U.S. sees need for "tangible action" on Iran: Israel, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 02:06 PM by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by WhatTheory


That's not what he means. The economic and military industrial complexes are planetary and international markets for the most part. Iran obviously doesn't have eveyr resource that they need within their land to build the things that they have.

If you wanna get technical, pedantic and a bit semantical... The U.S. is some way shape or form is supplying its own enemies.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 06:13 PM by Ownification
reply to post by WhatTheory


I'm still waiting on your evidence Mr. WhatTheory, do you accept your mission??


reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 10:21 PM by WhatTheory
Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by WhatTheory


I'm still waiting on your evidence Mr. WhatTheory, do you accept your mission??

What are you babbling about now?
Do I have to list all the articles that make this claim? I'm sure you have already read them and they have been posted in numerous other threads. I'm also sure you know how to use google.

I think you just don't agree and want to accept what they state.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by WhatTheory]


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 01:25 AM by WhatTheory
reply to post by toreishi

I don't know much about this incident and will have to do some research but I believe Israel apologized for the incident, explaining that its air and naval forces had mistaken the Liberty for a much smaller Egyptian Navy ship.

Unfortunately things like this happen during wartime. Even the U.S. kills it's own soldiers due to friendly fire incidents. BTW, you did not post a link for the story you quoted.


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 01:34 AM by toreishi
reply to post by WhatTheory


Please click on the links I provided in my post preceding the one above.


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 01:56 AM by Conspiracy Theorist
reply to post by WhatTheory



Boy, are you misguided


Am I? Thank you for pointing that out, but you see, I was always raised to believe that whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


Are you saying that we should not have used them to end the war and save thousands of U.S. lives?


I dont care about U.S. lives. I care about lives. Why is it that when the U.S uses nukes it somehow saves lives but if Iran were to have one it would be deadly. I'm confused.

CT


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 09:20 AM by azodrac
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist


"I dont care about U.S. lives. I care about lives."
hm...so U.S. live's don't count. Yes the U.S. did us nuclear bombs, but if it weren't for "U.S lives" most of the world would be under german and japanese control. I don't know what country you are from, but you were probably the cowards sitting on their asses while "U.S lives" and the other allies were dying to protect your freedom.
And if the U.S didn't use nukes, and to say perchance we ended up losing the war and many more "U.S" AND ally lives, wouldn't the germans still be cleansing their race and killing MILLIONS of innocent "lives" as well. I think you are a little narrow sighted and need to look at the bigger picture. Yes we killed innocent "lives," but didnt we save just as much if not much more?

[edit on 19-5-2008 by azodrac]

[edit on 19-5-2008 by azodrac]


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 09:59 AM by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by azodrac


Poster was implying that it doesn't care ONLY about U.S. lives, but rather cares about all lives and life in general.

The rest of your reply is therefore obsolete because you're reciprocating in a fashion that is not in line with the implications of the original post.


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 10:11 AM by toreishi
All this talk from American politicians about waging war to protect freedom and people's lives reek of nothing more than greed and fear. I would like to apologize in advance for this large quote that I'm going to paste in this thread but I feel that this information will serve to create a more concise illustration of my point.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. ...

... To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack.

... On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!


Are the citizens and patriots of America going to be coerced into going into another war (Iran) by their politicians? Should Americans willingly send their sons and daughters to die in foreign lands for wars that your politicians say you should wage just because it is the "right" and "moral" thing to do? I shall leave my fellow members to come up with the answers for themselves. But know this, whatever America does at this point affects the whole world at large, and we in the global community hope that America will eventually decide on the right thing to do.

Fake Terror

Pearl Harbor

(edited for links because I hope some of you would care to read them)



[edit on 5.19.08 by toreishi]



reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 11:51 AM by azodrac
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


i really dont want to bicker with you on the fine points, but yes,
while maybe i misinterpreted his original words, which should have been
written better, if he cared about lives in general then my post did
in fact show that using the bomb was indeed a benefical decision, contrary to his thought. Even though it intitially took lives outright. If he cared about "all life in general," like you said, then he would realize we indeed did save lives. I replied to his post because he was using the premise that since the US used the first nuclear bomb and took innocent lives we should therefore be bombed, go back and read the post. Therefore my post is not obsolete. Therefore you are reciprocating in a fashion
that is not in line with the implications of the original post. I agree with conspiracy theorist that we shouldn't go to war with iran, as we have no provable reason, as of now. But his original premise the us in turn should be bombed is ridiculous. cheers

And p.s- don't interpret this as an angry rant, I'm just clearing up what I said earlier. later

[edit on 19-5-2008 by azodrac]


reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 11:57 AM by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by azodrac


You're entitled to your opinion. I believe the user was saying that he'd rather have no lives lost and that all death by combat murder is absurd and in accordance with that ideaology then every war that has ever been started was a misuse of power and thus no death by combat murder is justified. It is the people that have the power, but not when they kneel to the propoganda. It's not about this country vs that country or this faction vs that faction, it's about us as a whole world realizing that we are a whole world together. Anything used to divide us and to justify war is nothing but propoganda and lies.

I'll leave that up to the poster if it wishes to reply itself.

I'd love to bicker fine points, they are often overlooked. It's in comprehending the fine points that the general point becomes clear.

Yes, the poster could have explained itself better, but I understood it.

I won't take your reply as an angry rant. I understood your intellectual position. Just wanted to clear that up. Have a good one.

(Basically what poster is saying is that you don't save lives by having lives to take in the first place; you save lives by not having lives that need to be saved, in this sntance in reference to the lives of war victims: conclusion, war is dumb)

[edit on 19-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 184 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 99 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 6 hours ago, 67 replies