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.

 

Bush Admin. wants to use nukes in preemptive strikes.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Finger Pointing Guidance Mechanisms


Originally posted by instar
Again, who says so? America? What right has America to be creating/stockpiling weapons of holocaust? hypocrits!

What right does any nation have to do this?

Is America the only nation with nukes?

The selectivity of your outrage is the foundation of my skepticism.

Why is America the focus of so much chest-beating and self-righteous indignation, when the same people who indulge in this spectacle are almost uniformly dead silent regarding other nations who do far worse?

Answer that question honestly, and we may well see eye to eye on more than this.




posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The Subtext

This is black propaganda.

As with all things, I urge my fellow ATS members to be skeptical.

The article reports some things which may well be true, then shamefully devolves into speculation unwarranted by the source material.

Wrong. This was in the news. Pre-emptive Nuclear, google it, or find my old thread on this. Bush wants an official ok to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively, are we really debating this fact?
Jesus rightwingers, all this "Your Source is Bad, your Source is bad" is fine, source is one thing, information is another. In this case the information is accurate. If a bag of poop is wrapped in a fancy golden foil with a ribbon round it, and another bag of poop is steaming in a paper bag, it still stinks. Do I really need to dig up press releases here, or can you guys find some sources you like and just tell us where we need to get our 'proof' from now on to make you happy. It's real, they want to nukes pre-emptively.
Plenty of other sources, they say the same thing. Source be damned.
Is the L A Times good enough?
'Preemptive Strikes' Become Policy
By John Hendren
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 18 March 2005

How about the "document outlined at the Pentagon by Douglas Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy." read that have ya?

Japan Times too liberal for you?
US May Allow Nuke Strikes over WMD
The Japan Times
Wednesday 03 May 2005
"The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper."

Washington Post?
Bush: U.S. Will Strike First at Enemies
New Threats Require Preemption, He Says
By Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 2, 2002; Page A01


HOw many sources do you need to see the words pre-emptive and Nuclear on the same page before you realize the horrible reality of this fine print?

Frankly, I'm disapointed in you Majic.
Do you remember "Baggism", it was a cure for people like you. Look at what is said, not who is saying it. It's impossible, hence the bag.




Hell it isn't just foriegn policy either rightwingers,
writ.news.findlaw.com...



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I think Having a Pre-Emptive/Nuke Option is required in these times and days without one would be Unresponsable/Dumb while we have Country's such as N.K "North Korea" Iran,Syria,Cuba wanting to get there hands on WMD Chemical,Bio,Nuclear Agents N.K already has they say 6Nukes so why wait?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Mouth Foul


Originally posted by twitchy
Wrong. This was in the news. Pre-emptive Nuclear, google it, or find my old thread on this.

Is this news?

From the source article:
Herein lies an inherent contradiction in the American approach that on the one hand acts with commendable determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, but on the other hand, contributes toward it by adopting an irresponsible nuclear policy.

No, it's opinion.

Yet I see people taking this as gospel. Am I wrong to point that out? Should I simply not comment and allow this disgusting exercise in nation-bashing to go unchallenged?

Is that what ATS is about? Finger-pointing and turning away? Bigotry given precedence over skepticism?

That's not my ATS.

This is black propaganda because it puts words in the mouth of the United States, and clearly originates from opponents of the U.S.

That's what black propaganda is.

Haaretz and Reuven Pedatzur do not speak for my country or its government. They never have, and never will.

Suggestions to the contrary are ludicrous, yet I see ATS members merrily condemning my country on the basis of these opinions as if they were facts.

That is an insult to the very concept of credibility.

What My Eyes Have Seen


Originally posted by twitchy
HOw many sources do you need to see the words pre-emptive and Nuclear on the same page before you realize the horrible reality of this fine print?

How many times do I need to point out the inherent fallacy of making assumptions about what I do or do not know?

In doing this, you are wrong by definition, even if you could read my mind, which you clearly cannot.

Stay on the topic, and you can be right.

Turn on me and claim to be an expert on what I know, and you will always be wrong.

Speaking as the only credible expert in the entire world on what I actually know, I can tell you candidly that you are way out in left field in assuming you know more about my knowledge and background than I do.

Tragically and disappointingly so.

Please abandon these wrong-headed tactics. They gain you nothing.

Bagging One's Own Head


Originally posted by twitchy
Frankly, I'm disapointed in you Majic.
Do you remember "Baggism", it was a cure for people like you. Look at what is said, not who is saying it. It's impossible, hence the bag.

Characterizing me in this way because of my objection to opinions being worshiped as fact is an exercise in self-deception, and itself more disappointing to me than you will probably ever know.

The foundation of my complaint is that I see fellow members clearly slipping a bag of delusion over their own heads by trumpeting speculation as fact -- and using it to indulge in hateful nation-bashing, which is an ugly, ugly thing and something I would love to see much less of around here.

This article contains what may well be truth. I think it does. I am quite certain the U.S. is developing new low-yield nukes.

But to allow ourselves to swallow this article's unjustified conclusions without skepticism is the very antithesis of seeking truth.

