't make sense. I say let Israel attack then, if they dare, and let them see just exactly what Iran is about and how Iran will respond! Iran will not allow neither a tiny country like Israel, nor a big country like the U.S. to bully her with their threats and harassments. Iran will continue pursuing its nuclear programme. It has all the legal rights to do so, and if the U.S. and Israel wants to pick a fight, then Iran will fight with them! I cannot see your reasoning of why we should yield to a tiny country like Israel, a newcomer in the area - and one which is not welcome there to begin with. Who is Israel to tell us what we can or can't do?


There will be no use for nuclear power solutions if your country is a radioactive wasteland.


I think the Iranian nation will be ready to sacrifice themselves collectively for the noble cause of standing up for our rights! Yes, I'm all for it. If it will take that the U.S. and Israel will nuke all 75 million of Iran's population, and wipe an 8000 year old civilization off the surface of planet earth, for us to not give up our rights, then I will be willing to die with the rest of my compatriots - But not without a good fight first! And be sure that our deaths would cause the end of both Israel and the U.S. as I'm sure that the rest of the world will not tolerate such criminal behaviour and will do whatever rests in their power to disarm both of these countries. We all have to die sooner or later. So why not die fighting for the rights of your nation when they're being so grossly violated by two arrogant bullies?


The hypocrisy is real and the nuclear club plans on keeping it that way and I will add for good reason.


No reason in the world could be good enough to justify why a country which has bullied so many other countries, and interfered in their affairs and killed so many people around the world, and which has caused so many millions of people in various countries so much pain, should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, while others shouldn't even be allowed to use nuclear technology for their energy needs! Fascist Israel, U.S. the bully, and some others should be allowed to have it and deny others to have it? No, I don't think so!


While it is true that the United States is the only nation, or group for that matter,to intentionally detonate a nuclear device on a civilian population, an act I may also add I am ashamed of, it cannot allow the rogue nations to acquire a deterrent force and certainlky not an offensive force.


Well, to you Iran is a "rouge nation" - to me Iran is not. To me, the U.S. and Israel are the rouge nations. It's a matter of opinion I guess...?


The strong survive, the spoils of war go to the victors


I do not believe in that kind of nazi rhetorics. If the strong are wrong, then they have no right to agress against others and to take any spoils. If the strong are wrong, then they must be fought with all and any means til they are defeated. If the strong are wrong, then it is the duty of all humans and nations with a conscience to unite against it and to aid those who have been victimized or threatened by the strong who are wrong.


the United States should not, will not , and can not allow a fundamentalist, Islamic regime dictate how the game goes.


Iran should not, will not, and can not allow a fascist, militant, lying, bullying agressor, occupier, invador which has no business in our region to dictate to us what we can and can't do.


Iran has a clear choice- Either heed the warnings of the US governement , concede to our demands for a non nuclear state or be forced to.


The U.S. has a clear choice - Either cease your harassment and bullying, leave other countries alone, or face ever increasing and intensified anti-American sentiments and actions around the world. The U.S. CANNOT force Iran to do anything. You would have to attack Iran, and if you dare to, you will be sorry forever! I don't care how ignorant you are about U.S. military strength, but if you would be objective for an instance, and look at the countries you have bombed and invaded so far, they have all been small or relatively weak countries. Iran is neither small or weak. You would have to risk too much in order to attack Iran. Your war machine is strained as it is, and so is your economy. The only way you could successfully dismantle Iran would be to nuke the hell of her, and that would lead to the end of the U.S. such as we have known it - And although arrogant and ignorant people would most probably favor something so cruel, I doubt that your money-hungry, greedy and materialistic rulers would be ready to risk having to give up their wealth and lifestyles for the sake of wiping Iran off the map.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Siroos]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by BadMojo
Didn't you just do the same thing, Kidfinger?


Pray tell, how do you know if someone is, as you term it, religious?

...and please...no speaking with your foot in your mouth.


Read the post man. Do you think this is the only thread I have ever read? My God man. Ed and others have made their religous implications clear on other threads. I suggest you remove your own foot now.


What`s wrong with having a religious opinion anyway? The muslims are very religiously opinionated but whenever a christian or jew implements his faith into a decision, conversation or debate it is suddenly politically incorrect. Everyone has a right to their own opinion no matter what is the basis for ones beliefs.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger


Let me propose something here. The right seems to embrace the Fox News mantra of "Fair and Balanced". What is so fair and balanced about denying another country an effective deterrant agianst a country threatening them with 15000+ nukes?


[edit on 5/2/05 by Kidfinger]


Who exactly is threatening Iran with 15000 nukes?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by cjf
however placing this specific technology in the hands of the Mullaharchy thus creating 'Atomic Ayatollahs' is not as plainly simple as providing or denying 'Nuke tech' to the good people of Iran.


I guess that depends on which of the ethic models you follow. To me, it is quite clear. We are telling Iran, "Do as I say, not as I do", which is hypicritical at best, a bestial attack on another countries soverigenity at worst.


The Iranian government compared to most other major world governments can best be described as the children. They do need to do as the rest of the "grown up" world says. They cannot be trusted to do whatever everyone else does.

