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.

 

Warmonger Thread

page: 41
65
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


There is no proof of who killed the Iranian scientist. It could be a black OP from any country.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


There is no proof of who killed the Iranian scientist. It could be a black OP from any country.


Thats been my sentiment all along.

Theres that old saying.............

When you point your finger,there is always three pointing back at you.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



No nation should have nuclear weapons. So, no Iran should not have them, nor should the United States, or any other nation. Logically speaking, if we are to consider invading another nation and using a nuclear arms build up as the excuse, we are are relying upon a logical fallacy. It is illogical to fear the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and just shrug ones shoulder and dismiss any fear of a nuclear armed United States.


Advocating American weakness and passivity in an effort to sound intelligent will never solve the problems of the world. If we are to follow your logic we will have a nuclear Iran very soon. You see, good intentions and kind gestures do not disarm tyrants (American, Iranian or otherwise).

It is NOT illogical to fear a nuclear armed Iran, as I (and others) have illustrated throughout this thread. If you wish to use the argument that Iran is rightfully arming itself as a deterrent against American aggression then you can’t turn around and say America shouldn’t fear Iranian nuclear arms.

You can’t have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


This "field" of yours explains in no way what-so-ever how it is my call for respect for individual rights, and for disarming our own nuclear arsenal is "laughable" and "uneducated"

Further, if you are so good at preventing wars then why is it that the United States has been engaged in so many goddamned - albeit unofficially so - wars? It sure would be nice if you could have prevented that most imprudent "war on drugs" and most recently this outrageous "war on terror" that has had the effect of a blatant war on the American people.

You may be in the "field" of preventing war, but the wars that really matter you don't seem to be very good at preventing. Oh well, keep on laughing at others because they don't get how your job of ineffectively preventing wars that really matter makes you better educated.




edit on 18-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag
 





More deflection and America bashing. Predictable...

So because America is tyrannical in your opinion then it's ok for crazy SOB's who commit suicide bombing to have nuclear weapons? Great logic


The deflection isn't his, you are deflecting. The United States should not have nuclear weapons. Deal with that problem first, and then let's worry about the rest of the world. Get our house in order.



Do you realize why the U.S. is having no problem with getting treaties with Russia to bring Nuclear Stockpiles down to very small numbers? It is because the U.S. has new High Tech. weaponry that will make the Nuclear Warhead OBSOLETE!

Nuclear weapons were never a good weapon to fight a war since if you have to use alot of them to defeat your enemy...the radiation from modern U.S. and Russian Thermonuclear Weapons will poison areas for thousands inf not ten's of thousands of years. Google FREE ELECTRON LASER....this is a U.S. Weapon of UNLIMITED POWER and is being deployed now in nuclear powered versions.

Every U.S. Carrier will have one installed with it's own seperate nuclear powerplant as well as Ageis Class Cruisers. Land Based Nuclar powered versions have already been made operational as well as secret ocean going vessels. The Newest U.S. Aircraft Carrier...the Gerald R. Ford had to be redesigned to accomidate this weapon and the schedual for U.S. Carriers have been changed to allow for installation. This Laser is not efected by atmosphere and Discover Magazine has reported that a Nuclear Powered Version of this Laser can burn through 1000 ft. of SOLID STEEL in a matter of seconds. Along with a SAT. Mirror targeting system with a few Super Computers and you can destroy any target anywhere on land, air, sea. space, underground, beneith the ocean, and it is designed to destroy thousands of incomming ICBMS at the point when they have reached space before reeentry into the atmosphere. This laser is also capable of targeting the warhead and vaporizing any Uranium or Plutonium in any Cruise missle of dropped Nuclear Gravity bomb. As well as it's ability to widen the beam to destroy entire areas such as an entire Military base.

This is not SCI-FI....it is now...and is just one of a number of Ultra-High Tech. weapon systems that the U.S. has been working on for decades. It will render Nuclear Weapons Obsolete....as well as being able to protect any U.S. Carrier Battle Group against great number of possible missle attacks as the sysytem fires a Laser at the Speed of Light and can take on thousands of targets simutaniously. Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


It's not the USA. It's your government too. All of them. What has been allowed to happen.

