Will India & Pakistan Go nuclear? - Above Politics 46

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
This week's show kicks off with a piece from ATS member Frankidealist35 on President-Elect Obama and then Homer and Martin discuss the point raised in the piece.

Hear Homer and Martin's predictions for 2009:

1. Which one of the big 3 US auto makers may not survive as is?

2. Will the UK start down the road to the Euro?

3. Will India and Pakistan go nuclear?

4. Will President Obama survive his first year in office without scandal?

5. What could be the future of The Above Politics show?

These and even more predictions, and then a Homer rant to finish.

International Reporters wanted for The Above Politics Show thread

The Above Politics Show Web Site




length: 36:17
file: atsmix_3181.mp3
size: 12760k
feed: atsmix

[edit on 12/29/2008 by Dave Rabbit]




posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I got to hand it to you Martin, to suggest that the UK will start moves to end GBP and move to the Euro is a huge thing for the UK.

But I think the UK Government has less choice if GBP starts to be worth even less than £1 to €1.

Of course, if Europe (and by that I mean France and Germany) is really keen on a single currency across the EU, what is the issue with that single currency being GBP?



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Let me clarify: I don't hate people who criticize Obama. I just think we should criticize people for their policy decisions. I don't think peoople should restrain themselves from criticizing Obama. I just would like to see more criticism about what he's actually doing than criticism about something say like his birth certificate. But, good points on his Senate record. I agree that all politicians have something in their past and have a little bit of dirt on him.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
If this tension turns war, as I think it may, its because this is the cartel's latest attempt to get their depopulation of the planet off the ground, which means of course its meant (in fact ordered) to go nuclear, in order to start the war of contracts and rid the world of 6 billion, so TPTB can continue to live their opulent extravagent lifestyle and eke out the resources longer. India and Pakistan are just fodder, and should protect their citizens by not allowing the Psychos to dictate this to the northern hemisphere. Because it means all life in the northern hemisphere, down to the smallest bacteria, will be destroyed, except for the pigs who go into the luxurious underground cities our tax dollars, and their drug money has built.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
IMO if a network is going to pick up the show it would be the BBC or some network like it . My reasoning is that expect for maybe CNN are to insular to expect(SP?) a genuine world view that the AP Show currently presents .

Earlier on in the year in the now de funked Justin Oldham Conspiracy Theory forum I predicted that there would be a coup attempted in Iran who knows maybe I should move up the time frame of my prediction on that matter .



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
There may be a war between India and Pakistan, but there wont be any exchange of nuclear weapons. That wont happen unless the opposing sides drags in others into their camp..and if super powers become involved...then..maybe..there will be flying nukes filling the skies and stirring up the mushroom cloud light shows.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Also, I admit, that during the last 7 years ago I knew nothing about the Iraq war other than that evidence for the WMDs were falsified and I didn't even know why that was. Right now I'm reading a book called Tell me how This Ends: General David Petraeus and a Search for a way out of Iraq and I'm learning about all of what the people in Iraq are going through and what combat there is like and I am growing more respect for this general. While I disagree with the war I support our troops and I want them to come back safely and sound. But I do admit you're right-- when we were talking about Iraq the last 7 years or so we were talking about it unintelligibly.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Hmmm.

Wasn't George Walker Bush linked to Osama Bin Laden via business contacts?

And hey...what about Donald Henry Rumsfeld? I can link you to a video that shows him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein just before he agreed to sell him the chemical precursors used in the attacks on the Kurds.

And as Frankie pointed out, John Sidney McCain III had links to Iran Contra and may very well have been turned by the North Vietnamese and offered military information during the war.

Don't resort to cheap shots huh? - because you're better than that, I know you are


Edit to add - the Euro thing seems to be happening already - have you seen the new 1p, 5p and pound coins?

Euro Coins

New UK Coins

Theres a similarity there, don't you think? Its subtle but its all in the mind.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



[edit on 30/12/08 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh yeah....my predictions for '09

Obama sets a goal to remove US reliance on fossil fuels in a Kennedy'esque speech

Brown calls a snap election in the UK in late summer (August/September) using the Euro mandate and "change needed for Britain" as his platform and loses.

One of the UK's new supercarriers will be postponed indefinitely.

Pakistan fragments North/South, possibly into two countries - one more westernised and the other ideological.

and one way out on a limb here.......Saudi Arabia tests a nuke.....


