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.

 

Barack Obama sends video message to Iran

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The only people who want to see Iran bombed are those who subscribe to hatred and ignorance, but what's new.




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Obama: Iran, bring us your cripples so that we might laugh at them and make merry together!
Iran: We are a proud nation of cripples, and we will not be laughed at by the likes of you, you Western infidel!
Obama: Ohnoes!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by WhatTheory
B) The U.S. would not use a nuclear bomb as an offensive weapon unlike Iran.


OMFG!


Well, I hate to tell ya buddy but you did... twice! I'm also gathering you didn't know that in the weeks prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese tried continuously to surrender... but the US would have NO part of it. Not after all the effort that went into making those bombs. The US wanted to make a statement and it was done offensively.

By all means, don't believe me. Check out the FACTS for yourself. It's called history!

Honestly! *shakes head*
 

I must ask. Were you one of the people that was hookwinked into believing that Saddam had WMD's? Well... it's the same shell game being played here now with Iran. As they say...

Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice, shame on me!


IRM


[edit on 20/3/09 by InfaRedMan]


Complete BS. It took TWO nuclear weapons to bring the Japanese to their knees because they WOULDN'T surrender. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed MANY MANY more people (Japanese and American) than the two nuclear attacks combined.

Also - the fire-bombings that took place across the Japanese mainland were far worse than the nuclear attacks. The nuclear weapons used provided the USA with an overwhelming force that could ultimately save lives by NOT requiring a full invasion - if they worked. I guess we should have just invaded and dropped incendiary bombs all across Japan instead. That would have been so much nicer than dropping two bombs on two cities and ending the war quickly.

Read history and understand it, and not just the highlights like "nukes are bad". Oh - and let's not forget who prompted our involvement in WW2


**cough cough JAPAN** **cough**

[edit on 20-3-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I think this talk is so when the Iran war suddenly breaks out, Obama will just say "well, at least I tried" and look like the good guy. He'll still get his war.

The "conditions" he speaks about are no doubt things Obama knows damn well Tehran will never agree to.

This is a major sign it will happen soon.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
While reading another thread about the "monetizing of debt" and all of the other economic horrors, I couldn't shrug off the idea that the only way out of this mess is through a war. When you look at history the GD didn't really begin to "end" until the start of WW2. It would be a great way to cover traces of fraud and corruption. Vaporized cities don't leave too many clues behind. That is my worry.


Obama is disappointing. IamAnutJob will not listen to him nor will the radical population of Iran. To think otherwise is naive.

But at least we know his Final Four pick.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
By offensive, I mean as a first strike weapon. Japan started the war so the use of the nukes were justified. We just ended the war with the nukes.


By your logic, Iran would have justification to nuke the United States.

I know history is not your forte, or you have a selective memory at best, but the West (UK & US mainly) started the aggression against the Iranian people in modern times, not the other way around.

Operation Ajax



Come on now, I know you cannot be so disingenuous.


haha coming from you, that's pretty funny.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Common Good
Im sorry to break up the love fest, but do any of you really think achmadenijad is going to listen to this and say "hey, he has a point, we will now lay down ournucleor capabilities, and do everything that you say because you worded it so nicely". give me a break.
The agenda is already set in stone, and this message is not for the Iranian people, but for the American people to let them know that he is 'trying'.
I dont buy into the hype and thats all this is, hype.
Hate me all you want in the following posts, but I dont think this is going to help at all. Just my two cents and I dont think the American people should fall so easily for this type of proaganda. While his words are elequent, his actions will speak much louder, and so will Irans.
As far as the troops go, hes not going to pull them out, they are there to stay and anyone who believes otherwise are just fooling themselves.
Like I said, its not for the Iranians, its for the Americans.



The point is to gain popular support from the populace, even Christopher Walken could have told you that...

The Trillion $$$$$ worth of bombs and bullets have not worked in Iraq now have they?

