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.

 

Iran new U.S. whipping boy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Yeah that's true - Hitler was actually elected, unlike our leader now.




I guess you missed that whole election/electoral college thing 4 years ago...

Get over it. Bush won. Gore lost. Quite crying.


Oh. So that whole Supreme Court decision to stop the recount and select a winner never happened? Uh-huh. Tell me another.

You don't get it. The fact that the votes were not counted and the will of the people of Florida was rendered null and void is forgotten by a handy catchphrase "Quit crying." You're brainwashed to think that anyone interested in seeing an election and not a selection is a Gore supporter.

Quite crying. Oh, you're so tough. Too tough to realize that it doesn't matter who becomes president, as long as the votes are correctly counted. But # Democracy, right? Win by any means possible on both sides. People are so caught up in supporting their chosen candidate they lose sight of what's actually important.

I could give a damn which candidate wins as long as we elect a president and not have one selected for us.




posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Gee, and I was begining to think the US was the US's whipping boy


Ive heard a story that people are linking the fact that Florida got hit with four hurricanes, decided the 2000 vote and its an election year again.

Greater powers saying "Count the whole Florida Vote this time"

Sorry. Felt a need to lighten the threads for a moment.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Oh. So that whole Supreme Court decision to stop the recount and select a winner never happened? Uh-huh. Tell me another.


Oh yes - that fair recount that didn't count votes for Bush, only those for Gore. And yes, let's have many recounts, at least as many as it takes to get Gore elected right? I mean, if at first you don't succede try try again right?

Oh yeah - and while we are at it, let's not count all of those military ballots - after all, they don't support Gore.

The SC stopped it for a reason - they had had their recount. They lost. Again. They wanted to keep recounting untill they won.



You don't get it. The fact that the votes were not counted and the will of the people of Florida was rendered null and void is forgotten by a handy catchphrase "Quit crying." You're brainwashed to think that anyone interested in seeing an election and not a selection is a Gore supporter.


No. The FACTS are that there was a recount, and he still lost. Despite not counting almost any new votes for Bush - only those for Gore. And no I am not brainwashed, I have seen your posts and they are almost always pro Democrat.



Quite crying. Oh, you're so tough. Too tough to realize that it doesn't matter who becomes president, as long as the votes are correctly counted.


Tough has nothing to do with it. They were counted twice. Bush still won.



But # Democracy, right? Win by any means possible on both sides. People are so caught up in supporting their chosen candidate they lose sight of what's actually important.


And this is where I dissagree. I LOVE democracy. I just don't agree that Bush was selected.




I could give a damn which candidate wins as long as we elect a president and not have one selected for us.


Te only one that attempted to select himself was Gore, by demanding recount after recount with democrats doing the counting. Did you not know that? Does that not seem unfair to you?

And oh yeah - we should just ignore the LAW and the SUPREME COURT while were at it right? I mean, Gore should just be able to do as many do-over recounts as he wants right?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
No american, YOU are insulting every human by supporting what Bush is doing. You think Hitler started out by attacking everyone and killed everyone in one swoop? No it was little by little "oops, we don't do it again, it was just this little thing". And the little things added up. I never claimed this is the same, just similar and you don't knwo where it's going.


I insult every human by supporting Bush? Riggggggghhhhhhht. I bet all of those millions that are going to vote for him are going to be insulted, as are all of those people in Afghanastan that get to vote for the first time. Please.

And again, don't even begin to compare Nazi Germany and modern USA.

They have nothing in common. Germany was united by racial superiority against all other races and it's ambition was world domination. Their leader was insane and had total power over their country.

The USA on the other hand is united under the idealism of freedom for all people, wit hour ambition global prosparity. Look at how mny BILLIONS of dollars we spend helping EVERYONE. Do you think Hitler would send millions of dollars to Africa in humanitary relief, or any money to Isreal for that matter? Our leader is replaced at least every 8 years, and of all of the branches the executive actually has the least.



Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, the NK, then who knows, it can go on and on.


