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.

 

Hypocrisy of the United States

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.



see it says no specific date or anything, it only suggest we create a treaty to disarm, nothing says we HAVE to so thats beside the point.

read this, it states what must be followed in this treaty:

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

and

For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.



[edit on 3-5-2005 by namehere]




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Quake -

I don't believe Iran could in anyway attack a carrier group without nukes, we are talking about a large number of ships, that are highly defended. For a country like Iran to take out that many ships at once would be a huge blow to the United States.

Now, the question of would they be stupid enough to do it and think they could survive. Who Knows? But what a risk.

If they saw the United States about to invade and do to them what the US did to Iraq they might think that a quick nuke strike on the US forces followed quickly by a promise to nuke Israel if the US nukes them in return. They might believe that it is their best option.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
In regards to your earlier post JoshGator about them being pulverised (iran and NK that is)

Thats exactly why a nuke is a deterant... if you have one and wave it around... people are less likely to pulverise you... simple.

Having them doesnt make you more likely to be attacked... thats why they take out the programs before the nukes are made... why do you think Nth Korea hasnt been invaded yet? No-one knows thei capabilities and doesnt want to poke a hornets nest untill they know how big the hornets are.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by specialasianX]

[edit on 3-5-2005 by specialasianX]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshGator54
In many threads discussing nukes for Iran and North Korea a common arguement is being used. The arguement is based on "fairness". They argue that it is not right for the United States to demand other countries not have nukes while the US has the largest stockpile in the world.

The first and foremost requirement of the US govt is to do what is best for the citizens of the United States, not what is best for Europe, the middle east, or any other part of the world. I am sure this is what angers the rest of the world but the govt of Iran owes the US nothing either, they should do what is best for their citizens as well. Is it hypocritical for Iran to want nukes but not want to allow Iraq to have any? I believe that a government can only be hypocritical when it places its own citizens in greater danger.

India and Pakistan obtained nukes and there was no war with the US. Mainly because if they used the nukes it would be on each other. If Iran or NK used their nukes it is very likely that it would be inside US borders. That poses a direct threat to American citizens. Any presidential administration would have to deal with this.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, lets keep it civilized!



Your view is childish, to say the least, and the only thing it does is to strengthen the views of the non-US people in here that US is hypocritical to the max.

But I justify your opinion, since you feel part of the elite (as a member of the 'best' country), and you want this situation never to cease. People always hang on to power with everything they've got.

The reason I am saying the above is that ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL, ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME. There may be variations in intelligence, in wealth, in civilisation types, but, we are all 99% alike. Therefore, all the governments of the world should work towards SERVING EARTH'S INTERESTS, and NOT ONLY THEIR PEOPLE'S INTERESTS! by serving the interests of only a handful of people, a large part of the world is ignored. Furthermore, interests of one country may be in conflict with interests of other countries. When there is an interest conflict, there may wars, people may die for others to serve their interests.

So it's highly hypocritical to say "let US serve its interests, just like Iran serves its interests". Both US and Iran, and everyone else that serves only their own interests are wrong. We should all work towards a united humanity.

Of course I don't mean to level everything to the same level. I don't think it's right for anyone to loose their culture. But the level of awareness must be raised. People must wake up and see that their actions affect all others in the world. People must act responsibly to the world, to EARTH!

Of course, there is one big obstacle: religions. From the moment religions are in conflict, there is gonna be war, no matter what. This wouldn't be a problem if human technology had not reached a level that life on Earth can be destroyed multiple times over! so we, as humanity, must re-examine religions, and their values.

In order for the human race to survive, we can not have people say "we serve our own interests, others be damned!". We are all doomed with such an attitude!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Your view is childish, to say the least, and the only thing it does is to strengthen the views of the non-US people in here that US is hypocritical to the max.

But I justify your opinion, since you feel part of the elite (as a member of the 'best' country), and you want this situation never to cease. People always hang on to power with everything they've got.