But then again maybe we need to spend eleven Trillion!


Ya think????? The populace eats this crap up cause they dont know any better.

Here though, its a whole new ballgame.
I think I struck a chord with you somewhere, because you seem awfully defensive over what I said. I dont believe I said anything about bombs and bullets, or Iraq. Are you ok?
This is propaganda bro, if you dont see that, I dont know what else to say to you.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

Originally posted by mental modulator
The point is to gain popular support from the populace, even Christopher Walken could have told you that...


Ya think????? The populace eats this crap up cause they dont know any better.


Mental modulator was talking about Iran's.



I dont believe I said anything about bombs and bullets, or Iraq. Are you ok?


See above.

Mental modulator's point is that perhaps it's better to win the people's hearts & minds with actual peaceful talk rather than by bombing and killing their civilians.



This is propaganda bro, if you dont see that, I dont know what else to say to you.


Perhaps it is propaganda, to improve our image to the Iranian population, but at least it's peaceful propaganda, with noble goals.

And that is certainly a change from our past propaganda and covert operations of trying to destabilize their Governments.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by WhatTheory
By offensive, I mean as a first strike weapon. Japan started the war so the use of the nukes were justified. We just ended the war with the nukes.


By your logic, Iran would have justification to nuke the United States.

I know history is not your forte, or you have a selective memory at best, but the West (UK & US mainly) started the aggression against the Iranian people in modern times, not the other way around.

Operation Ajax



Come on now, I know you cannot be so disingenuous.


haha coming from you, that's pretty funny.


And thus continuing that line of thought the current Iranian regime owes us bigtime and should STFU and listen to us.
Remind me again why the current regime shouldn't be thankful for that operation?

Until we attack Iranian shipping yards without reason I will never agree.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ACEMANN
Remind me again why the current regime shouldn't be thankful for that operation?


This is not about regimes, it's about the people.

That operation removed a democratically elected leader, put in place a pro-West dictator, because we wanted to control their oil fields.

If you think we had a right to do that than besides being an hypocrite, you're part of the problem.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 



correct, If it looks as if we are trying to make peace, no one can argue when it looks like Iran has turned us down.

The Iranian people want to be free of this government, but there are enough radical muslims who are prepared to die for the ayatollah, that it makes life difficult for anyone who dare speaks up.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
You know something, I'll never understand why people dub Obama as the anti-christ and what-not.. look how he tries his best at open dialogue, and an attempt at peaceful resolution. It may not work, but at least he tries.. and everyone can bear witness to that.


I have to say that gave me chills seeing a Prez say something nice for a change.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Im sorry to break up the love fest, but do any of you really think achmadenijad is going to listen to this and say "hey, he has a point, we will now lay down ournucleor capabilities, and do everything that you say because you worded it so nicely". give me a break.


Probably not, but if i remember correctly, when Reagan said "Tear down that wall", a lot of people had a similiar reaction to yours. In our world, its very easy to underestimate the power of one act of kindness.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
SENDING MESSAGES MAYBE PEEKABOO WILL BE NEXT AND TEXT FLIRTING!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
By your logic, Iran would have justification to nuke the United States.


Huh? What?
Please with your vast wisdom tell me exactly what you are talking about instead of using wiki.

We bombed Japan to end the war after they destroyed pearl harbor. So again, please tell me when the U.S. did something similar to Iran.

Your analogy contains no logic.


haha coming from you, that's pretty funny.

You don't even know me.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Common Good
Im sorry to break up the love fest, but do any of you really think achmadenijad is going to listen to this and say "hey, he has a point, we will now lay down ournucleor capabilities, and do everything that you say because you worded it so nicely". give me a break.
The agenda is already set in stone, and this message is not for the Iranian people, but for the American people to let them know that he is 'trying'.
I dont buy into the hype and thats all this is, hype.
Hate me all you want in the following posts, but I dont think this is going to help at all. Just my two cents and I dont think the American people should fall so easily for this type of proaganda. While his words are elequent, his actions will speak much louder, and so will Irans.
As far as the troops go, hes not going to pull them out, they are there to stay and anyone who believes otherwise are just fooling themselves.
Like I said, its not for the Iranians, its for the Americans.