It's about what´s in your pocket, or the lack of it. It is not about the emptiness of a belly, but the filling of a wallet. It has changed from a life in tribute to the betterment of community into a tributary system designed to place worth upon me and wealth/ power upon the needs of few.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


edit on 18-1-2012 by casenately because: fix


What began as covert CIA actions has become a national adittude. Take Hillery C she was of the 60's generation and against the Vietnam conflct yet when she has the power to do so she utters we came we saw we killed. That has become the national retoric. We has lost so much in Irack and Aftganistan and after 10 years in Aftganistan we like the Soviets are leaving and have not changed a thing and will not change a thing. I grew up beleiving in this country untill I was old enough to read the history that is not in the histroy books in school and we have truly become a Whore who peddals death and distruction to both sides and it will come back to haunt this country.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Advocating American weakness and passivity in an effort to sound intelligent will never solve the problems of the world. If we are to follow your logic we will have a nuclear Iran very soon. You see, good intentions and kind gestures do not disarm tyrants (American, Iranian or otherwise).


If you think having the largest nuclear arsenal is what defines American strength, you don't have a clue as to what intelligence even means. If you think I am a pacifist then come on over and mess with my rights, brother. Your Orwellian preachiness of freedom gained through massive government military build up has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with fear.

Do not expect anyone to treat you as if you are a man of courage and honor simply because you wear an American military uniform. If you cannot see the dishonor in calling a person who calls for U.S. nuclear disarmament a weak and passive attitude while simultaneously affecting outrage at some other nations nuclear ambitions, then what do you know of honor?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





This is not SCI-FI....it is now...and is just one of a number of Ultra-High Tech. weapon systems that the U.S. has been working on for decades. It will render Nuclear Weapons Obsolete....as well as being able to protect any U.S. Carrier Battle Group against great number of possible missle attacks as the sysytem fires a Laser at the Speed of Light and can take on thousands of targets simutaniously. Split Infinity


If this is true then an Iranian nuclear build-up would not be a threat.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Do not expect anyone to treat you as if you are a man of courage and honor simply because you wear an American military uniform.


I shall quote Ronald Reagan: “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.”


If you cannot see the dishonor in calling a person who calls for U.S. nuclear disarmament a weak and passive attitude while simultaneously affecting outrage at some other nations nuclear ambitions, then what do you know of honor?


What I consider weak and passive is a person who uses so-called "US atrocities" as a means to justify the nuclear armament of one of the most despicable regimes on the planet. That, SIR, is digusting!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


What I consider weak and passive is a person who uses so-called "US atrocities" as a means to justify the nuclear armament of one of the most despicable regimes on the planet. That, SIR, is digusting!


Therein lies the problem.
Opinions, your and mine are not the same, but you and other Warmongers want to force yours on us.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





I shall quote Ronald Reagan: “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.”


Ronald Regan also paid an awful lot of lip service to small government, all the while expanding the federal government to unprecedented levels. Here's the deal, you are as an individual making arguments. I am speaking to that individual. Your status as a marine, under these circumstances, is wholly irrelevant. Hoo rah.




What I consider weak and passive is a person who uses so-called "US atrocities" as a means to justify the nuclear armament of one of the most despicable regimes on the planet. That, SIR, is digusting!


No SIR, what is overwhelmingly and so odiously disgusting is a soldier who has taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States but instead blindly follows the orders of usurpers while simultaneously showing profound disregard for individual rights and pretending that by putting quotes around the phrase "U.S. atrocities" you are somehow still being respectful of the oath of office you took to protect and defend the Constitution.

Here's a news flash for you. By protect and defend the Constitution it is not meant that a few marines should be stationed at the Smithsonian guarding the paper on which the Constitution is written. That oath demands you protect and defend the principles within them. Where are those Marines? The ones who actually take the oath of office they took seriously? Where are those Marines?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


I shall quote Ronald Reagan: “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.”




They certainly made a difference to Grenada.


