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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
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.


That is completely inaccurate. The French and the British bore a greater responsibility for their revenge-minded bully tactics on Germany and the Versailles Treaty was their inflicted punishment on Germany of which led to the second World War.

The Big Three knew even before they met that they wanted to punish Germany. France wanted revenge, Britain wanted a relatively strong economically viable Germany as a counterweight to French dominance on Continental Europe, and the U.S. wanted the creation of a permanent peace as quickly as possible, as well as the destruction of the old Empires. The result was a compromise, which left nobody satisfied. Germany was neither crushed nor conciliated, which did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe and the world as a whole. The Treaty of Versailles did cripple Germany's economy in the early 1920's and left it vulnerable to the equally devastating Great Depression of the early 1930's, which in turn paved the way for the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, to seize power. However, the reparations were a failure in retrospect as well from the view that Germany made money off the treaty, as she did not repay most of her foreign loans in the 20s and did not complete her indemnity payments.

Source: The Versailles Treaty

Please read the history in the above link. I do not know where did you get the basis of that absurd suggestion that the United States have to do with bullying Germany when President Woodrow Wilson struggled, unsuccessfully, in convincing the British and the French leaderships not to go too hard and far on Germany.




posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

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!




You know that George Bush Sr's Dad funded the nazi campain right? And that the entire bush empire was build with nazi money. If you don't believe me check out a few links for yourself.

illuminati-news.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.romm.org...
www.prisonplanet.com...

Edit : Few more ats links on the Nazi Bush Empire

www.abovetopsecret.com...
70.85.38.54...

[edit on 6-5-2005 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by Passer By
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.


That is completely inaccurate. The French and the British bore a greater responsibility for their revenge-minded bully tactics on Germany and the Versailles Treaty was their inflicted punishment on Germany of which led to the second World War.

The Big Three knew even before they met that they wanted to punish Germany. France wanted revenge, Britain wanted a relatively strong economically viable Germany as a counterweight to French dominance on Continental Europe, and the U.S. wanted the creation of a permanent peace as quickly as possible, as well as the destruction of the old Empires. The result was a compromise, which left nobody satisfied. Germany was neither crushed nor conciliated, which did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe and the world as a whole. The Treaty of Versailles did cripple Germany's economy in the early 1920's and left it vulnerable to the equally devastating Great Depression of the early 1930's, which in turn paved the way for the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, to seize power. However, the reparations were a failure in retrospect as well from the view that Germany made money off the treaty, as she did not repay most of her foreign loans in the 20s and did not complete her indemnity payments.

Source: The Versailles Treaty

Please read the history in the above link. I do not know where did you get the basis of that absurd suggestion that the United States have to do with bullying Germany when President Woodrow Wilson struggled, unsuccessfully, in convincing the British and the French leaderships not to go too hard and far on Germany.


There is the gross, and there is the subtle. To the masses, the gross is the real and the subtle illusion. The reality IMO, is the reverse.

The US has always had ties to Germany, and while I agree that they may not have been the ones to push for the harsher terms, they were they're helping the Germans, and it is that allaince that should really underline what you are seeing in America these days.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
I too vote no in both cases. Here is why:

Iran.

Iran is going thru their own version of the dark ages where religion rules and tyranny is the result. Its not pretty but its also not something that can be defeated with force. They are at a time and place that they must come out of themselves. Any attack will only strengthen the Mullahs...

North Korea,

We need to ignore North Korea and tell South Korea, "You've had over half a century to learn how to defend yourself. If you can't by now then bygod you deserve to fall."

Harsh, I know. Still, just my humble opinion.

Wupy


I totaly agree with your statements. Iran is going through some hellish times right now but I believe that even if we were to mess with them they would attack other middle eastern targets ( Maybe our good Jewish friends) but there is no way they could actually launch a nuke and hit us, were just too far away and Iran doesn't have the type of technology to reach us yet.

For North Korea, there just crazy up there, and I agree with the statement that we should stop holding South Korea in our arms.