Isn't it funny that it was the UK, France, and Germany that hav proposed military action against Iran, yet you hear nothing from the US? Yup, those same peace loving countries are the ones war mongering this time - go yell at them about that. They are the governments proposing it in the UN! As far as NK goes, just about everyone thinks that Kim is loco. Hell, even China is scares of him. He is a nut bag with nukes, and that is NOT a good thing.

And yes, it can go on and on. It will go on as long as we find nations that support terrorism or pose a threat to US security. We will not wait to be attacked, we will prevent attacks.



All the while never even considering the countries where many terrorists come from like Sudia Arabia. It's ok to overlook that right? WE're disrupting the terrorists so long as we don't disturb the ones that make our leads a lot of money, right? THAT is an insult to every human. They offered some money to some suicide bombers so we invade a country? How about the country that had guys who flew some planes into a building?


There is a difference. SA is as against terrorism as we are (as a government) because the terrorists hate them too. Thus, they are our ally in this war, not our enemy. If they supported terrorism you would bet the ranch we would go in there.



Some of those suicide bombers are fighting in the only way they know. As if the Israel murdering is perfectly OK. It's wrong to kill, but from their view they are fighing opression, it's not black and white. Why aren't we helping the Palastinians? Let's also mention that funding suicide bombers was not the reason for going to war. Why wasn't it? Because if it was, no one would have approved it. So lets stop insulting humanity by justifying pre-emptive killing and justifying it as good. Let's stop buying our administrations crap which the rest of the world so easily sees through.


Oh yes, those suicide bombers fighting the only way they know? Listen to yourself! You are justifying them! As far as Isreal goes - I agree that they are not always as civil as they should be - but you know what, they have to deal wih these 'poor suicide bombers' every freaking day. Maybe the Palistinians wouldn't have such a hard time if their own people would stop blowing people up.

Anyways, this discusion is pointless - you have your views, which I consider idealistic fantasy (believe me, if we could all just get along I would much prefer that, but history and common sense says otherwise), and I have my views, which I consider realistic. You most likely think that my views are illinformed rhetoric or something of that ilk. All I can say is that when the next terror attack comes, and someone you love is killed, you will most likely change your tune.

Also, out of curiosity - how old are you?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

And oh yeah - we should just ignore the LAW and the SUPREME COURT while were at it right? I mean, Gore should just be able to do as many do-over recounts as he wants right?


December 8: Divided 4-3, the Florida Supreme Court orders manual recounts in all counties with significant numbers of presidential undervotes; Bush appeals the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and seeks injunctive relief to stop the hand recounts. The Florida Legislature meets to begin the process of choosing electors on its own. Circuit judges in Tallahassee rule against Democratic challenges to absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties.

December 9: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, halts the manual recounts and sets a hearing on the matter two days later.

archives.cnn.com...

Good timeline. Read it.

Also, you still see this as a partisan matter, instead of one that affects the whole country. Let me beat that fact into you some more.

Florida situation. It's not a matter that can be understood by throwing around a catchphrase like Sore Loserman, or stop crying.

Yes, Bush was chosen. Supreme Court decision made him the President, not votes. Bush and his legal team fought against recounts at every possible turn and not once acted as an advocate for a fair recount. Gore's team pushed for recounts.

Of course each side played to their advantage.

Shouldn't both teams have pushed for a total recount of disputed areas, if they honestly care about determining the winner?

If denial's the way you cope with the fact that democracy did not happen in Florida, and in effect the entire country, more power to you.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by taibunsuu]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by American Mad Man

And oh yeah - we should just ignore the LAW and the SUPREME COURT while were at it right? I mean, Gore should just be able to do as many do-over recounts as he wants right?


December 8: Divided 4-3, the Florida Supreme Court orders manual recounts in all counties with significant numbers of presidential undervotes; Bush appeals the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and seeks injunctive relief to stop the hand recounts. The Florida Legislature meets to begin the process of choosing electors on its own. Circuit judges in Tallahassee rule against Democratic challenges to absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties.