The reason I am saying the above is that ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL, ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME. There may be variations in intelligence, in wealth, in civilisation types, but, we are all 99% alike. Therefore, all the governments of the world should work towards SERVING EARTH'S INTERESTS, and NOT ONLY THEIR PEOPLE'S INTERESTS! by serving the interests of only a handful of people, a large part of the world is ignored. Furthermore, interests of one country may be in conflict with interests of other countries. When there is an interest conflict, there may wars, people may die for others to serve their interests.

So it's highly hypocritical to say "let US serve its interests, just like Iran serves its interests". Both US and Iran, and everyone else that serves only their own interests are wrong. We should all work towards a united humanity.

Of course I don't mean to level everything to the same level. I don't think it's right for anyone to loose their culture. But the level of awareness must be raised. People must wake up and see that their actions affect all others in the world. People must act responsibly to the world, to EARTH!

Of course, there is one big obstacle: religions. From the moment religions are in conflict, there is gonna be war, no matter what. This wouldn't be a problem if human technology had not reached a level that life on Earth can be destroyed multiple times over! so we, as humanity, must re-examine religions, and their values.

In order for the human race to survive, we can not have people say "we serve our own interests, others be damned!". We are all doomed with such an attitude!



masterp-

Who cares more about the world? North Korea, Iran, or the United States?

How does creating a nuclear program "serve earth's purpose"?

I believe my view is realistic and, if history teaches us anything, the way the world works. Your view on the other hand seems idealistic and fictional, maybe you took one too many trips on "It's a Small World" my friend!

By the way I never claimed the United States was elite, no putting words in my mouth please.

Finally I believe contries should work to better the lives of their citizens first not only. I never said anything about others be d*mned.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshGator54
Who cares more about the world? North Korea, Iran, or the United States?


No one cares about the world. Not Bush's clan (or Clinton's), not NK, not Iran.



How does creating a nuclear program "serve earth's purpose"?


It does not.



I believe my view is realistic and, if history teaches us anything, the way the world works. Your view on the other hand seems idealistic and fictional, maybe you took one too many trips on "It's a Small World" my friend!


You confuse 'realistic' with 'cynical'.



By the way I never claimed the United States was elite, no putting words in my mouth please.


Nope, you did not said that, but many Americans have the impression that they live in the best country in the world. There is no such thing as 'best country'.



Finally I believe contries should work to better the lives of their citizens first not only. I never said anything about others be d*mned.


Ok, but where is the limit? there needs to be a balance.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Ok this is a very interesting topic to make my first post...I belive America is hypocritical as well (now dont get me wrong i love my country and would die for it) but we as many other countries have many problems too.

I mean the war is to fight TERRORISM isnt it? Well Iraq is NOT the only country that supports terrorism...I mean Afghanistan is the one who did
9-11 was it not? so why are we now in Iraq?? Shouldnt we have took care of afghanistan first if the war was only on terrorism..I belive there is more to the war then just the small attepmts to disable us.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by white_angel0789
Ok this is a very interesting topic to make my first post...I belive America is hypocritical as well (now dont get me wrong i love my country and would die for it) but we as many other countries have many problems too.

I mean the war is to fight TERRORISM isnt it? Well Iraq is NOT the only country that supports terrorism...I mean Afghanistan is the one who did
9-11 was it not? so why are we now in Iraq?? Shouldnt we have took care of afghanistan first if the war was only on terrorism..I belive there is more to the war then just the small attepmts to disable us.


Welcome to the board!

You are correct Iraq is not the only country that supports terrorism. We do still have troops based in Afghanistan and missions they execute ocasionally make the news.

But I don't see how that is hypocritical, maybe I am missing your point. It can't be denied that terrorism is being thwarted, look at the recent successes in Lybia and Lebannon (Syrian troop withdrawl).



