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.

 

57% Want America To Take Military Action Against North Korea

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


china is a UN member, yet we here in the US are allowed to watch youtube, but the chinese aren't. Why do you think that is?

By your own logic, all UN members should be bound by exactly the same sets of rules, yet they aren't. Why do you think THAT is?

We launch rockets to send satellites into space more often than you have an emotional outburst. Why do you think that is?

You saying that if miraculously NK decided to be bound by all UN directives that they could now have the use of a satellite?

Please grow up a little and stop having tantrums when someone disagrees with you and, more importantly, presents a more compelling argument than yours.


AB1

[edit on 6-4-2009 by alphabetaone]




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis

This telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 3-4, 2009, 2009.


So, 1,000 people were polled? Approximately 150,000,000 people voted in the last election. How can anyone possibly think that a poll of way less than .01% of "likely voters" would actually represent what most Americans actually think?



Sounds like you don't have a clue about how modern polling is done ...

(hint: they've learned who to ask to get a representative sample of a total population)

Oh, and aren't you a fan of exit polls during elections. They only poll a few people, but many here seem to believe they are more important and accurate than the elections themselves!




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that any Americans want to be involved in another war in Korea.

I think that this is total BS


Sorry but I just can't believe this.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


That is completely off topic

Come up with something original.

Nobody was being emotional those were his words not my feelings nor actions.

Stop trying to hide behind somebody else s argument.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I Dont know why I'm bothering to answer you but ok here we go.




Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


china is a UN member, yet we here in the US are allowed to watch youtube, but the chinese aren't. Why do you think that is?


Why don't you ask the Chinese?



By your own logic, all UN members should be bound by exactly the same sets of rules, yet they aren't. Why do you think THAT is?



sigh...
Ok so what part of somebody elses argument are you referring to?





We launch rockets to send satellites into space more often than you have an emotional outburst. Why do you think that is?



Whose getting emotional? Again that's what he said that's not how I felt nor acted.



You saying that if miraculously NK decided to be bound by all UN directives that they could now have the use of a satellite?


I did not say that and let me know when you can form a complete sentence.




Please grow up a little and stop having tantrums when someone disagrees with you and, more importantly, presents a more compelling argument than yours.



I was stating my opinion as were other ATS members. I was not interested in making points with you or any other poster this was not a popularity contest.

I honestly could care less if you thought my argument was compelling or not!

SLAY



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be a bit of skewing with those numbers. It just seems odd to me that the majority of American's are against the current wars we are involved in, and yet suddenly we see 57% ready to go to arms, with 15% opposing it.. Now, with number skewing in mind, that means that those are the numbers 'they' want us to base our opinions off of.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 



Your logic in this entire thread is - ummm - questionable, and your opinion that NK is no danger, even moreso -


Questionable?

So you feel it's acceptable to hold people to standards they neither created, agree to or are LEGALLY bound to?

Someone wake me I must be dreaming.

Yeah fine, fall for the same rhetoric that was used to justify Iraq and Afghanistan, see if I care.

When you finally piece together that gross exaggerations of the threats posed by rogue states has been United States Foreign Policy since the 1950's, the world probably won't exist by then.


but thats what makes FREE countries around the world so great - you can have your opinion, and I can have mine -


Again with the dodging back to Human Rights Violations?

Is there ANYTHING else you people can bring up to actually prove N. Korea is dangerous apart from this?

Because it seems be the default standard by which people love to dodge questions regarding the validity of characterising N. Korea as a "threat".



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by huckfinn
57% of American don't even know where North Korea is!


Indeed... do you think they asked these people?



Italy? Canada?


Who know what is most SAD thing about this? It's the fact that Americans are so used to invade another country that the idea doesn't bother this people


People doesn't see that just the idea is stupid from the start?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


Someone wake me I must be dreaming.


Again with the dodging back to Human Rights Violations?


Now look who is getting emotional.

Please spare all of us the melodrama.

When somebody brings up the very serious issue of human rights it becomes painfully obvious that you're the one who keeps dodging the issue.

So then you bring up something that is completely off topic about what the US has done or failed to do. Or get emotional and start name calling or belittling somebody who has a different opinion than yours.


Even your main argument earlier made no sense.

On the one hand you said that they had to have had a signed agreement to abide by these internationally accepted rules for it to be legal and then you turned around and said

"And no one says they have to listen to a particularly hypocritical and biased organisation such as the UN, as I mentioned previously."

So which is it?





