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.

 

NKorea threatens SKorea for taking it to UN

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I would say its meant to give you the creeps.

Its so convenient that "axis of evil" countries are doing all these horrible things to give us reasons to take action against them.

I dont buy into the whole thing. Our sentiments are being manipulated in order to further some end the PTB have in mind, and whatever they are for, I am against on principle.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I would say its meant to give you the creeps.

Its so convenient that "axis of evil" countries are doing all these horrible things to give us reasons to take action against them.

I dont buy into the whole thing. Our sentiments are being manipulated in order to further some end the PTB have in mind, and whatever they are for, I am against on principle.


I agree with you, and it seems there may be a grand design to all of this? New World Order, consolidation of power by a select few, population control, or just plain lunacy. Everything going on at the moment seems far to neat and tidy to write off as coincidence, something big is happening. I kind of feel the same way you do, and it seems the whole thing is like one big chess game? With everyone who is not a somebody as pawns in their game of chess.

What ever the PTB have in mind, we will never know until it is all said and done. Like you and the current crop of movers and shakers on the world stage, their vision of Utopia would seem more like Hell to many given their past exploits. However, still North Korea is a loose cannon and if they decide to go all in as they have been threatening for years, it will be a massacre of epic proportions.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Thats one of the bad things about living in a warmongering country like the US.

You become immune over time to the horror of war.

What is North Korea going to do that we havent already done once or twice? And what really gives us the right (as a nation) to get up on a soap box and preach about the slaughter of innocents? We havent even stopped getting blood all over our hands in the last country we invaded for no reason at all.

I just cant really sit in judgment of North Korea and its threats, or take my murderous and blood thirsty leaders word that he is more evil than they. The last time they gave us this song and dance we attacked a country that did nothing to us, spent trillions of dollars, destroyed our credibility with the civilized world, etc.

We just cant trust what we hear from the press, or from our leaders. Its all manipulation and lies or hyper inflated truths. They deliberately tug at the strings they know will motivate us, to whatever action they want to take and they tailor their messages to us for that purpose.

I dont want to be no effin puppet.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


North Korea speaks with justice.

How can South Korea (AKA territory of American empire) take this to UN without any independent investigation?

And why take it to UN?

Wasn't the UN built to save the world from a holocaust by greedy empires such as the US?

So there is no justice, North Korea speaks of justice.

Why didn't they allow N-Korean inspectors?

This is all bullsh1t orchestrated by the US to hold the Japanese territories intact.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think the USA within the next 2-3 years(at least)if not earlier,will be at war with both PDRK and Iran. I think Nuclear War will start with that,since I think it's a great possibility that Russia and China would join in.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
I think the USA within the next 2-3 years(at least)if not earlier,will be at war with both PDRK and Iran. I think Nuclear War will start with that,since I think it's a great possibility that Russia and China would join in.


I think America already lost in Afghanistan.

Pakistan was playing them this whole time, they got them stuck, they pretended to be their friend, and in the end, it was Pakistan who was supporting the Afghan resistance.

Afghanistan:
The GRAVE YARD of empires



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I'd love to see India kick Pakistan's ass and maybe occupy them. I think a war between India and Pakistan would definately go Nuclear.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
With all this-talk about War... Which country WOULD strike first? I do wanna see a country in this modern times really use a nuke.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by gordonwest
 


I think Pakistan would be overwhelmed by India's population and would launch nukes to try to stem the tide.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I'd love to see India kick Pakistan's ass and maybe occupy them. I think a war between India and Pakistan would definately go Nuclear.

You love nukes don't you ^^

As Iran said, today is not the day of nuclear weapons.

There is no practical use for them, just theoretical:



Iran's president says Tehran rejects nuclear weapons, as both immoral and impractical tools that powers build, stockpile and use to threaten others.

"The age of the nuclear bomb, the worst and ugliest weapon known to man is over. We reject atomic weapons both in moral and practical terms," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in New York on Tuesday afternoon.

"We believe those who build, store and use nuclear weapons to threaten others are committing the ugliest deed of all," he added.


Now wrap your head around what he is saying.

It is easy to defend good, but hard to defend evil.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by gordonwest
 


I think Pakistan would be overwhelmed by India's population and would launch nukes to try to stem the tide.


Pakistan and India are the same people, the only division exists due to external forces.

The only reason why Pakistan was established in the first place was to divide.

The back then powers didn't want such a vast, and rich nation to thrive therefore created an artificial enemy for them, hence Pakistan.

Don't forget, India has more Muslim population than Pakistan.

I don't think Pakistan and India have any intention of fighting each other, they are neighbors and know the fact that the only threat to their security and stability of the region is the US empire.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by LittleSecret]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by LittleSecret]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. I can very well see a Country who thinks They'll be overwhelmed and beaten deciding to use one to try to stay in power.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. I can very well see a Country who thinks They'll be overwhelmed and beaten deciding to use one to try to stay in power.


I don't think US was overwhelmed against Japan when the US dropped, not one, but two.


If any nation decides to use nukes, they will be condemned to hell, it is as simple as that. No excuses left.

I'll post another quote of Ahmedinejad, since it seems you should be talking to him, not me.




Ahmadinejad described Washington's decision to disclose the number of its nuclear warheads as a step forward, but asked the US administration whether it took pride in possessing such destructive power.

"Just two bombs created that atrocity in two Japanese cities. Now do you think it is a source of pride to own 5,000 new generation warheads with greater destructive potential?" he asked.

Ahmadinejad said US nuclear weapons were a global threat, especially to the people in countries where they are stored.

He also commented on remarks by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about the need for Iran to" restore trust within the international community on the peaceful nature of its nuclear program."

Ahmadinejad said if the UN headquarters were in Tehran and Iran held veto powers at the Security Council, Ban would not have spoken as he did on Monday.

He pointed out that Iran's atomic activities were under the full supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog and said that it was not up to Iran to prove its innocence.

"The US government claims that Iran's nuclear work has diverted from the peaceful path. We ask, 'What evidence do you have to prove that,' and they say 'We have no proof, but we are sure that you have deviated, you prove otherwise.' How can we move forward with such logic," asked Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian president was in New York to take part in the UN nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference.



So let's get this straight:

Would you use nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed nation?

Would you use nuclear weapons against unarmed nuclear nations?

I'll eagerly wait for your answer.

Then we will continue to next step.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by LittleSecret]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


The US would have lost One Million plus Soldiers if they would have invaded the Japanese Mainland in 1945,the loss of life was much less dropping the bombs.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


The US would have lost One Million plus Soldiers if they would have invaded the Japanese Mainland in 1945,the loss of life was much less dropping the bombs.


That is where the difference between soldiers and civilians pop in don't it?

I'll start with one liners



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Less civilians died in Japan with the bombs than what they would have lost following a US invasion.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Less civilians died in Japan with the bombs than what they would have lost following a US invasion.




Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. I can very well see a Country who thinks They'll be overwhelmed and beaten deciding to use one to try to stay in power.

Nice try


Edit to say:

Sorry for taking you through the hard road, just got you stuck in your own little web because you like to discuss through one liners.



[edit on 28-6-2010 by LittleSecret]




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join