EDIT: Error in my quote

[edit on 5-6-2005 by The_Final]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I have said this many Times the US is not Short handed on Troops at all, another war and then we will be running thin, i would be completely against a war in Iran because like Iraq we would be there basically on our own,
The Current US military and manpower is about 1.6 million put 20,000 in afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq thats 170,000 then we will add another 30,000 to that for troops that are on Peace keepin missions and troops and Special forces that we dont know are out there, then we will add another 30,000 For the Troops in SK so about 230,000 troops away from 1.6 million would leave us somewhere around 1,350,000 Troops (EST) To be Placed where needed , i highly doubt that we would need all 1,350,000 Troops in NK

Personnaly This should be Immediate Decision No Warning to NK no Three day warning period like Bush Gave saddam, i think Bush should just wake up at like 2 in the AM and Let Sh!t happen
First we Royally Destroy the Defenses along the DMZ With F-117
So we bomb the Shizzit out of NK and then we bomb them some more Cuz NK wouldnt stand a chance against US navy or Airforce Send in Cruise missile Then Drop a Few Moabs To clear anything out which would take care of any land mines for 1/4 mile then We let the 30,000 Troops already there Start Rolling into NK with SK troops,

Also we keep bombing and bombing to weakin any military structure That they have left from the Previous bombing, By then All NKns will realize they have no Air support No Artillary Support no nothin, Then if need be i say we would Drop of an additional 300,000 Troops That would bring our available Troop level to 1,050,000

Then more then Likely Japan would send troops in and SK would send more in, and Britain would send some and probably Australia So there is no Major Shortage on Troops, It bothers me when i here people say "oh were short on Troops we cant do that we cant do this blah blah blah,

I could see if we were going to war with China or Russia or India But were not These little Countries Trying to Show That they have a bigger D*ck then everyone else will not require more then 300,000 troops, especially after we bomb every military structure they got.

If anyone has ever been to a NBA game or NFL game Take note at how many people are there, I was at a Charlotte Hornets and Bucks game a Few Yrs ago and there was 63,000 People, it doesnt sound like much in a war But just sit back and think if all 63,000 people in that stadium were Well trained US soldiers in NK, With the Best Navy and Airforce Supporting them After the Initial Bombing, thats Alot of Sheer Strength,



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
There is the gross, and there is the subtle. To the masses, the gross is the real and the subtle illusion. The reality IMO, is the reverse.


I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about?
Please elaborate.


Originally posted by Passer By
The US has always had ties to Germany, and while I agree that they may not have been the ones to push for the harsher terms, they were they're helping the Germans, and it is that allaince that should really underline what you are seeing in America these days.


German-American "alliance" is as old as the early days of American colonies toward the end of 17th century. The American colonies, while it was overall British, have few small communities of German settlers and many German-Americans supported the American revolution. Prussia aided and supported the American Revolution, with Baron von Steuben being the leading Prussian officer in that American war against the Redcoats. I hardly call that alliance's undermining what I'm seeing in America nowadays.

[edit on 6/5/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I have a question, and don't take this wrong as I'm tired of us being responsible for North Korea, but do you expect South Korea to drive their people into early graves by creating a military that can deter North Korea? As has been pointed out, "Ill Kim" has a population that is starving, but he is more concerned with having a large, standing army that is poised to move south at any time. On top of that, he wants a nuclear force. For what reason? Are, or have we ever, threatened to invade NK? Nope. Is there any reason? Nope. If he became a responsible little tyrant, took care of his people and became a honorable member of the world community, would things be better for his people and the world? Well, of course.
Do you think that the South Korean Government should attempt to outpace them in an arms race as we did the Soviets? If that be the case, who is going to get them up to speed in the nuclear department? Us? Sure, and then we'd hear all the whining about how we are engaging in nuclear proliferation as the countries many in this thread want to paint as being as decent of governments as ours is.
Nope. WE pull out, how many months do you think would pass before the South was wiped out?