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
That is very true, and i see how America has made great advances to a better life in Iraq...But i believe that America shouldnt as quick to judge as we are...We have Nukes..I know it for fact..They might not be on our soil..But it is in our possesion. My dad actually helped BUILED a storage place FOR nuclear weapons for Cuba! now tell me that isnt a tad hypocritical.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by white_angel0789
That is very true, and i see how America has made great advances to a better life in Iraq...But i believe that America shouldnt as quick to judge as we are...We have Nukes..I know it for fact..They might not be on our soil..But it is in our possesion. My dad actually helped BUILED a storage place FOR nuclear weapons for Cuba! now tell me that isnt a tad hypocritical.


Of course the US has nukes; on the soil, subs, and planes. The point of my thread is that doesn't matter. Should we go around giving the most dangerous countries on the planet nukes?

A country's duty is to protect its citizens. At this point in time nations like NK and Iran need to understand that obtaining nukes puts them in a much more dangerous situation than if they abandoned the program and declared they were ready to enter the civilzed world, while retaining thier culture. If that were to happen the conflict would be over.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Josh you make some spectacular points..I enjoy talking to you, and i see a lot of your points are very aknowledable..And i belive your right..

And i dont think that we are very smart by giving countries that we know will use them, nukes...I think its a little umm whats the word..Stupid

[edit on 3-5-2005 by white_angel0789]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The only reason a country develops Nuclear Bombs is to make sure that it cannot be threatened by another country into doing things it doesn't want to do.I find it somewhat inconceivable that the only Countries that are allowed this weapon of mass destruction are America Britain etc. Why cant other Countries have the bomb as well?I don't want it to happen , but i see hypocrisy here.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The only reason a country develops Nuclear Bombs is to make sure that it cannot be threatened by another country into doing things it doesn't want to do.



What a nice view of the world, that has such weapons in it.

I think having the biggest nuclear arsenal and spare nuclear weapons to sell to friends and enemies, can all be good Machiavellian strategy for imperialistic expansion. Just as an illustration.

Or, a country bent on laying the world to waste and repopulating it with a master race could get mileage from them too.

Or, maybe a country with a president that likes the smell of napalm in the morning and the look of mushrooms in the setting sun, for entertainment value.

There is no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons anywhere, you M.A.D. people.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The only reason a country develops Nuclear Bombs is to make sure that it cannot be threatened by another country into doing things it doesn't want to do.I find it somewhat inconceivable that the only Countries that are allowed this weapon of mass destruction are America Britain etc. Why cant other Countries have the bomb as well?I don't want it to happen , but i see hypocrisy here.


I have no problem if Iceland wanted nukes. I didn't say other countries can't have them, I have said earlier I have no problem with Pakistan and India gaining nukes. The point is when a declared enemy of your country tries to gain WMD's what country in their right mind wouldn't want to prevent it?

For example, the India/Pakistan situation, don't you believe that India wanted to prevent Pakistan from getting nukes after India obtained them? Who could blame them? Pakistan had a history of terrorist style tactics in the Kashmir region and are at odds with India.

Not hypocritical smart!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshGator54
Quake -

I don't believe Iran could in anyway attack a carrier group without nukes, we are talking about a large number of ships, that are highly defended. For a country like Iran to take out that many ships at once would be a huge blow to the United States.


On second thoughts, you may be right on this one. Probably sending a nuke on a medium ranged missile would be the best option, with a volley of other missiles/aircrafts to divert the radars and firepower. I am no weapons expert so I may be wrong. However, this again would be Irans LAST resort, knowing very well that they would have no chance of survival. This situation will only arise if we attack them.



You are correct Iraq is not the only country that supports terrorism. We do still have troops based in Afghanistan and missions they execute ocasionally make the news.

But I don't see how that is hypocritical, maybe I am missing your point. It can't be denied that terrorism is being thwarted, look at the recent successes in Lybia and Lebannon (Syrian troop withdrawl).


I do not believe, nor have I seen any proof or reports that Iraq supported had links to 9/11 or supported terrorism in any way. In fact this has even been denied by the current administration.

And, I believe Syrian troops in Lebanon was occupation not terrorism, same like our troops in Iraq now. Afganistan was a different matter because the Taliban govt was harboring OBL and refused to give him up.