So while this may be hypocritical to some it is plain logical to others and this is where we have so much of a discrepency. The Iranian authorities are simply not responsible enough to embark on a nuclear mission without supervision from the rest of the world. Until they can prove themselves responsible enough to handle such a major situation as nuclear technology, they simply cannot be trusted.

Childish remarks such as the US is arrogant and needs a punch in the mouth is self-evident of the mind set of these "supreme leaders". They may give us supreme unleaded gasoline but they are in no way supreme themselves.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Looks like the Ayatollah might have a point. Would've been better if he referred specifically to the U.S. government.


I find it very interesting that so many people have no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. At one time, the mark of a civilization was the works it created like the, Parthenon, or the Taj Mahal. Now, it seems that everyone wants the 'big gun.'

Maybe we should do nothing while they start their nuclear program. We should stand aside while they produce plutonium (which has only one purpose.) We should definitely stand aside when they have a delivery system for their creation... wait, they ALREADY have one.

Let us do the math shall we?
1 delivery system
1 desire to have nuclear weapons (not a nuclear power generator)
1 theocracy who feels that it is God's will that evil be destroyed and that the West is evil and has no problem with martyrdom.

Add this to:
1 nuclear weapon

It looks to me like it adds up to one nasty scenario.

When Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and Americans see mushroom clouds in their back yard, we will see what you think of every nut job having a nuke. Who do you think they will use it against? If just one person uses it, the whole planet can go into relaliation mode. The more people who have it, the more likely we are to have a nuclear armageddon occur in some surreal domino effect.

If you really think this is a wise endeavor, maybe it is indeed time for our civilization to end. As soon as the 'non thinking cap' people let 'non thinking cap' things occur, we are doomed. When did nuclear weapons become a 'right?' When did killing millions of people with a push of a button become a 'right?'

You have all lost your minds. Everyone says "Why would they do it, they would only destroy themselves!"

Wouldn't that be nice if EVERYONE had that kind of clarity all the time? Well, just in case you haven't noticed, people have moments of very irrational thought.

The assasination of one person started World War I and changed the face of our planet. Was this rational thought? I am sure the people who did it had no idea it would have such consequenses.

We are all in this together.


So how come your government wasn't so concerned at all when the Pakistanis got their bomb? The U.S. knew that Pakistan was one of the worst breeding grounds for the most radical and dangerous extremists, and the U.S. knew that Pakistan was the backbone and major benefactor of the extremist Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The U.S. knew that Pakistan is a very unstable country where one coup is replaced by another, and where assassinations of political figures are very common. The U.S. knew about the Pakistani efforts to acquire the bomb, but did we see the U.S. do anything about it? Did we see anything that even remotely resembled what we see today in regards to Iran? No we didn't! And to me that proves that the concern of the U.S. is not at all Iranian nukes, although it would much rather prefer that Iran wouldn't have them. The U.S. wants Iran! The U.S. wants to stop this nonsense going on in Iran with all the Iranian efforts to develop into a highly advanced industrialized nation. A second China. The U.S. cannot accept such a nation in the midst of all the energy resources that it wants to control. THAT IS WHAT ALL THIS IS ABOUT - NOT THE NUKES! The nukes are just an excuse. Even if Iran would a thousand times over get rid of all its reactors, the U.S. would find some other excuse.

BUSH: "We also can't have an Islamic democracy, a technological and scientifically advanced, progressive, major industrial power sitting in the middle of the Islamic world! The Islamic world is not supposed to be about progress, industrialization, science, technology and democracy! It's supposed to be backwarded, conservative, third world and oppressive. How would it look if we allowed Iran to achieve all that? To be a role model of what a modern Islamic society could be? The only thing that stands between all the enormous natural resources of this vast region and us (The U.S.) is that &%#¤"#%¤ Islam! We have nothing else to worry about since the Soviet Union is long gone! We now have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops in Azerbaijan Republic, Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kazakhstan, etc.... We have already started to send evangelic missionaries to all these countries, and have evangelic TV and Radio stations and websites in their languages - We're spreading the word of the good Lord Je$u$ Christ, so that all these sand'n-word's shall convert to chri$tianity, and pave the way for the Lord Je$u$ Chri$t so that he can bless the oil and natural gas and all the other goodies these godforsaken lands contains. --- Now, the only thing that is still trying to stop the Lord Je$u$ Chri$t is that godforsaken country Eyeran and its dreams of becoming a developed and highly advanced nation. It's already on its way to become one of the most important auto-manufacturing countries in the world. We can not allow this Don - You hear me?"

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Siroos]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

The Iranian government compared to most other major world governments can best be described as the children. They do need to do as the rest of the "grown up" world says. They cannot be trusted to do whatever everyone else does.


Replace the word Iranian with American and I would agree with you totaly(US to be exact).

Frankly the US government is "arrogant" and "rude", but luckily most of the US population is not.

The US government really does need a punch in the mouth.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
The US government really does need a punch in the mouth.

Then what?

I mean besides pissing us off what would that accomplish?