If we wish to speak of disappointment, shifting from the topic to me is about as disappointing as it gets.

I can't stop you, that is clear enough.

But I can advise against it, and urge you to instead be critical of what you read, because most if it is absolute b.s.

Ridiculing my skepticism is taking you in the wrong direction.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

quote: Originally posted by instar
Again, who says so? America? What right has America to be creating/stockpiling weapons of holocaust? hypocrits!
What right does any nation have to do this?

Is America the only nation with nukes?

The selectivity of your outrage is the foundation of my skepticism.

Why is America the focus of so much chest-beating and self-righteous indignation, when the same people who indulge in this spectacle are almost uniformly dead silent regarding other nations who do far worse?

Answer that question honestly, and we may well see eye to eye on more than this.




Agreed, that goes for America and any other nation aswell surely?



Nice try Majic, !



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Is this for real?!


They would have to be madder than all of you about my avatar size. Well it isnt going to stay that large for long. I'll fix it after a minute, or two.


So dont forget to save it.
Not every day one gets to have a no bag limit.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar

It does not change the fact that Iran and North Korea have NO BUSINESS seeking weapons of holocaust.

Again, who says so? America? What right has America to be creating/stockpiling weapons of holocaust? hypocrits!


I say so. Chakotay, a Cherokee Native American Indian and human being, citizen of planet Earth. Billions of other world citizens agree with my assertion. No hypocrisy at all- I want these horrid weapons off my planet and out of my world. No exceptions. We, the Native People got the US to stop testing them underground. We, the Native People support all peaceful efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from this world. From every Nation. And we the Native People know the Americans well enough to say to North Korea and Iran:

You are playing with fire.



Agreed, that goes for America and any other nation as well surely?


Agreed.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Expositive Thoughts


Originally posted by instar
Nice try Majic, !

Please feel free to elaborate and help me to better understand your position.

I'm listening.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Majic, you said...


The selectivity of your outrage is the foundation of my skepticism.



but seemed to have overlooked where I said...


quote: Agreed, that goes for America and any other nation aswell surely?



Where is the selectivity you speak of? It is afterall an American Idea under discussion, no?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
You're Right


Originally posted by instar
Where is the selectivity you speak of? It is afterall an American Idea under discussion, no?

You're right, and I was wrong.

I assumed you were only calling the U.S. to task for this, which I think would be misguided, much like criticizing the moves of one chess player without examining the moves of the opponent.

For what it's worth, I see plenty to call the U.S. to task for.

Doing so to the exclusion of the sins of the rest of the world is wrong-headed, in my opinion, and I get defensive about that for reasons I hope you can appreciate.

I'm sorry I mischaracterized your position.

I was wrong to do that, and stand corrected.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamie6661986
I think Having a Pre-Emptive/Nuke Option is required in these times and days without one would be Unresponsable/Dumb while we have Country's such as N.K "North Korea" Iran,Syria,Cuba wanting to get there hands on WMD Chemical,Bio,Nuclear Agents N.K already has they say 6Nukes so why wait?


would it be ok if i shot you as you were walking out of your house because i knew you owned a gun and thought you were going to shoot me with it one day soon?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
That's not my ATS.

Amen Brother. My point exactly. Their source denotes the same methods as we do here on our ATS, they assimilate information and present it, from their perspective, as all forms of media does. How is that any different from the High Principles of your ATS which you are so notably quick to relay to others here on ATS?
As it relates to this thread in particular we find you criticising the source of a thread, clearly which is entitled, "Bush Admin. want to use nukes in preemptivestrikes", rather haughtily I might add, as indicated by your assertion that their yes, opinionated source is not adequete for what you consider to be an acceptable one for use here in your grandoise concepts of an OPEN discussion forum.
This thread is sourcing an opinion which concludes a hypocrisy of Nuclear Policy. Wow, what a communist bastard that guy must be. However, this is an opinion which is formulated from actual press releases of which I have several copies personally. Yes, Preemptive, Nuclear, Policy. Official Policy, not fantasy, not conspiracy, POLICY. Your telling us this is bunk and unamerican, because it says we might be hypocritical?

Dude, they want to do this to people, Preemptively.





Now I don't know how chivalry and hypocrisy work out in your universe, but in mine, it's a real catch-33 if you know what I mean.



Originally posted by Majic
This article contains what may well be truth. I think it does. I am quite certain the U.S. is developing new low-yield nukes.

But to allow ourselves to swallow this article's unjustified conclusions without skepticism is the very antithesis of seeking truth.

Have a look at your post, seriously. I post the press releases from other sources, and the very documents to look up and your still on " may well be" and "I think it does" and "unjustified conclusions". Then your going to go on a fancy looking rant to qualify a little unamerican hypocrisy of your own. The only thing UnAmerican trnd I'm seeing is attributing criticism of hypocritical pre-emptive nuclear policy to some leftish or unamerican agenda. Sorry man, nationalism ain't my thing.

This is America, This is Dissent, Get Over It.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Again, who says so? America? What right has America to be creating/stockpiling weapons of holocaust? hypocrits!

