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.

 

Obama says goal 'to eliminate' Iran threat

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
all as usual imperialist war mongers , man one day as stellar says the Russian Federation will have to good care to ensure that imperialist Bloodthirsty USA be gone once and for all , to save the world from American genocide...


Russia stopped being Americas competitor 18 years ago.

Do not tell me you subscribe to the same ill informed diatribe as Stellar, he has been proven wrong by me, as well as others, countless times.



[edit on 4-6-2008 by West Coast]




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


I agree, I too grow tired of this "pro Israel rhetoric", young Americans should not be subjected to die for Israels "cause".

However, with that said, Israel does need the US. The US can benefit from a strong Israel as well in such a volatile region. Israel is located between a rock and a hard place. The people of the ME are fed propaganda daily, which speaks of the death and destruction of Israel. So lets put things into perspective just a bit.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by QBert
 


Well they should help them out. No Texas should not be given to Mexico, why would you ask that?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Well, knowing that the conflict between Israel and palestine is over territory and holy land, i figured you were infering that Israel should give them the land they want.

Hence my USA/Mexico/Texas question



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Not only that, but if you've been researching nwo agenda, martial law and fema camps, and the famous depopulation plan that comes out of Rockefeller and so many other, then you'd see that war with Iran is already in the plans, and possibly trying to pull China into confrontation as well. They, and by that I mean the 13 bloodlines, do not care how many of us useless eaters, or serfs, die, in fact the more, the better. And they have their underground bunkers. If war with Iran happens, they will first either provoke or set up Iran for an awful event that will make the people clamor for war.

Following the discussions on this thread so far shows that a critical piece of information might be missing, and that is the roles that oil and the american dollar play in the Middle East.
Lindsey Williams (see the video link below) because of his past association with Oil Execs has made a credible attempt to demystify the situation. To summarize: When oil was set up as the universal currency, oil producing countries had to sign on pledging to trade oil in US dollars. Iraq and Iran refused to sign on. We have seen what is happening to Iraq. To make matters worse, Iran has threatened to start trading oil in euros within a given time period. Wait a minute, you might say. Didn’t the US go to war with Iraq under Bush Sr because of the invasion of Kuwait? Well, Lindsey reminds us that the Kuwait territory once belonged to Iraq, and furthermore, Iraq was given assurance from the US that it would not interfere with the invasion (info divulged by the diplomat who carried the message to the Iraqis). But that was not to be of course as Bush Jr finished the job his father started.
How does Obama fit in? Apparently all US presidents must sign on to this policy or be eliminated! And it does not matter how many Americans are killed. This is the will of the NWO guys who call the shots. Play ball or be eliminated. Case closed. And you and I thought all along that “We the people” meant something.
video.google.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by QBert
 


I never stated that Israel should give Palestine their land. The dispute is being handled by Israel and not the USA. See how Israel has attacked and defended on their own? Now why can't they apply the same concept to Iran? We do not need to start another war. Did you know that the US has been giving Israel $1.2 billion since mid 1970's? Why can't Israel send their sons to go die off in the wars like the US and Canada has? It just does not add up. They are not any more holy then an Atheist, yet they act like God made them our masters. (Not the people but the leaders)



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


My apologies
i thought that was the gist of your comment about Israel taking care of the territories around them. I was wrong.

But i agree. The US has tendency to think that the world cannot operate without it.
While i agree that there are certain places where no one else will help out - and that should be our job - i still stand my ground with you that US attacking Iran is a bad idea. Not that we'd loose against Iran...

But im tired of being at war.
I read a post somewhere here recently that summed up my thinking as an american


American's dont' want to be victims of terrorist attacks, this is true

But they also don't want to be broke and forced to work 80 hours a week just to make ends meet.

Right on to that.

Totally agreed.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
A little history lesson for anyone who doesn't know what happened to democracy in Iran.




1953 Iranian coup d'état
From 1952-53, Iran's nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, centered on Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company shared profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. By 1951 Iranian support for nationalization of the AIOC was intense and the Iranian Parliament unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.

The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize a coup to overthrow Moussadeq. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After organizing protests against Mosaddeq, a second operation was successful and the Shah returned from his brief exile. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American Presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his bold agenda of rapidly Westernizing Iran soon began to infuriate certain segments of the Iranian population, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives. Because of their eventual ascension to power during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Operation Ajax is considered as one of the worst CIA "blowbacks" ever.


wiki

Oh those evil Iranians that pose such a threat to the US, the Iranians hopes of evil democracy was quashed by the US and Britain in 1953.

Those evil Iranians that are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. How dare they claim that the Zionist regime of Israel should disappear even though Israel are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and former US president Jimmy Carter estimates Israel has at least 150 nukes.

Thank god we have peaceful people like Obama running for the presidency doing something different compared to the old guard like threatening to use military action if necessary against those war mongering Iranians.



[edit on 5-6-2008 by blahdiblah]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Oh Cent, you should be pleased he's echoing the same rhetoric the conservatives love to hear. I'm glad you take joy in the throwing the statement back at his supporters but its the same as Kerry talking about killing Osama and the Taliban. Nothing but empty words. It's all a con-job with these political leaders of ours. They say one thing and do another.