December 9: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, halts the manual recounts and sets a hearing on the matter two days later.

archives.cnn.com...

Good timeline. Read it.

It's not a matter that can be understood by throwing around a catchphrase like Sore Loserman, or stop crying.

Yes, he was chosen. Supreme Court decision made him the President, not votes. Bush and his legal team fought against recounts at every possible turn and not once acted as an advocate for a fair recount. Gore's team pushed for recounts.

Of course each side played to their advantage.

Shouldn't both teams have pushed for a total recount of disputed areas, if they honestly care about determining the winner?

If denial's the way you cope with the fact that democracy did not happen in Florida, and in effect the entire country, more power to you.


But the thing is, WHY did they hault manual recounts? It was because all of the people doing the recounts were Democrats. That is inherintly (spl? sorry - it's really late and I can't think) unfair.

Yes I believe that both sides should push for a fair recount, but the fact is that there wasn't a way to make it completely fair. There were many ballots that needed interpritation - and that is not fair becuse everyone has their bias.

The FACT is Bush won and Gore lost. Am I happy - hell yeah. Had that one recount happened and Bush lost I would be angry for sure, but I would except it because thats how the courts - our law - ruled it.

Untill voting is 100/5 electronic, so that there is no human involvement in counting, and there is no chance of influencing the machines, then you must have laws that make up the rules. Under the rules, Bush won.

So please, I am not in denial - I just know when someone won and another lost.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I have a couple of minor problems first I saw someone say something to the effect that suicide bombers are just fighters fighting the only way they know how well that is the biggest bunch of horse cockakah I have ever heard the suicide bomber has one of two goals 1st the death and destruction of all people including non-coms and children and 2nd and more sick in its motivation is a brain washed effect that they can get treasures in heaven I have heard of treasures like 12 virgins will be given to then in heavan and riches as that no man has ever seen these are just two of the rewards for "martyrdom" and then there are some in hopless debt that are tricked into doing it for their families to get paid large sums of money as reward for the services the bomber provides now the only problem with that is that I have seen reports of suicide bombers that have done their duty and their families never recieved a dime the recruiters know that a dead person cant complain so they often lie to the bomber and give them a very small portion just to intise them into completing the mission having received this down payment the bombers go ahead believing they are getting paid

my other problem is that I have heard a debate in more than 15 or 20 differnt blogs where in the debate and degridation of muslin and islam as one entity is guilty for insurgents crimes against man and Allah in this is have to say the people doing the types of things that these insurgents and terrorist are doing is on them and them along the faith of muslim and islam do not condone and have disavowed atleast one holy cleric for participating in terroristic type attacks stating that it is a direct betrayal of faith and as for Israel while I believe they should defend themselves I think at some points the methods they use no matter how they justify them are nothing more than a legalized version of what the terrorists and to put it quite frank the US military observer who ordered a bomber to drop a 500 lb bomb on a group of people in the middle of a street next to the building that was a military target without reguard of the fact they there might be civilians sickens me that mission made no sense no military type training in this world tells a person to walk not run in large groups out in the open so they can play catch with 500lb bombs thats just stupid so there shot have been a call off and ground forces should have been sent to confront those targets face to face to verify they where killing the enemy

well sorry for the rant but I just couldnt stomach the thought that murder and suicide where the only solution that people have to solve problems


dh

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Using Israel as proxy
Would save a lot of time and expense
www.tbrnews.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad ManUS nuclear strategy is preemptive.


no, its always been reactive.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
Using Israel as proxy
Would save a lot of time and expense
www.tbrnews.org...


what do you mean by this if you mean let Israel go in first I say bad move they are to caught up in their own home made contriversies with the gaza strip and the barrier wall they just this morning had to kill six Palestinians two of which where Hamas insurgents trying to come over the wall and they need to focus on the Gaza Pull out and their commitment to the pull out and Road map plans it has been stalled to long and there is finally talk of reinitiating talks

so i say leave them to their immediate probles or Bush will dump us off in the middle of it to bail Israel out because they are over extended this will make things harder to handel just send in the UN or something minus the US and Israel who have their hands full and let somone else handel it this time


dh

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by dh
Using Israel as proxy
Would save a lot of time and expense
www.tbrnews.org...