I say so. Chakotay, a Cherokee Native American Indian and human being, citizen of planet Earth. Billions of other world citizens agree with my assertion. No hypocrisy at all- I want these horrid weapons off my planet and out of my world. No exceptions. We, the Native People got the US to stop testing them underground. We, the Native People support all peaceful efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from this world. From every Nation. And we the Native People know the Americans well enough to say to North Korea and Iran:



Coming from you as a citizen, I couldnt agree more, however the administration who are putting such ideas on the table, and who are in a position to be pro-active in leading by example, yet sit on a stockpile of holocaust weapons of their own, not doing so, is another matter. From them , saying, x nation has no buisness developing such weapons, is to my taste hypocrasy of the highest order.
Personally I hate the idea of further proliferation of such weapons anywhere, but to sit on your own horse next to your stable of horses and tell your neighbour he has no buisness owning a horse, is hardly a positive step toward conserving wild horses is it!

America seems to be the loudest protester against nuke proliferation, yet does little to lead by example and makes plans to legitimise the possibility of actually using its own. Thats what this is all about.
This basic thorn in the otherwise agreeable idea of nonproliferation appears to be a difficult concept for the us admin to grasp.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Atypical Examples


Originally posted by enomus
would it be ok if i shot you as you were walking out of your house because i knew you owned a gun and thought you were going to shoot me with it one day soon?

It would probably be more constructive to look at this in more practical terms, if we wish to indulge in speculation.

So here's a different scenario -- no less speculative.

Let's say you are the President of the United States and you have just been informed that North Korea is in the process of preparing to launch a nuclear attack from hardened silos on Japan -- target Tokyo -- that you have five minutes to decide what to do, and that no conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal will be able to take out the silos.

Your only option is to launch a salvo of Trident missiles from an Ohio-class submarine stationed within range, and that the warheads on those missiles are powerful enough to ensure that the preemptive strike in question will kill tens of thousands of North Korean civilians.

Would you, as the president, want to have a less lethal option for countering a North Korean nuclear strike? Is it even ethical not to pursue a less lethal option?

Decisions, Decisions

That's not a decision you or I have to make, but someone may well have to someday, and there are people for whom scenarios like these are not a matter of idle speculation, but something they are entrusted with planning intelligent responses to.

Destroying nuclear missiles before they are launched is an example of of a preemptive attack. Are all preemptive attacks morally unjustified?

Would launching a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea in a scenario like this be wrong?

We can preach from our chairs about this until we're blue in the face, and change nothing.

With nuclear weapons rapidly proliferating, this sort of scenario becomes more and more likely every single day.

Bitching at the U.S. about this accomplishes absolutely nothing, because it was out of our hands a long, long time ago.

Not that bitching at China for being the ones behind the proliferation would accomplish anything better.

It's easy to complain, but hard to understand.

That's why more people complain than understand.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Army Of Straw


Originally posted by twitchy
Dude, they want to do this to people, Preemptively.

When you are done playing with your straw men and actually want to discuss the topic, I may still be here to discuss it with you.

If you want to continue throwing this sort of insulting nonsense at me, I'll leave you to play with yourself.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamie6661986
I think Having a Pre-Emptive/Nuke Option is required in these times and days without one would be Unresponsable/Dumb while we have Country's such as N.K "North Korea" Iran,Syria,Cuba wanting to get there hands on WMD Chemical,Bio,Nuclear Agents N.K already has they say 6Nukes so why wait?


I must disagree...it should not at all be required.

I don't believe that is should be done.PERIOD. We are talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even MILLIONS of people killed on the account of the CHANCE of something happening. MILLIONS of people dying, many people left without homes, many people without power, many people without food, many people at risk of radiation burns.

Are you telling me that you would be willing to do THIS:











...because you thought someone was going to perform an act of destruction.

Tell me that the gain is more than the risk in this case.

Omniscient.



[edit on 29-5-2005 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
enomus, that was very stupied Guns vs WMD hmmm.....



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Object Lesson

Thanks for the examples. It is now much clearer to me what people have been complaining about with respect to the problems in the War On Terrorism forum.

Very educational, indeed.

Spamming the thread with graphic pictures and tired rhetoric is a poor substitute for intelligent discussion.

Here's hoping we will see less of the former and more of the latter in the future.

For those who think making flagrant appeals to emotionalism is the way to win an argument, please allow me to assure you that you are dead wrong.

Way below.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
would it be ok if i shot you as you were walking out of your house because i knew you owned a gun and thought you were going to shoot me with it one day soon?

well thats a weak comparison and were talking about Country's not a single Conflict between two people who knows what Drugdealers,two crazed people ect. weak comparison at the least



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Also, if our country went through the stupid act of nuking the CITIZENS of NK, what makes them think that would have any effect on whether NK would detonate a nuclear weapon? Think about it, their economy is near dead, their people are practically already starving ( from what I've read ), and they have nothing to lose with their nuclear detonation, only power to gain, so I don't think an attack on the citizens would have as big of an impact as it did on Japan, or very little at all for that matter.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join