All politicians are basically the same.
You think we don't know that?



- Lee



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   
As I stated in a previous post Obama is a member of the CFR. He is no different then Hillary or McCain. Your vote doesn't count. So why vote?

They only way for change is to take over the government by force. This is the only way. There is no alternative.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CPYKOmega
 


...and replace it with what? A tennis ball?
Govt is Govt. There will never be a Govt to please everyone. A Govt that you personally are pleased with, still angers millions of others the same way the current govt angers you.

Do you ever write your congressman or govenor about your dislikes with the system?

People say it never works - but i beg to differ. I've wrote my govenor a few times, and so far i've recieved results....
just a thought:

Instead of directing blind anger and rage...try doing something about it (not a flame) Trust me, if your actions make any sort of impact, you'll feel 100 times better instantly. It certainly is better than reading drudgereport and geting ticked off at everything.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I disagree that our votes don't count.

It's our politicians that don't count.

Unfortunately people believe that the 'product' you are being sold via the media is reality. What we need is a political party that serves the voters, not the established 'entrenched' nonsense they engage in now. Exactly how that is to happen without a free press is a mystery to me.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree with you Maxmars. Though i'd liek to respectfully challange your idea of a political system that is for the voters

ill use a very general example, i am honestly just curious as to what you would consider an acceptable answer ( there really is a point to this, and its not a flame)

Welfare. People with jobs hate it, some people without "jobs" need it. Its not just a 'stereotype' that there are a lot of people exploiting welfare and getting some extra money on the side that the govt doesnt know about.
So those people are stealing money (in my opinion)
If a politician wanted to work for me by my standards, i'd say they'd have to abolish, or at the very lease -- SEVERELY reform, the welfare system.

But by doing that for me, they'd be upsetting those who currently recieve welfare.

Is there a way to, not nessessarily make happy, but atleast appease both groups?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This has to be some of the dumbest discourse I've read on ATS so far.
What will it take for people to realize that the president is only a ceremonial figure and has a minimal role in actual policies/actions?
In this country the presidential election is a vote for style, NOT content.
They all follow the same agenda. This stuff is decided in corporate/military think tanks. We're executing plans that were made 30-40 years ago. Nothing new. I've known the details of the situation we're in now since the mid eighties.

No wonder the government lies all the time. When the info is right under our noses, we're too stupid to acknowledge it. I wonder what our National IQ is? Sooo stupid. The same people whine about civil liberties violations, but also defend a cultures right to retain its ancestral norms. Retarded.
Whine about low national testing scores of school age students, but yet prop up every derelict who can blow a wad and their illegitimate offspring. Then blame the government because you're a moron.

Pathetic. "Oh, Obama! Change! Love! Champion of the down-trodden!"
Bullsh*t.
I've already heard words like "justified war" from the same people who yesterday were calling Bush a warmonger-Nazi for talking tough about Iran. But when Obama does it, it must be justified.
We deserve what we get. We ask for it. Everytime you buy a frickin' mp3 player or a bag of Doritos.

You'll have to forgive this, but it's true. Do you have any idea how many mother f%^kin' times I've heard someone say,"Well, I always vote democrat, but I hate them ni$$ers." A million.
Morons.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Oh Cent, you should be pleased he's echoing the same rhetoric the conservatives love to hear. I'm glad you take joy in the throwing the statement back at his supporters but its the same as Kerry talking about killing Osama and the Taliban. Nothing but empty words. It's all a con-job with these political leaders of ours. They say one thing and do another.

All politicians are basically the same.
You think we don't know that? - Lee



Yeah, I assume that at least some here know and understand that concept. But if that's true, my question still stands. Why the apparent "love affair" with Obama if even a naive fool can see and understand that at best he's just another empty political suit. And please, nobody post a repeat of what was said earlier about it being OK to like Obama because of what the Republicans did for the last 8 years. That is a totally brain dead comment and excuse for supporting any candidate. Now that concept I'm not so sure many understand ...



[edit on 6/5/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBert
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree with you Maxmars. Though i'd liek to respectfully challange your idea of a political system that is for the voters

ill use a very general example, i am honestly just curious as to what you would consider an acceptable answer ( there really is a point to this, and its not a flame)

Welfare. People with jobs hate it, some people without "jobs" need it. Its not just a 'stereotype' that there are a lot of people exploiting welfare and getting some extra money on the side that the govt doesnt know about.
So those people are stealing money (in my opinion)
If a politician wanted to work for me by my standards, i'd say they'd have to abolish, or at the very lease -- SEVERELY reform, the welfare system.

But by doing that for me, they'd be upsetting those who currently recieve welfare.

Is there a way to, not nessessarily make happy, but atleast appease both groups?


Tough question really. I think the key here is that we have to agree on the difficulty.

Would there ever be a time when 'all' citizens of a state (for simplicity sake) would agree that 'welfare' or 'social services' should be provided at the cost of the 'common fund'? - I'm not sure there is such a consensus.

