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.

 

Are You For Or Against A War With Iran/North Korea?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
It seems to me that some people here simply don't want to discuss things. (edsinger, oleneo) Your purpose here is obviously trying to trash threads harboring opinions that you dislike, by blind rantings. Why are you opposed to civilized discourse ? Why don't you rather try to explain and plausibilise your (admittedly extremist) feelings ?

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Moretti]




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Edsinger: If the war in Iraq was so "legal", why did the vast majority of the world cry out in protest? Why were nations of comparable values so against it? Do they hate us for our freedom? Or are they jealous?

Tulipwalkers, all of them, tulipwalkers!



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Why should iran and NK not have nukes?
Seriosly I want a legit reason, I have to also ask, why was iraq legal?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Because we said so and if they don't like it, then tough.

And then people wonder why the "Western" world is disliked so much?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
A war with Iran is out of the question. To much unstablization in that region already.

A war with NK is more than likely. But it would be a hard fought one and I'm not sure if the winner could actually be called the winner since the loses on both sides would be enormous.

So in my opinion a war with Iran, probably not.

A war with NK yes and long overdo. Even though the losses would be in the ten of thousands or hundred of thousands.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


Sometimes I really wonder what would happen if the US just stayed out of everything?



Agreed! The world would probably be a lot better place, don't you think?? Government funded terrorism would probably not exist ......anymore.




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Ed, knock off the crap like "horseshyte". That is circumventing the censor, and you know it. No more! Also, respond in a manner that refutes stupid statements, not just claiming they are organic fertilizer. Another circumvention will get you a time out.

Wisdom, show a little wisdom and not circumvent the censor again, too. As a matter of fact, anyone else circumventing will get a time out. That means, you'll be unable to post for a few days.

Now, on to the rest of you folks. Put a little thought into your remarks, huh? For example, to state something such as the U.S. is threatening the freedom of otehr countries, and they need nukes because of that, is to make no sense, and to totally disregard the fact that the lovely countries mentioned are despotic hell-holes that make my nation look like paradise! You forget that the nations in discussion are killing their own, starving their own or threratening their neighbors. In the specific case of North Korea, it attempts to coerce bennies from us by threatening war. As the last leader proved, giving them anything on their promise to behave is just as stupid as it sounds.

There are many more superficial and lame comments, but I prefer to stay out of these lame conversations with people who prefer to brainlessly knock the U.S.
Not that there aren't good reasons to knock the U.S., or more to specifics, those who control the U.S. (and the rest of your lovely Western Nations....yeah, keep a blind eye to your own national sins, why don't you!), but I prefer to do it in a more mature manner, rather than such a sophomoric way, such as "They are doing it that way because Bush is a loser!" Speaking of loosing!

I suggest you all try and raise the level of intelligence and wisdom around here, rather than making it a sloppy catfight.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Get My Vote For a Pre-Emptive Strike on N.K!!!
Let me run the show i'll destroy N.K in amatter of days with Full Military Support/Cooperation lending me full access to Top Secret Weaponary! and Intel.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Your thinking about that already?

Why don't you finnish of the wars you are already in?



[edit on 5-6-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   


Why don't you finnish of the wars you are already in?


Yea, It really doesn’t seem like America could launch any more wars with the way things are now.

Even if Iraq never was invaded, I still would have to be on the no side. Although I believe that the less nukes the better, with the way things are now America simply cannot start a war against every nation that tries to get nukes. For Iran it seems that they mainly want nukes to deter Israel. As for North Korea, we all should try peaceful means of dealing with them. Although I don’t trust Kim, I doubt a war would help.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by WisdomMaster
Get real. Certainly not more than the bias cr*p that you post daily. Sorry, but I respond to a personal attack. Was it too painful to swallow the truth?
Regards!


Personal? No it want personal it was just utter gibberish. Truth?



Obviously that doesn't come very easy to you.




Originally posted by WisdomMasterP.s. you may post a survey and see for yourself what the rest of the world think about America.



Well no.1, I could give a hoot less what they think. If it were up to them I would still be speaking German......


The rest of the world has enjoyed a relative 50 years of Growth and peace at the expense of the US taxpayer, so they can either accept it or not.




IMHO this is mere ignorance. Your statements are not backed but any factual document. Start with pointing me to reliable sources and I will be happy to agree with you if they are convincing.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega

Originally posted by edsinger


Sometimes I really wonder what would happen if the US just stayed out of everything?