Of course the US has nukes; on the soil, subs, and planes. The point of my thread is that doesn't matter. Should we go around giving the most dangerous countries on the planet nukes?

A country's duty is to protect its citizens. At this point in time nations like NK and Iran need to understand that obtaining nukes puts them in a much more dangerous situation than if they abandoned the program and declared they were ready to enter the civilzed world, while retaining thier culture. If that were to happen the conflict would be over.


If we say that we have enough power to send A, B, C country into oblivion and we would be willing to do so, it wont be Hypocrisy. We would just be a big bad bully. But to say, you dont have the RIGHT to bear nuclear weapon and we will nuke you whenever we want is plain Hypocrisy.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

With the doctrine of MAD I agree that it would exist between Israel and Iran but between Iran and the US it just wouldn't exist.


MAD has its flaws if one side has good intel they could lanuch nukes against key targets and destory the enemys ablity to lanch a counter attack. The reason that MAD succeed in the Cold war was because of the sheer number of targets and the geographic size of the USA and Soviet Union.

I have nothing against the likes of the USA and the Soviet Union reducing the amount of nukes in there stockpiles. What concerns me is what happens to the nukes when they are removed from the frontlines in the likes of the soviet union where corrupation is wide spread.


the left over nukes by the soviets are now being sold, often those nukes sold are in secret (wonder how everyone seems to be able to get nukes now) if you have a lot of money and few connections, i can bet you u can go to russia and buy a nuke.

also, the reason the MAD works in the cold war is that there are like subs in the ocean, and the ocean is a big place and the subs are near impossible to find espically when it keeps moving from place to place. each nuclear sub have the fire power of 1000 of the a-bombs that was drop on japan.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Quake-

It is widely accepted that Sodam Insane paid Palestinian suicide bombers families, I consider that supporting terrorism, I know others don't but that is a whole new thread!

Most importantly please understand I do not, repeat do not, suggest we should threaten to nuke countires willy nilly, as you suggested.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
........
The reason I am saying the above is that ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL, ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME. There may be variations in intelligence, in wealth, in civilisation types, but, we are all 99% alike. Therefore, all the governments of the world should work towards SERVING EARTH'S INTERESTS, and NOT ONLY THEIR PEOPLE'S INTERESTS! by serving the interests of only a handful of people, a large part of the world is ignored. Furthermore, interests of one country may be in conflict with interests of other countries. When there is an interest conflict, there may wars, people may die for others to serve their interests.

So it's highly hypocritical to say "let US serve its interests, just like Iran serves its interests". Both US and Iran, and everyone else that serves only their own interests are wrong. We should all work towards a united humanity.

Of course I don't mean to level everything to the same level. I don't think it's right for anyone to loose their culture. But the level of awareness must be raised. People must wake up and see that their actions affect all others in the world. People must act responsibly to the world, to EARTH!

........
In order for the human race to survive, we can not have people say "we serve our own interests, others be damned!". We are all doomed with such an attitude!


As good your thoughts may be they are unrealistic at the very least today. Even countries have their own divisions, north vs south, rural vs industrial etc.

Also, I am sure everyone here takes care of their individual/family interest first before contributing to the community or to charity. Iran, NK or US would take care of their own interest before heeding to others. Of course, that does not mean they have to banish others to hell. I do agree it would be very good if everybody thought EARTH before countries but that would only happen if Earth was invaded by Aliens




[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshGator54
Quake-

Most importantly please understand I do not, repeat do not, suggest we should threaten to nuke countires willy nilly, as you suggested.


I never meant that you said it, nor do I support it. I said "IF, we ........"



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I feel its important for every country to disarm as many nukes as possible. It is also extremely important that other nations (iran, syria, NK etc..) shouldn't possess nukes. What good does it do when more destructive power is added to the earth.

I advise people to research on the Nuclear Weapon, understand what it can do.

Extremely dangerous weapon and very VERY scary!


Note: Im completely in disagreement with any nation that has required a nuclear weapon.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join