People seem to theoretically accept that such things as unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and social welfare has a place in society, but few seem to want to be impacted by that. If we can assume that the need for it is accepted and tolerated then the problem is the form it has taken.

Which is why I would say that 're-form' is definitely an excellent approach to the issue.

Currently, for such a system to work it must be to the benefit of the BOTH the recipient AND the community bearing the burden. Our main failure, in my humble opinion, is the business-like approach taken to the administration of the service. There is concealment, there is cronyism, even fraud perpetrated at the head of the table, let alone in the ranks of it's beneficiaries.

I claim no expertise in social sciences, ut it appears that the problem is obfuscation. We have surrounded the institution with mind boggling legalese and circular regulatory inferences that prevent the 'purchaser' of the services (the people) from knowing exactly what has been purchased.

The answer, within the confines of the 'contextual' is to disassemble the process via stringent public analysis and reform the transparency and oversight/accountability aspects forthwith. It is true that our system is vulnerable to abuse by its beneficiaries - although I must point out that not much more so than many other services we pay for - but this is not irreversible. Part of the problem is 'outsourcing' our services - with little or no oversight by an unbiased representative body.

I think we have the means within our current governmental model to address at the very least the aspect of clearing away the obstructions so we can see what exactly is being 'paid' for, and how the system can be policed properly, without bias or punishment, from within.

I have to confess we don't have a great 'civil servant' mind set since the corporations have begun restructuring the governmental infrastructure. But that's a fight we - the people - could win, if we were willing to accept that the political party (republocrats) is no longer viable and simply refrain from engaging in the game they have created that marginalizes the will of the people - replacing it with media delivered 'memes' and sold to us as a product to consume.

I'm not naive enough to think we can simply 'stop voting - that'll teach them!' We CAN however, use the process to ensure that THEIR plans get sidelined until after OUR plans are enacted.

Maybe that makes no sense in our current political reality, like I said, I am no expert. But certainly this nation has made it thus far - despite failures - because it has always been accepted that compromise is the name of the most important political aspect of the landscape, without it there would be no USA.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by QBert
 


We don't need a government plain and simple. An anarchistic society is what we need. Give me a reason why we need government. They sit in a room debating pointless issues and bicker like children. They are controlled by corporate interests.. pass bills that restrict freedoms... increase military spending to 50+ percent of the budget. They are useless parasites.

We are the ones that fix the roads... do all the dirty work while they sit on their butts all day.

Government means control and slavery. If you enjoy that then, well sir, I can not help you.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by blahdiblah
 

I was gonna star the post. I appeciate the source, but then I read your interpretation.
The only thing stopping Iranians or anyone from having representative government is the population itself. The U.S. government is getting less representative because if you let morons decide, you fail. Every freebie handed out only bolsters laziness and stupidity. It spreads like maggots, but woe to those not ready with a handout. This is why Bush rigged the election.
So what's it gonna be? An informed, diligent, honorable productive population actually involved in decision making, but responsible for themselves or a welfare state of ignorant lazy people who are INCAPABLE of making wise choices? You can't have it both ways. What's the impetus for people to be informed and engaged when they haven't earned anything? They have nothing to lose and are like spoiled children. How can those people be in charge and not screw up?
You want more eroding democracy in North America? Then keep on raising taxes and expanding Federal Powers. And have a lollipop. On me.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


OH GOD HE'S CALLING FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL PERSIANS!!!!1111eleventy!11

Seriously, if Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to eliminate the threat from the US, Fox News would be up in arms saying he wants to nuke DC.

As it is, it seems Obama wants to eliminate the threat, and the threat only, by using diplomacy. Which is exactly what the entire world, Iran included, wants.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Hold on so when the Iranian leader says the Zionist regime will disappear people claim he is a monster, but when a US leader says he will eliminate the Iran threat he is a hero? Makes no sense to me.


Equinox...

This is the type of thinking that has applied to US Foreign Policy, and other major super powers throughout history in their treatment of weaker nations. The term Hypocrit pretty much sums up our policy towards others nations, especially those in the middle east and others that we deem "terrorist states". Whatever we say about them is the truth and any military action that we take against those countries is justified. However, when they attempt to defend themselves or at least say they will, they are labeled with such absurd titles like "axis of evil", "democracy haters", "terrorists", etc.etc.....The biggest terrorist state in the world is the US!!

One of the biggest critics of US foreign policy is Noam Chomsky and if you watch his interviews and speeches online, a lot of what he talks about is very true.
Here is one interview he gave which is very good.
video.google.com...#

or this one, very good...
video.google.com...=noam%20chomsky&sitesearch=&start=10

Until we can look at ourselves and our own gov't and it's crimes against humanity, it's blatant violations of Internation Law and our own terrorist attrocities, then we will be perceived as a threat by other countries around the world and nothing will change that, including the two current candidates for Resident of the White House!!
Obama's campaign slogan is, "Change we can believe in"....well EXACTLY what change would that be?? Leaving Iraq?? NOPE.....Change in Foreign Policy?? NOPE.....Change in Monetary Policy?? NOPE



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join