what do you mean by this if you mean let Israel go in first I say bad move they are to caught up in their own home made contriversies with the gaza strip and the barrier wall they just this morning had to kill six Palestinians two of which where Hamas insurgents trying to come over the wall and they need to focus on the Gaza Pull out and their commitment to the pull out and Road map plans it has been stalled to long and there is finally talk of reinitiating talks

so i say leave them to their immediate probles or Bush will dump us off in the middle of it to bail Israel out because they are over extended this will make things harder to handel just send in the UN or something minus the US and Israel who have their hands full and let somone else handel it this time



Well, I wasn't making a suggestion. Just drawing out the core of the story that Israel would be identified as the source of the attacks.
I think the whole idea is utterly appalling and hope it's another one of those endless false prophecies, though you would put nothing beyond the evil of those in power at the present time
And I don't mean in Iran



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by American Mad ManUS nuclear strategy is preemptive.


no, its always been reactive.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I guess thats why the focus of US nuclear strategy has been FIRST STRIKE.

Ever heard of the Peacekeeper missle? Thats a first strike weapon. How about the B-2 bomber? First strike again. How about SSBN subs? First strike. Now tell me, exactly how are you being reactive by using and building weapons made for FIRST STRIKE?


US Nuclear Strategy: Defensive or First Strike?
"Evil only triumphs when good people do nothing": Colorado FIRST STRIKE project

Just google US nuclear strategy and fiirst strike and you will find out you are wrong...

Even if (and thats a big if, because Bush doctrine CLEARLY advocates first strike policy) Americas stated strategy is retalitory, the designs of our weapons show us otherwise, as all of our primary strategic nuclear delivery platforms are first strike.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by American Mad Man]


dh

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Lets assume this report is correct for an instance
That the whole of the Iran infrastructure including the fantasical nuclear capability is under attack
Oh wow - what if its not Neocon Fantasia = dib in to a mind control script - ie it's real- another nuclear wasteland that's like that created under Iran DU1, Kosovo DU 2, Afghanistan DU3, Iraq DU4



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

I insult every human by supporting Bush? Riggggggghhhhhhht. I bet all of those millions that are going to vote for him are going to be insulted, as are all of those people in Afghanastan that get to vote for the first time. Please.

Either you aren't reading right or you are ignoring the entire argument by retoring with comments that have nothing to do with it. First off, popularity has nothing to do with wrong or right. If you want to make your decision based on popularity go ahead. I don't disagree that a majority of people fall for Bush's scare tactics. and, what does Afganistan have to do with anything, it was never brought up. No matter who was president at the time would have removed the taliban, don't give Bush credit for that, anyone would have done the same. I mean we even had the supporrt of the world because everyone agreed on it. Wanna know why they agreed? BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUAL TERRORISTS!.



And again, don't even begin to compare Nazi Germany and modern USA.

They have nothing in common. Germany was united by racial superiority against all other races and it's ambition was world domination. Their leader was insane and had total power over their country.

The USA on the other hand is united under the idealism of freedom for all people, wit hour ambition global prosparity. Look at how mny BILLIONS of dollars we spend helping EVERYONE. Do you think Hitler would send millions of dollars to Africa in humanitary relief, or any money to Isreal for that matter? Our leader is replaced at least every 8 years, and of all of the branches the executive actually has the least.


Again you don't read so well. I never compared them, merely made a comment, but I still stick by it. And I wil repeat is again and again and again. The more you tell me not to, the more I will. Your opinion overides no ones no matter how much you think it does. And again. And the US was never in the equation, Bush was. There are many comparisons to tho administrations with complete disregard to the rest of the world and wil needlesly kill for their own agenda. the US is the ideal for freedom, Bush is not. I certianly do think Hitler would send a lot of money to Israel to help them kill Palestinians, no doubt. I also think that Hitler would also use military force before exhausting all peaceful means, yes.