Agreed! The world would probably be a lot better place, don't you think?? Government funded terrorism would probably not exist ......anymore.



If the U.S. had stayed out of everything, Nazis would be ruling the world!


And if we stay out of the war on terror then Islamic terrorists will take hold of the middle-east causing pain and suffering to the people there. And problems will spread to other parts of the world. I mean any people that see others as infedels, should be dealt with, before they go the way of Hitler!



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Yes, some how the Islamic Terrorists will take over the whole world. There are 1Billion Muslims, 1% of those are meant to be Islamic Terrorists. How do 10Million people plan on taking over China, Russia, America, Europe, etc? Please explain that to me.

Edit:

This is as bad as the people who claim "In 15 years there will be no white people left, everyone will be mixed race". It makes me giggle like a School boy.

[edit on 5-6-2005 by Odium]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Yes, some how the Islamic Terrorists will take over the whole world. There are 1Billion Muslims, 1% of those are meant to be Islamic Terrorists. How do 10Million people plan on taking over China, Russia, America, Europe, etc? Please explain that to me.

Edit:

This is as bad as the people who claim "In 15 years there will be no white people left, everyone will be mixed race". It makes me giggle like a School boy.

[edit on 5-6-2005 by Odium]



When did I say that they will "take over"? I said they must be dealt with. This is because they are a backwards group that wants and likes to commit violence against inncoent people.


[edit on 5-6-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
we dont need to go to war, North Korea will start the war first, and yeah lets see how the South Koreans can defend for themselves after over half century of training and planing. i cant wait to laugh wen those South Korean people who protest against American troops start begging for our help
.


Never let it be said we're a nation of discompassionate, selfish bastards.

Hand me a tissue, before the sarcasm drips through my pants.




posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
It seems to me that some people here simply don't want to discuss things. (edsinger, oleneo) Your purpose here is obviously trying to trash threads harboring opinions that you dislike, by blind rantings. Why are you opposed to civilized discourse ? Why don't you rather try to explain and plausibilise your (admittedly extremist) feelings ?


No, I do wanted to discuss something, offer my own frank opinions and do not wish to trash a thread but I cannot allow opinionated conjectures of extreme partisan nature to transgress and thrive on any thread without a serious counterpoint or to dispute erroneous/misguided facts with actual facts.

I have noted your "admittedly extremist" comments in other threads, moretti. You disliked our opinions as we dislike yours and we can go around and round until the cows come home. Are you up for that?

In my opinion, Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons are the threats to the security and peace of the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, respectively, and to the world. Are you going to rely on the arguments/reasons of the Shi'ite-indoctrinated mullahs of Iran and the Korean dictator as "valid" for their needs of nuclear weapons? I don't. Their arguments are invalid, irrelevant and illogical.

One last thing: I'm not opposing any civilized/diplomatic discourse. For example, the Bush administration took an excellent diplomatic discourse to pressure Bashir Assad to remove Syrian troops from Lebanon, along with the French, British, Saudi and even Russian nudges and that's a good thing. But not every nation is like Syria. Iran, on the other hand, with its aggressive nuclear energy policy under the current leadership poses a far more onerous threat to the Middle East than a 29 years old Syrian occupation of Lebanon or even Israel with nukes. Not with its current leadership schooled in Islamic teachings, not international affairs.

North Korea is a different story. On one hand, you have China and Russia as its neighbors and on the other, you have South Korea and Japan. The Bush administration have to tread carefully with North Korea, even with all the blustering, chest-thumping talks and military movements on both sides (just for the public consumption and stock market speculations), President Bush is simply raising awareness issue to pressure Russia and China to step it up and apply their diplomatic pressures on "Mr." Kim Jong Il to change course and return to the six-way talks. This is to give eases to the leaderships of South Korea and Japan, allay public fears to a minimum and proceed to whatever steps to facilitate peace in the Korean peninsula. The Bush administration is simply moving chess pieces on the geopolitical level with North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea to his advantages (and Bush has to keep the fate of Taiwan in China's minds without risking a military provocation with China's largest trading partners - the USA and Japan).

The balls are in the mullahs' and Kim Jong's courts.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Yes, some how the Islamic Terrorists will take over the whole world. There are 1Billion Muslims, 1% of those are meant to be Islamic Terrorists. How do 10Million people plan on taking over China, Russia, America, Europe, etc? Please explain that to me.


