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.

 

U.S pays off N.K 55 million

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
first let me start this story off with what i strongly beleive is the main deterent to people looking at a story like this with a open mind and a willngness to accept this could be true

n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation

that is an experpt from hitler's autobiography where he goes into the benefits of lying and the reasons why a public accept's bigger lies easier than smaller one's.


www.arcticbeacon.com...
www.stewwebb.com...

basically the U.S gov't says one thing to the public and then does another behind there backs, which isn't that surprising to me or i'm sure many others

and a 55 million dollar payment to N.KOREA for whatever reason wether it has something to do with (instead of thinking of it as countries doing these things) u could think of it as the most powerful people in a pyramid who sit at the top of most governments as exchanging thank you's for cooperating within a bigger scheme of following a plan to bring about a one-world facist gov't state where polotiians are not loyal to there "countires" but to money and the illuminati , jesuits and whatever other secret groups they belong to that have influence over them.

if only we were not scared to imagine a world where this kind of corruption occurs

come to think of it , i think many people forget that we are all humans especially those in power, and with all the temptations from greed, it should not be unimaginable to see what kind of corruption exist in a world based on money, seriously.


and to the debunkers i don't care if u don't agree with a story of two from a certain site, the first thing u try to do is discredit a source siting whatever u can think up, when something true finally comes there is always resistance, is there not




posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
wait till they lite off the next nuklear test, watch how we react, i believe this is dommino #2 tho not sure, but thy will test again.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
... OK FINE....if this is the true stance of the bush administration on nuclear proliferation I dont want to hear another word about Iran. If bush refuses to apply the same standards to NK, then he doesnt have my support anymore and doesnt have a leg to stand on in the issue of Iran. We cannot have double standards, this makes us look REALLY bad.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
... OK FINE....if this is the true stance of the bush administration on nuclear proliferation I dont want to hear another word about Iran. If bush refuses to apply the same standards to NK, then he doesnt have my support anymore and doesnt have a leg to stand on in the issue of Iran. We cannot have double standards, this makes us look REALLY bad.


The U.S. has double standards even when we disregard the N.K. scenario.

The U.S. has more nukes than any other country, yet the U.S. will not let countries like Iran even use nuclear power.

And please don't respond by saying that Iran is evil so therefore they cannot have nukes.

Look how many people the U.S. has killed in the past few years...

Plus, the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear bombs in war. Twice!!!



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by omega1


The U.S. has double standards even when we disregard the N.K. scenario.

The U.S. has more nukes than any other country, yet the U.S. will not let countries like Iran even use nuclear power.

And please don't respond by saying that Iran is evil so therefore they cannot have nukes.

Look how many people the U.S. has killed in the past few years...

Plus, the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear bombs in war. Twice!!!


I was really refering to the US stance on nuclear proliferation. Not so much the fact that the US does have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. I am not the one who agreed that the big 5 would be the only ones with nukes.

US, UK, Russia, France and China.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Everyone should disarm, nuclear proliferation is a too big threat to humanity... If someone try to pursue the nuclear weapons, all nations should attack the country seeking nuclear arms power... But I think to achieve that, we'll have to go trought a big incident with nuclear material or a limited nuclear war.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
OR!

Everyone should have nukes.

If every major nation was armed with nuclear capability, it would become a massive stand off with no one daring to use the weapons because if they did, they'd know full well that they'd be nuked into oblivion by every other nation.

Nukes for all, I say!

Seriously, the cold war was the safest time in resent history simply because we had mutually assured destruction.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Nukes for all, I say!


Oh come on now, BitRaiser. The sheer potential for a nuclear accident, a falsely started nuclear war, and the increased risk of proliferation to terrorists make this unviable to me. Also, if you will research, you will find that the cold war was the most dangerous time for a nuclear war, as is evidenced by at least two "near-nuke-war-starting incidents" that I can think of.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
BIT, are you serious about everyone with Nukes? Can't say I see that bro. I don't think that the "Terrorist threat" is real, at least not at the level trying to be forced on us. I do however think that the seeds of that have just recently been planted. I am not sure the notion of M.A.D really means that much to them.

In either case though, once that genie is out it becomes impossible to put back away. Some form of nuke weapons will always be held back. Man is sadly a timid animal.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   
No, I wasn't quite serious.

I was presenting an alternative view just for the sake of argument.
The point raised that terrorist deployed nukes fall outside of the MAD senario is quite valid. Briefcase, or even van-loaded nukes could be deployed without giving away the vector from which it came. It would be increadably hard to trace who actually sent the damned thing.

That said, it would be very diffcult to actually win a war through the use of terrorist deployed nukes. The opperation required to simultaniously detonate nukes in all the right places to cripple a nation would make 9/11 look like a grade 1 finger painting class.

Thus, MAD is still viable on the tactical level.

Tac-nukes could destroy countries by taking out every major element of infrastructure within seconds. That's the kind of power that Israel holds over Iran. It's not that they could cause them harm, it's that they could utterly destroy them.

Maybe if more focus was placed on openness of nuclear weapons production and tracting instead of just keeping the power within the club, something actually useful could be accompished.

Non-porliferation encourages underground development.
North Korea just managed to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There must be a better way.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Yada yada yada www.albinoblacksheep.com...

:p

Anyways, are the Bushies getting more bold and open in their nasty behaviour every day or what?

Was the NK Nuke crap the "october surprise"?

Its nice to see a public case where its clear the administration is paying of foreign powers to create situations that benifit them politicaly..



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Okay, saying that NK has nukes is a dull statement but we have plenty of nukes that we could nuke them with.

First of all, we could nuke the north koreans but they could use their nukes to nuke us back. The concept of nuking the north koreans goes a little far, but it's only a contingency.

"Nuclear proliferation"... a hardly sought after exclusion tactic... when lots of countries in the middle east are going nuclear. These countries... can obtain nukes from their allies, and when they make their own nuclear reactor, they can give uranium to their allies so that they can make their nukes too!

I'd say that we could nuke the nk's, if we did we could easily destroy them.

>___>.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join