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.

 

Ahmadinejad Demands U.S. Stance on Israeli Arsenal

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoX42
To date, the United States is still the only country to have ever used a WMD on any nation (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).


Actually, WMDs include anything under the NBC umbrella. If you want to be accurate, the US isn't the only country. Both sides were using gas in WW1. Heck, wanna go back further; who was catapulting dead humans, animals, and rats over castle walls in the middle ages?


Originally posted by PsychoX42
So, don't say its because the U.S. has been so responsible with its weapons, because, it definitely has not. In fact, because of our actions in WW2, the U.N. should have slapped sanctions all over us at this point.


The UN wasn't around until after the Second World War. And I don't think that many countries were complaining about our use of the Bomb, since it did bring about the end of the war.


Originally posted by PsychoX42
Who used agent orange? Who used Napalm? Who used Uranium in depleted shells? Who sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein? Who armed the Mujahideen for Afghani defense against the Russians? Who empowered the Taliban? Who regularly empowers warlords to do their bidding?


Agent Orange? Not a really a WMD, but nasty.

Naplam? A lot of countries have used napalm. Like, just about all in the Korean War. It's not just a US weapon.

Depleted Uranium? Not a WMD, used to destroy armor. Unfortunately, it's also pretty nasty.

Chemical Weapons to Saddam? Slayer took care of that one.

Armed the Muj in A-stan against the Russians? Well, didn't know they got WMDs.
But if you're going down that road, how about taking a look at the Soviets. They were GIVING AWAY AK-47s at one time.

Empowered the Taliban? Well, looks like the Pakistani ISI really got them started.

Empowering warlords? Where? Just A-stan, because it fits your rant?



Originally posted by PsychoX42
All of those questions have one answer...THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


Uh, no, they don't.

Just a thought.

Nothing but love backatcha!




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoX42
Now that is hilarious. So, you want to point at all of the other nations that were involved. That's literally the equivalent of a child that gets in trouble and then begins to point out all of the other kids who made him do it. Not a good enough answer.


No, the one being a child is you. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and whining, "It was just the US at fault! Only the US gave Saddam chemical weapons! I don't want to hear about other countries that did it, because I made up my mind it was only the US and no one else!!!"

"Not a good enough answer" my skinny Irish ass.
You don't want to hear the whole story, only cherry pick the facts that fit your idea of things. Sorry it ain't working that way for you, Sport.

Embrace the Hate



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Chemical Weapons to Saddam? Slayer took care of that one.


Not so sure. Could you point out for me exactly where that was in that kluge of an article about another article about an 8000-page report that listed a bunch of countries and companies who were in Iraq there for a lot of different reasons during a timespan of how many years? I dug relatively deep, barring the UN report, and must have missed the references there to chemical weapons and the gas, was it, that I believe might have been the discussion point he was addressing? Thanks.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Not so sure. Could you point out for me exactly where that was in that kluge of an article about another article about an 8000-page report that listed a bunch of countries and companies who were in Iraq there for a lot of different reasons during a timespan of how many years? I dug relatively deep, barring the UN report, and must have missed the references there to chemical weapons and the gas, was it, that I believe might have been the discussion point he was addressing? Thanks.


Actually, it's a 12,000 page report, 8000 pages got censored. Love to see what the UN report actually said.

That article does show the companies from all countries that were involved, and what they were doing, either some sort of NBC work, or rocketry, or general conventional weapons.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Why?

It's a good thing the US isn't running the planet. Why don't they ask the French or South Africa how Israel got those supposed nukes in the first place? Maybe they should work a deal with them for their own projects.

This reminds me of a spoiled child who stomps their feet whines and points their finger at somebody else instead of copping to it's own activities. What bearing does this have on their own program? Nothing, that's right absolutely nothing.