As the dominant warmongering nation on Earth, as one of the few countries that has used nuclear weapons in another country, I don't think the U.S.A. has any right to say who does and who doesn't have the right to possess nuclear weapons. In fact, I don't think anybody should have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction of any sort. But, try telling that to the Military-Industrial Complex, of which, the Marines are just one of the continuing enablers, the bully boys for gunboat democracy.
Regarding Iran, I don't think they should have nuclear weapons either, but I have little issue with them having the ability to make and use nuclear power. What are your thoughts on the Iranian acquisition of nuclear power?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

They certainly made a difference to Grenada.

Don't knock Grenada, that was the last clear Victory for Mighty American Military Machine.

They kicked some butt there



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



No SIR, what is overwhelmingly and so odiously disgusting is a soldier who has taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States but instead blindly follows the orders of usurpers while simultaneously showing profound disregard for individual rights and pretending that by putting quotes around the phrase "U.S. atrocities" you are somehow still being respectful of the oath of office you took to protect and defend the Constitution.


So again I ask, what does this have to do with a nuclear Iran. You continue to demean my service while dodging the issues at hand. Is it OK for Iran to have nukes....because they soon will unless something is done. What do you propose? Should everyone in uniform go AWOL (or UA in the Marine Corps)? Should they all turn against the evil American government?

(FYI - I’ve been out of the Marines for several years. I am a happy civilian with a family and a mortgage.)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by seabag


What I consider weak and passive is a person who uses so-called "US atrocities" as a means to justify the nuclear armament of one of the most despicable regimes on the planet. That, SIR, is digusting!


Therein lies the problem.
Opinions, your and mine are not the same, but you and other Warmongers want to force yours on us.


As do you, sir. If you had your way....it would be.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Here's a news flash for you. By protect and defend the Constitution it is not meant that a few marines should be stationed at the Smithsonian guarding the paper on which the Constitution is written. That oath demands you protect and defend the principles within them. Where are those Marines? The ones who actually take the oath of office they took seriously? Where are those Marines?



I think Seabag served his time,if he still isnt doing so. That being said, their are active and inactive Marines,and those in the Armed Forces who have been "oath-keepers" and those have the exact same thinking as you do Jean. Check them out! You will be pleasantly surprised.


1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. 2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. 3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. 10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey


edit on 18-1-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

(FYI - I’ve been out of the Marines for several years. I am a happy civilian with a family and a mortgage.)


So how does 'Semper fidelis' fit in there?

Once a Marine, Always a Marine: This truism is now the official motto of the Marine Corps League. The origin of the statement is credited to a gung-ho Marine Corps master sergeant, Paul Woyshner. During a barroom argument he shouted, "Once a Marine, always a Marine!" MSgt. Woyshner was right. Once the title "U.S. Marine" has been earned, it is retained. There are no ex-Marines or former-Marines. There are (1) active duty Marines, (2) retired Marines, (3) reserve Marines, and (4) Marine veterans. Nonetheless, once one has earned the title, he remains a Marine for life.


Source

This is relevant to the OP at it helps us gain an important insight to the psychological reinforcement and training behind your statements, just as I am proud to say I'm a Pacifist and have never killed anyone, am a vegetarian, happily married (with a mortgage : ugh a similarity!
) and strive for a world where war is no longer de rigeur; where nations with weapons of mass destruction are given peaceful incentives to disestablish them, where freedom and peace are concepts to be cherished, not just bandied around as catch words with no intent on acting upon them; where nations are helped rather than hurt and where we are ALL recognised as the having the same basic needs which are looked after appropriately and fairly throughout the world, and where the vast monies of the Military-Industrial Complex are redistributed into peaceful and cooperative endeavours rather than myriad ways of death.
Yes, I'm an idealist and have dreams and am unashamed to say this. At least my dreams are for the common good, rather than for death and destruction. I don't care if others are 'bad' and thus that supposedly gives us a right to be bad to them. That isn't constructive and just prolongs and propagates ill feeling.