Isn't it funny that it was the UK, France, and Germany that hav proposed military action against Iran, yet you hear nothing from the US? Yup, those same peace loving countries are the ones war mongering this time - go yell at them about that. They are the governments proposing it in the UN! As far as NK goes, just about everyone thinks that Kim is loco. Hell, even China is scares of him. He is a nut bag with nukes, and that is NOT a good thing..


Hear nothing from the US? How can you say that. Thats pretty much Bush's next objective (one of them). Everyone wants action taken against Iran, however other countries think military action should be a last resort. But you want to call them war mongers while supporting a regime that willinvade a county with no terrirst ties in the name of the war on terror. And you might have to paste a quote of anyone saying that there isn't a poblem with NK. Does that mean that the only answer to problems is invasion? If that's your logic we have to invade every country to protect ourselves. I mean Bush would agree with you. Dad's company is one of the bigger defense contractors who is making billions on these invasions. Guess who's gonna inherit all that money?



And yes, it can go on and on. It will go on as long as we find nations that support terrorism or pose a threat to US security. We will not wait to be attacked, we will prevent attacks..


Just like that war on drugs? Just like vietnam? Some day you will realize that for every country you invvade you will make twice as many enemies. Did you ever learn to play tic tac toe and realize that you can't win? I mean look at your logic, we have had many many more terrorist attacks in the world since the war of terror started. It's just not going to work and by the time Bush's supporters realize this we are going to be in a lot of trouble.



There is a difference. SA is as against terrorism as we are (as a government) because the terrorists hate them too. Thus, they are our ally in this war, not our enemy. If they supported terrorism you would bet the ranch we would go in there..




Let me get this right. Most of the terrorists that attacked us came from SA. SA won't do anything about it. We claim that we are in iraq to bring them democracy. SA is as undemocratic as can be. They hate us. And you are gonna tell me they don't support terrorism? I mean the government has een proven to give money to known terrorist charities. If nothing more, should that not be investigated? It's not, why? Couldn't have anything to do with all the financial ties between our countries leader and the country harboring the most terrorists in the world could it? Even in the most innocent scenario, do you think it's in our best interest to have a president who stands to lose a lot of money by going after the hotbed of terrorists?



Oh yes, those suicide bombers fighting the only way they know? Listen to yourself! You are justifying them! As far as Isreal goes - I agree that they are not always as civil as they should be - but you know what, they have to deal wih these 'poor suicide bombers' every freaking day. Maybe the Palistinians wouldn't have such a hard time if their own people would stop blowing people up..


I am justifying suicide bombers? You really need to stop misreading people, this is your biggest problem. You think suicid bombers kll because they are big evil bastards who just want to destroy anything good? This is not a science fiction movie. Of course it's wrong of them, no one EVER contested that. Just like it's wrong for Israel to kill palestinians and to occupy someone elses land. Yes Israel has to deal with suicide bombers just as they have to deal with the Israeli military killing their kids. The problem is that you can justify one side's murders, while seeing the other sides murders as horribly wrong. THAT is hypocritical. I am only pointing that out, not justifying it. I am not the one seeing it in black and white.

Anyways, this discusion is pointless - you have your views, which I consider idealistic fantasy (believe me, if we could all just get along I would much prefer that, but history and common sense says otherwise), and I have my views, which I consider realistic. You most likely think that my views are illinformed rhetoric or something of that ilk. All I can say is that when the next terror attack comes, and someone you love is killed, you will most likely change your tune.


Also, out of curiosity - how old are you?


I think you asking me that pretty much says it all. We all want to reduce terrorism in the world. But it's obvious to may of us that Bush's means are going to breed terrorism on a level never seen before. We want to fight terrorism, not create more of it. The problem lies in peoples lack of abaility to try and see it from any perspective but their own. Ask yourself why our enemies do what they do rather than just assume they are some movie character who wants pure evil.

PS - I have no idea if the quotes will come out right on this post, read with caution.







 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join