I find it interesting that if a communistic regime attacks an country with a representative government and wins, then the representative government "deserves" it, but if psychotic despots are removed, we are out of control. I'm sure the irony is lost on some.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As has been pointed out, "Ill Kim" has a population that is starving, but he is more concerned with having a large, standing army that is poised to move south at any time. On top of that, he wants a nuclear force. For what reason? Are, or have we ever, threatened to invade NK? Nope. Is there any reason? Nope. If he became a responsible little tyrant, took care of his people and became a honorable member of the world community, would things be better for his people and the world? Well, of course.


The same could be said about Bush and the united states.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Do you think that the South Korean Government should attempt to outpace them in an arms race as we did the Soviets? If that be the case, who is going to get them up to speed in the nuclear department? Us? Sure, and then we'd hear all the whining about how we are engaging in nuclear proliferation as the countries many in this thread want to paint as being as decent of governments as ours is. Nope. WE pull out, how many months do you think would pass before the South was wiped out?


For me, I'm not sure. It depends on how quick and decisive the North Korean military would move against South Korea and what would be the major reaction the US military would move against N.K. in kind.

If we do pull out our American troops from South Korea and let North Korea takes South Korea for all it worths, we would be turning back on the Korean people that we've helped protect against an aggressive N.K. posture on the Korean peninsula for so long and doom any chance of a peaceful reunification. As far as I recalled about Kim Jong Il's thinking, the peaceful reunification with its southern counterpart would have to be on Kim Jong Il's terms.

A nuclear armed North Korea would mean a nuclear armed Japan down the road.
The historical relationship between Korea and Japan haven't always been stellar (similar to the historical relationship between Pakistan and India or China and India).


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I find it interesting that if a communistic regime attacks an country with a representative government and wins, then the representative government "deserves" it, but if psychotic despots are removed, we are out of control. I'm sure the irony is lost on some.


Yes, but that's not lost with the anti-American folks.
To them, the USA is always out of control no matter its true intention is simply protecting its own interests in world affairs.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti

The same could be said about Bush and the united states.



its almost like that, but the difference is that people of North Korea are trying to escape from the country to China from persecution because they oppose Kim. not to mention slave labor etc, i could go on.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

That is completely inaccurate. The French and the British bore a greater responsibility for their revenge-minded bully tactics on Germany and the Versailles Treaty was their inflicted punishment on Germany of which led to the second World War.

The Big Three knew even before they met that they wanted to punish Germany. France wanted revenge, Britain wanted a relatively strong economically viable Germany as a counterweight to French dominance on Continental Europe, and the U.S. wanted the creation of a permanent peace as quickly as possible, as well as the destruction of the old Empires. The result was a compromise, which left nobody satisfied. Germany was neither crushed nor conciliated, which did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe and the world as a whole. The Treaty of Versailles did cripple Germany's economy in the early 1920's and left it vulnerable to the equally devastating Great Depression of the early 1930's, which in turn paved the way for the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, to seize power. However, the reparations were a failure in retrospect as well from the view that Germany made money off the treaty, as she did not repay most of her foreign loans in the 20s and did not complete her indemnity payments.

Source: The Versailles Treaty

Please read the history in the above link. I do not know where did you get the basis of that absurd suggestion that the United States have to do with bullying Germany when President Woodrow Wilson struggled, unsuccessfully, in convincing the British and the French leaderships not to go too hard and far on Germany.


The big 3 are ALL to blame;

1) France was really against germany after the Franco-Prussian war, also angry over the loss of life and the loss of land.

2) Britain was also angry at germany for loss of life BUT was not in favour of france's extreme views BUT was not prepared to stop france.

3) America was unable to force themselves into the debate.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Well.......

The U-2 that has just been shot down was in the region of Iran so lets hope they were spying and found something worth bombing.

Go on Bush.....blow them up.....




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Hey buddy, just thought I'd let you in on a few facts:




That was with negligable resistance from an organised army. North Korea in particular has a much larger and better equipped army than Iraq.

-CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Now then, my friend, I seem to recall that the ORGANIZED (with a z, thanks) army of Iraq was completely beaten by the Coalition forces within THREE WEEKS.

Three weeks. The war was over. Now then, if you are talking about foreign "insurgents" from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, then it is a different story. Why? Because history shows us that those who are unnamed and have no formal army usually hold an upperhand against invaders. Example? The American Revolution.

Now then, with that being said, the NK ORGANIZED army would not withstand a direct invasion. Maybe an insurgency AFTERWARDS may be bloody, but the organized army itself would be destroyed.

Secondly, Iran:

Same exact thing. The Insurgency afterward would kill the U.S. and they would end up pulling out of the region. However, the fact stands that the ORGANIZED army of the Iranian government would not defeat the United States.

=/

-wD



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Oh, BTW:

To the punishment on Germany post WW1, the U.S. was not involved.

The Big Three at the time had opposing viewpoints. British and French diplomats wanted to punish Germany for their acts. However, the socialist/left government in the U.S. at the time wanted to rebuild rather than punish.

Those are the facts. Thank you.

-wD



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
If it is necessary to ensure the free world is free, then some unfortunate transactions should take place.

North Korea, well if China wants Maytag and other US Success Companys I suppose China's indicating their cost for putting N Korea in line -yes?

Dallas



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Oh, BTW:

To the punishment on Germany post WW1, the U.S. was not involved.

The Big Three at the time had opposing viewpoints. British and French diplomats wanted to punish Germany for their acts. However, the socialist/left government in the U.S. at the time wanted to rebuild rather than punish.

Those are the facts. Thank you.

-wD


In your world maybe. Ever heard of Wilson?


Wilson wanted the soft approach, Congress were with us & the French in screwing Germany (the extreme plan was to turn it into an agrarian society). Versailles was watered down at US insistence, I'd call that involvement!.

So WW2 was Wilson's fault - indirectly.

library.thinkquest.org...

How come you guys don't know your own history?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by LadyV
These silly "are you for or against" threads are pointless! We can be against it for forty forevers...and it will do nothing! We can be for and it will do nothing. The government will do exactly what it wants to do and doesn’t matter whether, we the people, agree or not!


Since you have appointed yourself overseer of whether or not threads are pointless, please save us all quite a bit of time by providing a list of acceptable topics.

Thank you.

[edit on 5/24/2005 by centurion1211]


As dark as your post seems i have to agree with you
bush went into iraq even though he knew the majority of the u.s.was against it. maybe not the majority but a lot of amercans were against it! not to mention countries all over the world protesting, he just did not care!
it is sad but true he will do what he wants and when he wants to, bush don't care what the polls says becasue he don't care what you say!
america home the free!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
America Will Crush N.K with all The POWER it HAS trust me! China will not back N.K China knows N.K is asking for it when it comes to Nuclear Weapons the Int. Community will not back Rouge Nations like N.K and Iran Rouge Nations that will give the Terrorist the Capibilty to destroy sovein nations ..sorry for the incorrect spelling



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
"Rogue Nations" I like that thinking.

Not to be rude, but you really are trapped in your style of thought. America will not be able to "crush" North Korea. They're not some small-time Middle Eastern Nation whose own soldiers do not want to fight. The North Koreans have it drilled into them form child-hood that they should hate America and the American people due to Kim ||.

Furthermore China will defend North Korea, like it or not - China has made it clear this is a domestic problem and not International. As far as they're concerned Asia is their grounds - not Americas to Police. Also the Chinese Government would love to get America to attack North Korea so they could help Korea out and attempt to unite it back with China. Since that's what they want.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
it has been over fifty years since the last war with korea, i think that means fifty years of growing up under this regime, educated under this regime, and growing old under this regime, fifty years!
fifty years of hearing how bad america is and how good n.k. is!
we go to war with n.k. we got problems!
here is a link from rense aout how n.k. would attack the u.s and n.k.'s weapons!
i know it is rense but it was still very interesting
www.rense.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join