[edit on 9-7-2010 by SLAYER69]


Yeah...I think it's funny when people think the U.S. gave Israel nukes when it was France. The U.S. actually sent inspectors from the U.N. just like with Iran to prevent Israel from getting nukes...but Israel hid it, created fake rooms and panels, etc. Iran is trying to deflect from their own program...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


You didn't address or answer my question. You simply deflected by agreeing with me and pointing out a minor misremembering on my part. You deserve those three stars



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I'm no fan of Iran's politics...but he certainly has he right to ask. The hypocracy of the US when it comes to their nuclear policies is beyond obvious.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
You didn't address or answer my question. You simply deflected by agreeing with me and pointing out a minor misremembering on my part. You deserve those three stars


Well, here's a capital idea. How about asking Slayer? You know, the guy that produced this little tidbit of info?

Or better yet, just jump on the bandwagon of "The US was the single source of Chemical Weapons to Iraq". Probably a lot simplier.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoX42

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by PsychoX42
 


What, hypocrisy in the western world!? You are blowing me away.

Let everybody have all the nukes they want, it's their right to protect their sovereignty any way they wish. In fact, let Iran make nukes too. The moment one dirty bomb goes off the world will lash out on the entire middle east and turn the sand into radioactive glass. I hear deep oil is radioactive anyways, so it's no big deal.



By the way...I agree with your statement. Even if it was sarcastic.


Namaste and Love


It wasn't being sarcastic.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
But again why wouldn't they want them and why can't they have them. We wouldn't be too happy if someone started telling us what we could do as sovereign Nations.

Besides, the US doesn't start wars with countries that have Nukes. Well, maybe Pakistan but that isn't a full blown war yet.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I did ask him as well. My point was addressed you your point about his post. I asked YOU where you found it in what he posted.

Don't be accusing me of jumping on bandwagons to deflect even further from an honest and direct question to which it is clear by now you do not know the answer to. Just admit you were avoiding that topic by deflecting it back to Slayer's post. I guess it would have saved us all a lot of bickering if you just didn't cover that point in your response post in that way.



[edit on 7/11/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Besides, the US doesn't start wars with countries that have Nukes. Well, maybe Pakistan but that isn't a full blown war yet.


Just about every muslim nation on earth is now anti USA apart from the saudi royal family who could see the residents turn on them over night and even India is getting tired of uncle sam so how far does uncle sam want to push it just for little old iserail who are coursing all the trouble.

economicaly the USA is on the edge and should be carefull how they walk and americans must know this, well the ones that can look further then hollywood and computer games.

americans just pick up the military bill for the zionists and corporations like Bp and get none of the profits and are unable to change a thing whilst most politicians are being bribed by zionists.

fast forwards and i can only see two possible out comes

1. Economic collapse
2. Millions of americans killed at home.

in the case of option 2 then even your average redneck will know who attqacked who first and understand how they have been dragged into this war and when that day comes i think these politicians and the zionist media had better leave town quick.

Now i know some reading this are so taken in with the propaganda about the USA being invincable but thats not what the financial markets are saying and do you realy think you can stop a flask of biological agent being smashed in any street on US soil even if it's 1/10th as deadly as anything the USA has ?

Yes it's alright going on about any country thats attacks the USA will be turned into a sheet of glass but what option do they have when geniside is being carried out against muslims and time has moved on from when the USA used biological warfare to kill the american indians using smallpox and all to save the zionist bankes who want to take the shirt off your back.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 

In support of what you just wrote ...
the US did well in wars where their engineering and manufacturing out drove their opponents...

who has that advantage now?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 

Just throwing this out there. I don't believe (gut level) that the current administration's support for Israel is as strong as past administrations' support seems to have been. I'm sensing a real reluctance. But I also realize that doesn't preclude Israel from getting us involved in this potential "war" on Iran. There can be a number of different combinations of false-flag scenarios concocted to drag us into this one way or another.

A bit off topic.


[edit on 7/11/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
To close out the whole thing, after a lot of pretty good discussion, the fact is the U.S. can't give Ahmandinejad what he seeks. There cannot be an official statement about something unofficial...something that no one will either confirm of deny exists.

Here's a take from Haaretz on this issue...



However, hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama echoed Israel's veiled justifications for having the bomb and said Israel had "unique security requirements".