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I don't think there will be any moves towards the Euro until after an election; Brown simply isn't in a strong enough position to push it through, and he just couldn't get away with taking the UK into the Eurozone without a referendum (which he would almost certainly lose). Especially after the fuss over the Lisbon Treaty...

Labour aren't in any shape to fight a campaign on the Euro. They face a real uphill struggle to get re-elected, and throwing in the deeply divisive Euro won't be a good idea for any rational person to suggest as the backdrop for an election campaign.

Will the UK go into the Euro? Quite possibly. Will it be in 2009? No. At the very earliest I'd say 2011, and only if Labour remain in office... by which time there might not be any impetus to join the Euro if the Pound has recovered its position. If the Conservatives win the election and get a working majority in the Commons, the idea of going into the Euro is pretty much dead until they're out of office.

[edit on 30/12/08 by Ste2652]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Homer, may I ask why you called Obama a socialist?

I just would like some clarification as to why it is that you think that.

A socialist is the economic term for the government controlling the means of production and the economy. A socialist government would be a workers government. There are reasons why it wouldn't work. Obama is pro-labor but he's not a socialist.

Why do you doubt Obama so much? I have a little healthy skepticism but I doubt that he'll do nothing. I was being sarcastic when I said your life was better under Bush, I think, personally, that Washington will not change unless Obama keeps lobbyists out of his administration... lobbyists have too much control over Washington.

Okay, and, where did you get the idea that we ranted about the Iraq war unintelligibly? I believe that it was the conservatives who were the ones that were defending that ill-advised war and we were saying how such a bad idea it was. It turned out to be a mistake and we didn't have a plan for going in and that's why it took so long.




[edit on 30-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 30-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 30-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 31-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 31-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Yes one will go nuclear its in the profecy. pakistan will try to nuke the eu & miss the next one will not the over will. That will spark off war and this will be this year 2009. So yes pakistan will go nuclear.

The illumatate (don't correct me if my spelling is wrong) will try to rise in this war. You all may know about the illumatate so am not going to explian about. The basics about the illumatate its a world order. They would normaly set out the command for war. This time they don't...



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Yes one will go nuclear its in the profecy. pakistan will try to nuke the eu & miss the next one will not the over will. That will spark off war and this will be this year 2009. So yes pakistan will go nuclear.

The illumatate (don't correct me if my spelling is wrong) will try to rise in this war. You all may know about the illumatate so am not going to explian about. The basics about the illumatate its a world order. They would normaly set out the command for war. This time they don't..._javascript:icon('
')



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



Homer, may I ask why you called Obama a socialist?


Sure.

Because he is.


A socialist is the economic term for the government controlling the means of production and the economy.


You are incorrect, or more accurately, you are far too simplistic.


: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

dic

Obama in a nut shell.


Why do you doubt Obama so much?


Why do you believe in him, or any politician so much? I do not fall for anyone, especially someone that so desperately wants to hide the truth.


It turned out to be a mistake and we didn't have a plan for going in and that's why it took so long.


Your opinion, not mine.




[edit on 1/1/2009 by Homer Fife]



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
I don't think there will be any moves towards the Euro until after an election; Brown simply isn't in a strong enough position to push it through, and he just couldn't get away with taking the UK into the Eurozone without a referendum (which he would almost certainly lose). Especially after the fuss over the Lisbon Treaty...

Labour aren't in any shape to fight a campaign on the Euro. They face a real uphill struggle to get re-elected, and throwing in the deeply divisive Euro won't be a good idea for any rational person to suggest as the backdrop for an election campaign.

Will the UK go into the Euro? Quite possibly. Will it be in 2009? No. At the very earliest I'd say 2011, and only if Labour remain in office... by which time there might not be any impetus to join the Euro if the Pound has recovered its position. If the Conservatives win the election and get a working majority in the Commons, the idea of going into the Euro is pretty much dead until they're out of office.

[edit on 30/12/08 by Ste2652]


Hi Ste, I'm in uk too and can't see us joining the euro as that would mean more social and political alignment with europe than we have at present or our fearless leaders would want. We do seem quite happy to simply swing off the coat-tails of the US and unless the US does something really really stupid and alienates everybody that situation won't change.

ZZ



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homer Fife
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



Homer, may I ask why you called Obama a socialist?


Sure.