Call me a 'Hippie". I'll own it. Call me a 'pansy tree hugger', that's fine. Just don't try to call me up for war because you'll never get me there. I am not weak. In fact, I consider this makes me stronger than those who don't resist the urge to kill.

So, that's some of where my position is, and where I'm coming from. I also look to history (in despair, for we never seem to learn, or never seem to recognise the signs and connections) and I look to my heart.
I don't look to god.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





So again I ask, what does this have to do with a nuclear Iran. You continue to demean my service while dodging the issues at hand.


I am demeaning your arguments and have no idea of your "service". I do know you are way too slow to acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights and this coupled with your pulling out your service as some kind of trump card doesn't help your arguments.

Most importantly, I have several times over in this thread answered your question, you keep ignoring it. For the umpteenth time:

No nation should have nuclear weapons. No nation, not no nation besides the U.S. or the U.S. and whoever the U.S. arbitrarily allows to have nuclear weapons. No nation should have them.

I get that you don't like that answer, but your willing deceit to claim that I have dodged your question is loud and clear.

What do I propose? I have made the proposition all ready!

I propose we begin disarming our nuclear arsenal before using force against another nation to do the same.

If you honestly think that only nuclear weapons can define American strength, then just what the hell are the Marine's needed for?

I would suggest to you that the Marines are far more important to American military might than any cache of radioactive bombs. I would further suggest that a Marine Corps filled with honorable warriors who have the courage of conviction to disobey unlawful orders is the apex of military might. That Marine Corps, that I just described, is a powerful Marine Corps. A Marine Corps filled with soldiers who call Americans weak and passive simply because they want to see an end to nuclear weapons has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That Marine Corps necessarily defines its might by the bombs others will drop. The Marine Corps I describe necessarily defines the epitome of the honorable warrior.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





That being said, their are active and inactive Marines,and those in the Armed Forces who have been "oath-keepers" and those have the exact same thinking as you do Jean.


I sometimes get carried away with my own prose. I never meant to imply that such Marines did not exist, what I was attempting to do was encourage seabag to be one of them. His retirement from the Corps notwithstanding. I did not throw honor in seabags face because I thought he had no regard for honor. Quite the contrary, I expect seabag to be honorable and would never be surprised to discover he is.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Iran already has a passive nuclear deterrent.
The Bushehr plant.
www.power-technology.com...
Scan the description. It is way larger than Fukushima and it is ready as of last September.
It is starting up in February. By contract, Russia will operate it for years. They will take the plutonium.
Nuclear fuel is already there. Which means if it is bombed, a mega-Fukushima will make even parts of Europe and Israel uninhabitable.

I think it would be unwise to do a first strike on it.
And the Russians will not take kindly to their own personnel being burned to dust by an aggressive first strike by us.

So they will be involved.
Sergei Lavrov is still trying to be polite:


"Addressing what is certainly the most worrisome development on the global stage, Lavrov spoke at length on the standoff involving Iran, which faces deepening sanctions, as well as the threat of military attack, over its nuclear energy program. The Russian Foreign Minister did not mince his words when he spoke about the “grave” consequences of a military strike against Iran. "As for the chances that this disaster (a military attack against Iran) could occur, this question would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said in a comment apparently intended for Israel and the United States. “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.” A possible military attack against Iran would trigger a huge migration of refugees, who would pour into Azerbaijan, possibly pushing up against the Russian border. "This is one and perhaps not the main aspect of the problem,” Lavrov admitted. “This will not be an easy walk, and it's impossible to calculate all of the possible consequences." Finally, an attack against Iran would also "pour oil on the…smoldering flames of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation," Lavrov said. "Then a chain reaction will begin, and I don't know where it will stop.”


Russia Today

The situation is already like the Bay of Pigs - from the POV of Israel and many neighboring states. (On top of this, Bushehr sits atop three earthquake faultines - which is very worrisome.

In such a scenario it is paramount to be logical, cool-headed and open to new information. So propaganda is out. Polarizing the world to us good and them evil is not going to work. Sanity, intelligence and patience will.

There will be no winners in the war if it involves Russia and China. And it already does.




top topics



 
65
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join