The White House said Obama had further pledged to keep Israel, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, from being "singled out" at a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna in September as well as at the Egyptian-proposed regional conference. (Source)


Looks like "unoffically" the U.S. still has Israel's back on this issue.

But, anyway, I'm sure Ahmadinejad's demand was rhetorical, and we all knew that...including him. That was the point.

Oh and here goes Netanyahu...again. This guy never quits.

"Irrational" Iran can't get nuclear arms: Netanyahu



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Don't be accusing me of jumping on bandwagons to deflect even further from an honest and direct question to which it is clear by now you do not know the answer to.


Dude, I read the link that Slayer produced. It lists countries and companies and has a break down on what those companies supplied. If you can find that UN report, great, post the link (I haven't yet). Until then, that link is something to work from. If you're having problem reading that link, sorry, don't know how to help you out on that.

I know what you're going to say, since I say it myself. "Wikipedia isn't all that reliable!" Here's the wiki link to the subject, but it has sources at the bottom.

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Just admit you were avoiding that topic by deflecting it back to Slayer's post. I guess it would have saved us all a lot of bickering if you just didn't cover that point in your response post in that way.


Uh, no, not avoiding it, but pointing you in the direction to where I read it. As I said, ask Slayer where he got that link from, since he was the one to post it, not me.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I STATED that I read the entire thing and dug into it relatively deeply and that NOWHERE did I find an answer to that question. I ALSO even posted a live link to the article posted in Slayer's link. And I asked YOU a simple question to back up your statement about Slayer's post "covering" and issue that in fact did not really cover because you appeared to believe

Slayer's link to that article did cover it, I thought it was a fair question. Again, just say you don't know. And don't be deflecting even further sending me on wild goose chases for some ahem 12000 page document when I in fact already asked if Slayer or you had read it.

Nice try again.

And I'm not a "dude."



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I STATED that I read the entire thing and dug into it relatively deeply and that NOWHERE did I find an answer to that question. I ALSO even posted a live link to the article posted in Slayer's link. And I asked YOU a simple question to back up your statement about Slayer's post "covering" and issue that in fact did not really cover because you appeared to believe


Dude, I'm really sorry that your reading comp is lacking. I truely am. I don't know how simplier I can make my responses. The link that Slayer posted listed countries and companies. PsychoX42 said the US supplied chem weapons, Slayer said it was many countries and posted a link. When I responded to PsychoX42 about the same thing saying Slayers link covered that topic and I moved onto the rest of his posting.


Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Slayer's link to that article did cover it, I thought it was a fair question. Again, just say you don't know. And don't be deflecting even further sending me on wild goose chases for some ahem 12000 page document when I in fact already asked if Slayer or you had read it.


"Wild goose chase" Oh, I'm sorry. Possible sources and links that might back up the fact that there were many countries involved in this is just a waste of time. Like I suggested, just stick with the "The US is the sole supplier" theory. It's so much simplier. Same with his claim that the US is the only country to use WMDs. Oh, wait, that's just a deflection on my part.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

We all know that he damn well knows what U.S. stance is. However, his demand here is to focus the world's attention on the issue, which is one of the key issues at the core of the whole volatile situation between Israel, it's proxy the U.S., and Iran.

I doubt he'll really receive a reply, but then I doubt he expects one.


I agree. Iran has a right to defend itself, and, it has a right (IMHO) to develop the weapons necessary to do so. I personally think it is nothing more than blatant self interest that allows the hypocrisy of nations like the US, China, France, Israel, etc., to hold nukes while denying any possible competitors from doing the same.

Not that I personally WANT more nukes in the hands of hot headed nut jobs, only that I am absolutely aware that nukes are already in the hands of hot headed nut jobs, (our leaders) and that it is extremely hypocritical to pretend that we have some "good reason" for not allowing other hot headed nut jobs to have nukes.

Its pure self interest. If any of our nations had any real interest in preventing nuclear war, none of us would have them. We just want to hold that card as a possibility ourselves, while denying it to as many others as we can.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join