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.

 

Ahmadinejad: US wants different opinions

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
4thDoctorWhoFan man i see you in every thread lol. do you ever take a break my friend




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by irbilly
4thDoctorWhoFan man i see you in every thread lol. do you ever take a break my friend


Politics is my second hobby.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess your definition of the word “conquering” is a little different than mine for I get the impression that you meant it to mean we want to own that country.


Technically, all conquering means is that we subdued a population through the use of force of arms. What we decide to do with the chunk of land after we conquer it does not change the definition of what we did in the first place.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Here is the interesting part, if Iran didn’t get involved and the Iraqi people were able to come together and actually form a central government of their choosing we would be long gone. That doesn’t sound like an imperialistic power conquering.


That is only true if the new Iraqi government did exactly as we wanted. If the Iraqi's tried to do something so evil like, say, nationalize their oil wells you could be sure we would assassinate their elected leaders and hold another election. See the modern history of Iran for a historical precedent.

The level of control we seek to impose on the supposedly autonomous government of Iraq IS "imperialistic power mongering" or maybe you just aren't aware to the levels our government seeks to control Iraq in order to benefit from its material wealth and financial potential. Sure they can have any government they want, as long as it operates in a manner compatible with what we desire.

Other than the "Made in the USA" sticker, how is that any different from any country with imperialist aspirations in the past?

Jon



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I find very little difference between the United States and all other nations who have played a hand at conquering.

Most nations who go to lengths to invade a country often tell their people it's for the freedom and safety of the homeland.

See : Rome, and Nazi Germany.

They also attempt to deliver the message that they are bringing the victims out of 'chaos', and restoring 'order'.

The British, French, and Spanish all used the term "civilizing" to explain their acts of oppression on the nations they took over.
As did the Romans.

No, I see no difference between the US and the Oppressive rules that have come and gone in the past.

History repeats itself, the demise of the US is pretty well assured, it's just a matter of time. Maybe this generation, maybe the next. The only thing we have to worry about is whether or not the end will be bloody. Hopefully they go peacefully.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I find very little difference between the United States and all other nations who have played a hand at conquering.

Most nations who go to lengths to invade a country often tell their people it's for the freedom and safety of the homeland.

See : Rome, and Nazi Germany.

They also attempt to deliver the message that they are bringing the victims out of 'chaos', and restoring 'order'.

The British, French, and Spanish all used the term "civilizing" to explain their acts of oppression on the nations they took over.
As did the Romans.


Really??
Since the USA was formed and had all 50 states what other nations have we 'took over' as you would say?
As far as I know, we still only have the same territory.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
The level of control we seek to impose on the supposedly autonomous government of Iraq IS "imperialistic power mongering" or maybe you just aren't aware to the levels our government seeks to control Iraq in order to benefit from its material wealth and financial potential. Sure they can have any government they want, as long as it operates in a manner compatible with what we desire.



If that was all we were after than why not just let Saddam to do whatever he wants to do with no interference from us as long as he sells the oil cheap. I would think if we did that there be a lot more suffering in the world but hey gas would be .50 a gallon. I would also think our trillion dollar cost is not a very good way to start our power mongering.


Hell we could have just sat back and let them all duke it out and then we only need to deal with one government over there.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join