Do you realize the Islamic clerical/imam leaderships can inspire hundreds millions of Muslims with their weekly/daily sermons to support, aid and/or get involved in jihads or wars? More than half of 1 billions Muslims live in abject poverty under clerical/imam or secular leaderships while the other less-than-half billion Muslims lives in the West or well-off Muslim countries.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by Odium
Yes, some how the Islamic Terrorists will take over the whole world. There are 1Billion Muslims, 1% of those are meant to be Islamic Terrorists. How do 10Million people plan on taking over China, Russia, America, Europe, etc? Please explain that to me.

Edit:

This is as bad as the people who claim "In 15 years there will be no white people left, everyone will be mixed race". It makes me giggle like a School boy.

[edit on 5-6-2005 by Odium]



When did I say that they will "take over"? I said they must be dealt with. This is because they are a backwards group that wants and likes to commit violence against inncoent people.


[edit on 5-6-2005 by Boatphone]


But it is your side that is actually killing, in a land that didn't attack you. It is the American influency that is beign issued all over the world, not the other way around.

If it wasn't for the American(And the European at the time) bully tatics on Germany and the Treaty of Verssiles(sp?) there wouldn't have been a second world war arguably.

I don't fear muslims one half as much as I tend to fear rampent, unrestrained greed. Muslims, regardless on how you feel about them, live by a code or morals and ethics. They may be different morals and ethics than we are used to but they are their morals and their ethics and they are very consistent with them. Greed on the other hand beleives in nothing, and there for there is no place to gain an understanding. The only need, the only beleif, is that they have the right to do whatever they like in order to get the almighty dollar. Including lie, cheat, steal and kill their own people. Pretty freaking sad, all for a new lexus.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Sadly this is half of the problem....the perception that Islamic Terrorists (or any terrorists, really) are...

"......are a backwards group that wants and likes to commit violence against inncoent people."

To begin with, the term "terrorist" is ambiguous; the use generally depends upon which side of the coin you're on, and thus could also have been applied to the colonists who formed this great nation, the French resistance during WWII, and so on. Let's not forget that initially, the West decided that Nelson Mandela and his followers were also terrorists. Israeli fighters are often seen as "freedom fighters", but Palestinians (who are technically resisting the occupation of their land) are "terrorists". Morevoer, the perception that such groups are backwards, and are just out to commit violence against "innocent people" is misguided at best, and dangerously naive at worst.

These fighters have reasons for wanting to hit at their targets. Their reasons might not resonate with you, or even make sense, let alone stand up to a typical Westerner's logic - but they are still reasons that DO make sense to these believers. To dismiss these reasons outright is simply adding fuel to the fire.

So, we're back at calling these groups "backwards". So, if they ARE backwards, by what criteria is this decided? Is it considered "backwards" to fight for your freedom? To fight for what you believe is a serious list of injustices? If so, then perhaps Allied troops are also "backwards". Is "backwards" a judgement based upon societal niceties? To many other nations, our own social agendas and inequities may be quite, quite "backwards". Again, such terms are ambiguous, and really don't serve much purpose other than to inflame.

Anyway - the point of this post (yes, yes, there really IS one, I promise!) is to perhaps encourage looking further than our own back yards at the reasons WHY these groups, "hostile" nations etc, might have a bone to pick with us. What are the reasons? Are we being given both sides of the stories? Or are we merely being given what our media shows us? Are we able to discern propoganda from our OWN nation, from the real stories? Or are we swallowing what's being fed to us? Do we even know where to look for objectivity?

Because unless we try to understand the reasons and motivations behind these groups, to perhaps see these accusations from BOTH sides of the coin, there will never be an end to terrorism.

From either "side".



(edit: To answer the original question posed - I'd be against a war with Iran OR North Korea, unless there's a better reason than either simply having nuclear capability)



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I would support both.

Both of those nations are run by people who are dangerous to me.

NK - Kim Il Jong nut bag has people digging up graves for food, he has testfired missles over Japan, and has nuclear weapons capable of hitting the west coast of the US. He needs to go.

Iran - ruled by a bunch of Islamic nut jobs who have publically stated that they wish to destroy Isreal. They are clearly attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Take them both out.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join