[edit on 6-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

So, 1,000 people were polled? Approximately 150,000,000 people voted in the last election. How can anyone possibly think that a poll of way less than .01% of "likely voters" would actually represent what most Americans actually think?


Thats very important. It's not difficult to find and isolate 1000 sheeple.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



When somebody brings up the very serious issue of human rights it becomes painfully obvious that you're the one who keeps dodging the issue.


Because it has NOTHING to do with the fact that N. Korea is not bound by any UN Resolution or treaty.

They're not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Tribunal on Human Rights either.

There's no jurisdiction to take action on them based on their human rights violations.

You really love to float the idea America can just whatever the hell it likes whenever it feels like it don't you Sheriff?


On the one hand you said that they had to have had a signed agreement to abide by these internationally accepted rules for it to be legal and then you turned around and said

"And no one says they have to listen to a particularly hypocritical and biased organisation such as the UN, as I mentioned previously."

So which is it?


It's both. They have two reasons to ignore the UN.

Happy now?

Can we stop the charade?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


Well you see, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are only waging political warfare. In other words, the R.O.E. (rules of engagement) are strictly limited, and our main force left shortly after we toppled Sadaam's government. It isn't a matter of our ability to wage war. If we absolutely desired victory, we could have bombed any of these countries into total oblivion. It is merely our mercy and desire to rebuild these countries and bring them democracy that causes the seemingly endless wars there. North Korea is like an ant hill, and the US is like an angry kid. We could stomp out the entire nation if we desired, with little effort or loss or American life. These countries should be thankful that the US war machine doesn't start back up and dominate the globe.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I for one am not one of those 570 pollees who wish to go to war with NK. If they have broken UN resolutions, let the UN take care of it, without any help from the US. Until NK makes an attack on the US proper, I say its the UN's problem. The US NEEDS to take care of the US right now.

The US should leave the UN immediately. The UN is a worthless organization that caters to the weak at the expense of the sucessful.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think the United States should tell South Korea, "Look. It's been 60 years since the end of the conflict and if you can't defend yourself by now then bygod you deserve to fall."

Then pack up every scrap of our military and bring them home.

Let the two Korea's sort it out.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It always seems like Korea is the world's tiniest kid in highschool that everyone picks on but he always tries to make himself look tough, like by joining the football team. I don't like Kim Jong Il (im sure i spelled it way wrong) aiming missiles at my Nation. Nuke his ass.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
We should take action!!

We have plenty of money to go around!!

Let's attack them all!!

All the complaining about deficits and debt...everyone angry..yet they support paying for more military intervention and action in another country.

There are plenty of others who will have to deal with it who are direct neighbors.

The US should not be the World Police.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 






I think the United States should tell South Korea, "Look. It's been 60 years since the end of the conflict and if you can't defend yourself by now then bygod you deserve to fall.


Amen. It's time and past that these countries take care of themselves so far as protecting themselves is concerned.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Small useless wars hurt the economy. A large war single handedly brought us out of a depression, none of the BS projects FDR had going at the moment.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
We get competive poll - Damn Rasmussen - we remember your polls in Ron Paul campaign... Those useful distortions.

LOOK AT WRH!!!




DO YOU SUPPORT AN ATTACK ON NORTH KOREA?

YES
4% (61 votes)

NO
96% (1520 votes)
Total votes: 1581


whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Polls/Statistics can be made to do absolutely anything you want.

1000 people polled nationwide. From all walks of life? Doesn't say. From traditionally political enclaves? Doesn't say.

1000 people, who answered the phone in the first place , and weren't distracted at all by making dinner, placating kids, ferrying groceries from the car... (these 'polls' always seem to call at the same time - unless the make all their calls during the day, in which case they are hitting yet another demographic).

Let's say that a majority of these people, just for the sake of example, were of Asian descent - where lactose intolerance is quite common - and one of the questions was "Do you like milk?", are we to extrapolate that possibly 60% of the population hate milk? Yes, if we have an agenda to damn the dairy industry. Or, you could say, "40% of the population love it!"
Whatever you want it to say, a poll or statistic will comply. I'm generalizing, and I'm emphasizing for the sake of example, but hopefully you'll see the point.

If you ask the question "Are you financially comfortable?" to 1000 in, say, Simi Valley, CA, the answer is going to be very different from those living in Flint, MI.

Without absolute transparency of demographic, polls are completely useless. Extrapolation of data is very dangerous, and meaningless.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join