Because he is.


I just asked because a lot of people use that term without knowing what it means.


A socialist is the economic term for the government controlling the means of production and the economy.


You are incorrect, or more accurately, you are far too simplistic.


: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

dic

Obama in a nut shell.

I don't think Obama is a socialist. Why? If he was he would be a lot more revolutionary sounding like. Obama is more like a social Democrat, or shall I say, he's more like a progressive.


Why do you doubt Obama so much?


Why do you believe in him, or any politician so much? I do not fall for anyone, especially someone that so desperately wants to hide the truth.

I believe that he has the interest of the people at heart. I have a theory that the new world order placed Obama as President to "reverse the course". I've been saying this even before Obama was chosen. The new world order and the illuminati folks wanted someone like Obama as President so they could get us to have faith in the government again. That's why I believe that Obama will be doing the good thing for the country. It's because they told him too. Did you really think I believed that all of this was his idea?



It turned out to be a mistake and we didn't have a plan for going in and that's why it took so long.


Your opinion, not mine.

Okay... fair enough. I was just pointing why although many people (not me) may dislike the war... I dislike the war because I think it was a mistake. But it was Bush so we all knew what was coming...



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Also, I should talk about how Republicans are no different from Democrats.

Homer, why do you like Republicans more than Democrats?

They're just more of the same. Republicans are allied with Democrats.

They're just two different ways to get to the same global state.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I don't completely understand that question.

I am a Republican.

I am a Conservative.

I am NOT a Liberal and do not believe in the Liberal agenda.

I believe in a "Hand Up", not a "Hand Out".

I believe that we are all responsible for ourselves and that the government should NOT be supporting people.

I believe in limited government and as low a tax base as is possible.

I believe that MY money is MY money and if I choose to give it to someone, I should be free to do so, but the government has no right to tell me what I should or should not do with my money.

The rest is your opinion and while you are entitled to your opinion, I am as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Homer Fife
 

It just sounded to me from what I've heard you say that you sound like you're a conservative. You use conservative arguments like (the government should be small) and you've used similar conservative arguments when you've talked about stuff like gay marriage and other things. But okay then.

I'll tell you my beliefs. I'm a liberal but I'm open to other points of views.

It's just that your rants/comments made me think you were all conservative and all republican. Well, just to clear up some confusion, I'm not entirely on the left either.

I believe that government is okay. Just sometimes they get out of hand. I don't believe that the government should be expanded when there are roles that certain agencies in the government already play that could do those other jobs.

I don't believe that more taxes is bad. It is my belief that taxes are necessary to pay off the national debt and if we don't do that then we'll become a little arrogant, letting the government spend however much they want to.

I go with the friedman school of economic philosophy. I believe in the free market and that the federal reserve doesn't need to be there but it is and it's irreversible now that it is.

I'm for war only when it is absolutely necessary.

I think everyone should have health care and the government should help a little bit with it.

I believe in equality, and, I don't have an opinion on every single social issue.

I believe that drugs are bad for people and people who can't handle them shouldn't have them.

I do not believe in abstaining.

I believe that we are responsible for ourselves as well BUT in an economic crisis the government should be there to do something. The government also should be there to promote progress.

I also agree with you on the money issue.



I just was wondering why you didn't like Obama. Now that you have spoken your opinions about Obama, and about politicians, I can understand what makes you think that way. I'm not completely sold for either party. I just know there was a time when our Presidents did a good job and they faithfully held their oath to follow the constitution. I would vote for a moderate Republican if he held views I agree with. I just thought you were like the Republicans who are just running with the Republican bandwagon because they disliked Obama and that's what they felt like doing. I don't think that everything will automatically get better because of Obama, I just, believe that this is a step in the right direction. I'm not making this a race issue. I just think that people voted for the candidate which they agreed with on the issues (like pulling out of Iraq) and that in the future people will think about the issues before they vote for a candidate. I would argue that people voted for Obama because of the issues rather than because of his race. I think people need to vote for the candidate whom they think is right like they did this time in the future rather than the candidate who looks like he/she is making less promises.

My apologies.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
they wont, because both countries know the destruction wld be beyond repair. Besides India is a developing with the speed of a bullet. It will not engage itself in a war. Pakistan wont fight because pakis know if pakistan is going to destry 3 or 4 indian states, India is going to remove Pakistan from the world map.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join