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 Won't Stop Iran From Getting Nukes, Harvard Simulation Shows

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Last time I checked there was no major oil reserves near North Korea.....apples and oranges.

Last I heard, they're well within reach. I'm just talking about foreign policy dictated by special interests as opposed to any sense of right and wrong. Sure, we know that's how the world goes round, but it's interesting that there is really no longer any attempt at disguising it.




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
LoL I say everyone should have nukes the more the better than one day everyone launch at the exact same time aiming at different locations as to do the most damage, this way the survivors will real have only one choice work together and stop all religious b.s. Or face in there future the same.
As long as there is one person who forces one’s personal belief in the world instead of just working together and sharing everything equally eliminating the big business money thing all together and get back to a barter system.
I will trade you bread for oil, and what not. So simply I have enough food on my farm to share with the whole community and the community on a whole helps to work the land to share in its blessings.
Time to get back to the real Americans, the native American Indians way of life.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Good if he doesn't, he does not have right to dictate other countries what to do. The only ones who have say in this matter are IAEA and so far there is no proof Iran is building nukes so for the rest of the countries alleging that it is you can shove it up where the sun never shines.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Oh and I am all for Iran having nukes to "balance the power" in the region, if Iran is being banned from nukes then Israel should be too. Make the whole region nuke free, simple.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Let's just leave Iran alone. Let them go ahead and develop their nukes. If they are as peaceful as they say they are, there will be no problem. If they are not, then let them accept the results. That's it plain and simple. Personally I see Iran in a civil war within the next 18 months. Let them sort it out. However if they pop one nuke, turn the entire country into a glass paved self-lighting parking lot.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by drmeola
Time to get back to the real Americans, the native American Indians way of life.


Is that spoken as an ethnic Native American? I ask because you hear a lot of 19th century romanticism about the 'noble savage', which really doesn't take into account that lots of the First Nations were busy kicking the snot out of their neighbours as well. And the introduction of firearms also created a pretty formidable arms race.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


You are correct in that amongst the tribes there was many disputes, and yes the introduction of arms did start the so called arms race. But most of that took place after the white man invaded, before that most tribes did live in peace yes there were territory battles at time, they could be linked in part along the trade routes set up for outside trade like with the Viking. Once a year there would be a gathering of the tribes all tribes with there representing chiefs and many times this would settle disagreements amongst them. But shortly after some thing would happen to break the peace again and it would begin to up rise in violence at times till the next years gathering. This was a repeating event, until the white man came we invited them in we show them how to live off the land, without the Indians they would have died there is no doubt in that. They took we had to offer them, learn and began to grow, but they grew to fast for the land and the battles begun amongst themselves first before they start to involve the Indians.


The tribes closest to different forts would help the individual forts of there area but then again they turned on the Indians gathering them up with there military and we were forced into a signed peace treaty with them. The rest as they say are history.

To answer your first question I unfortunately, I am a mix breed, a mutt if you will
My mom side is the part that carries the red mans blood, from a tribe in Florida, unfortunately again I do not know exactly what one. My dad is a white man, mix of Italian, German and Irish. But my passion as you may have noticed is for the Indian side no matter how small that maybe.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by drmeola
To answer your first question I unfortunately, I am a mix breed, a mutt if you will


Take pride in your muttiness...celebrate your heritage on all fronts, but don't ascribe too many notions to your Indian side. Many First Nations were just as as happy wiping out their enemies and holding slaves, with a soupcon of ritual cannibalism tossed in for good measure.

I'm not calling them down...I'm just saying that pre-contact life in North America was no Walden Pond, simply because we are all the same knuckleheaded species. And those same genetic traits are driving the disputes in the Middle East...it's simply time for common sense to take hold for a while. And that doesn't include toasting Iran.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I'm not calling them down...I'm just saying that pre-contact life in North America was no Walden Pond, simply because we are all the same knuckleheaded species. And those same genetic traits are driving the disputes in the Middle East...it's simply time for common sense to take hold for a while. And that doesn't include toasting Iran.


But you are for Iran getting the guns (nuclear weapons) that you yourself claim caused problems with the Native Americans. Don't you see the problem with that logic. It will create more problems then it solves.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
But you are for Iran getting the guns (nuclear weapons) that you yourself claim caused problems with the Native Americans. Don't you see the problem with that logic. It will create more problems then it solves.


My logic says that if only one aggressor has the big guns, they will squash the other. Mutually Assured Destruction was the peacemaker during the Cold War. You want to disarm the region, start with Israel and I'm betting the rest will fall into line. Besides...you fear a bunch of crazed Mullahs with their fingers near the button...look to Pakistan and stop being so predictable.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Obviously we disagree, Pakistan is NOT a Muslim Theocracy. It is a lot more predictable than Iran's Government. You would rather arm both, to me that is a more dangerous path to take.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Obviously we disagree, Pakistan is NOT a Muslim Theocracy. It is a lot more predictable than Iran's Government. You would rather arm both, to me that is a more dangerous path to take.


The only thing keeping Pakistan from becoming a Muslim Theocracy is tons of US dollars propping up an increasingly unpopular regime. It will fail, because there are too many people there who feel it is only Islam that offers a better life. And frankly, I consider the current Iranian regime to be more rational than, say, the Saudis. I don't like any of them, but it's not up to me to make the decisions for sovereign nations that pose me no threat. Let them nuke up...but if they want to play with their guns, they'll pay the consequences.




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join