The point is to gain popular support from the populace, even Christopher Walken could have told you that...

The Trillion $$$$$ worth of bombs and bullets have not worked in Iraq now have they?

But then again maybe we need to spend eleven Trillion!


Ya think????? The populace eats this crap up cause they dont know any better.

Here though, its a whole new ballgame.
I think I struck a chord with you somewhere, because you seem awfully defensive over what I said. I dont believe I said anything about bombs and bullets, or Iraq. Are you ok?
This is propaganda bro, if you dont see that, I dont know what else to say to you.


Look around fat head, the entire board is propaganda - I am tired of the success by force logic that does not work, BTW, I'm fine how are you?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
For you guys bringing the Japan nuke bombings.

After WW2 we have adopted the No first Use when it comes to Nuclear Weapons.

I believe, with a few exceptions, all with the bomb have also adopted this treaty.

The reasoning behind this was if one person sent a missile at another, then they would in turn send one back, another would send a missile. What we get out of that would be a nuclear holocaust. Perhaps the end of the world, with the amount of bombs out there it is very possible.

If everyone adopts this rule and follows it then none will ever be launched.

Alot of Countries do not want Iran to have this capability because their leaders have unpredictable tempers. It isn't just the US who is trying to keep them from getting the capability to make one.

Obama knows the Iran leadership doesn't care what he says. He only did this because he said he would during the primaries.

Its all for show.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Huh? What?
Please with your vast wisdom tell me exactly what you are talking about instead of using wiki.


The fact that I linked Operation Ajax's entry on wikipedia is irrelevant, it was a real operation and it's not contested by anyone.



We bombed Japan to end the war after they destroyed pearl harbor. So again, please tell me when the U.S. did something similar to Iran.


You either don't understand what Operation Ajax was about, what it accomplished and by what means; or you're saying that I can't compare the attack on Pearl Harbor with it.

In any case, this is merely to illustrate my point that the West started the aggression and provocation against the Iranian people in modern times.

But if you're making the case that somehow only bombings would count for this comparison, from which undiscriminated bombing of civilians do you want to pick? Vietnam? Cambodia?

The point of my post was to show that following your logic that nuking Japan was justified because they attacked us first, many countries would have 'justification' to nuke the United States, Iran was just an example.

In South America, for example, practically all countries would have 'justification' following that logic.

Throughout the whole subcontinent, without any provocation whatsoever the US, among other things, assassinated political leaders; backed numerous coups to put pro-US dictators in power, who subsequently tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people; funded and trained guerrillas (who would probably be called 'terrorists' in today's environment) and in some cases resulted in death squads such as the Contras in Nicaragua, that would arbitrarily slaughter civilians.



Your analogy contains no logic.


My analogy makes no sense to those who, either by ignorance or denial, don't know that the most covertly and overtly militarily interventionist country in the World for the past 60 years has been the United States.

My analogy makes no sense to those who think and defend terrorist actions done in the name of our country as 'justified', but when others do it, think they deserve to get nuked for it.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
We bombed Japan to end the war after they destroyed pearl harbor

Now regarding Pearl Harbor. Apparently, you don't read much, WhatTheory;


After 16 years of uncovering documents through the Freedom of Information Act, journalist and historian Robert Stinnett charges in his book, Day of Deceit, that U.S. government leaders at the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack


www.independent.org...


President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.


www.geocities.com...


There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack.


www.apfn.org...

[edit on 20/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Excellent. Only a fool and/or someone with no knowledge or desire to understand the world would insist that we shouldn't talk to our opponents... but then he's out of office now.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join