Have you seen a pissed off US government before? Do you really expect a pissed off US government not to punch back?


Wouldn't you be just progressing what you're trying to stop?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   


The Iranian government compared to most other major world governments can best be described as the children. They do need to do as the rest of the "grown up" world says. They cannot be trusted to do whatever everyone else does.


Amazing! That is precisely how most of the world percieves the U.S. and Israel! May I ONCE AGAIN remind you that it's not Iran that has denied IAEA access to all its nuclear sites - No, It's the U.S. which repeatedly has denied any access to its nuclear sites and arsenals! Iran has always complied with the requests of the IAEA. The IAEA has not found any evidence of that Iran is producing or planning to produce nuclear weapons. The IAEA has declared that Iran has a legitimate and lawful right to enrich uranium according to the nuclear containment treaty. So, who was it again who thinks they do not need to do as the rest of the world says??? It is precisely the U.S. and Israel who cannot be trusted to do whatever everyone else does! You've got it all backwards!


So while this may be hypocritical to some it is plain logical to others and this is where we have so much of a discrepency.


Do you really think you know what you're talking about? Because if you do, I have to inform you that you don't! The discrepency lies in your "logic" and how you concieve the world outside of the U.S.



The Iranian authorities are simply not responsible enough to embark on a nuclear mission without supervision from the rest of the world. Until they can prove themselves responsible enough to handle such a major situation as nuclear technology, they simply cannot be trusted.


Oh, and who are you to make such a judgement? Check the record of the U.S. vs Iran as far as what they have done to other countries around the world, and then come back and tell me who are not responsible enough to have nuces! The U.S. has used the only two nukes that have ever been used in the world, and you're telling me that Iran is not responsible? The U.S. government is the sole bully and agressor in the entire world today! That is the government which cannot and should not be trusted to have nukes if any! And the next country in line is Israel.


Childish remarks such as the US is arrogant and needs a punch in the mouth is self-evident of the mind set of these "supreme leaders". They may give us supreme unleaded gasoline but they are in no way supreme themselves.


Well, wow, you're so grown up with all your "axis of evil", "evil empire", "Desert Storm", "Mother of all battles", and "Shock and awe" - - It's so obvious that the people who came up with all these names were avid fans of star wars. You're so grown up with your high-tech bombardment shows of small and weak countries. I and billions of people around the world are as childish as the Iranian leaders, because we too would like to see the U.S. (Government) get a big puch in its face!



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   


Speaking on a tour of southeast Iran, Khamenei called the U.S. "arrogant," "rude" and said the country "deserved a punch in the mouth."


Go ahead and punch us.....and see your turned country into the worlds largest sheet of glass. or a huge disney world parking lot, either will be
just fine.

See, If a christian or catholic leader had said that he would be burned at the cross (with reason of course) No spiritual leader needs to advocate violence. Leave that up to others.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Its equally amazing that there are people who believe that any madman should have the constitutional right to own heavy machineguns to defend themselves from governmental aggression. Yet these people also believe that another country shouldn't have weapons capable of defending themselves from that same government. The argument unfortunately runs both ways.



Where did I say they DIDN'T have a right to have nukes? I personally don't think it really matters whither they have them or not.




Its one thing to say that certain nations aren't "responsible" enough to own nukes. Its quite another thing to enforce that opinion.


Not really. If America or Russia or China or etc didn't want Iran or NK to have Nukes it would be relatively simple to KEEP the from having them.

The big three are not going to war with each other over a piece of sand that would be divided up among them long before the first shot was fired. The proper Oil concessions to the other two and it would be over before they knew what hit them.



By the way if the government right now was a person I'd do a lot worse then punch it in the mouth. Nobody sell's my freedoms as as American to the highest bidder without a fight!


I have to agree with you on this one. We dont have to worry about being enslaved from outside we are doing it to ourselves



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by Kriz_4
The US government really does need a punch in the mouth.


Then what?


Hopefully a change of US government.



I mean besides pissing us off what would that accomplish?


Us? Are you part of the US government? The US government needs to look after it's own country(its looking more like the US government does own the country). Take care of its own soil and its own people, let the rest of the world do the same.



Have you seen a pissed off US government before? Do you really expect a pissed off US government not to punch back?


As we have seen, they seem to be developing a tendancey to punch first. Metaphorically? Some time in the future they may punch first again, miss, only then to be punched in the mouth.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Siroos ---> Oh, and who are you to make such a judgement? Check the record of the U.S. vs Iran as far as what they have done to other countries around the world, and then come back and tell me who are not responsible enough to have nuces! The U.S. has used the only two nukes that have ever been used in the world, and you're telling me that Iran is not responsible? The U.S. government is the sole bully and agressor in the entire world today! That is the government which cannot and should not be trusted to have nukes if any! And the next country in line is Israel.

Well, US has nukes over 60 years... i think thats pretty responsible... But i don't think US is that aggrassive since we haven't take over canada and mexico yet...


too bad Soviets Fall, that way there is something more at stake than those small problems that bushco make it like big problems. Our tech would be more advance if the soviets didn't fall


well, at least china will take it's place soon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join