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: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


hmmm if we didn't develop them, someone else would have... could you imagine the cold war, with Russia only having the nukes? we'd probably be calling each other comrade instead of brother >.>




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SyphonX
 
A rose by any other name. . . . .

What we're talking about is protecting America and american interests.


Gee, maybe that's what I'm talking about?

Somehow you're deluded into thinking you're some glorious cowboy, willing to be tough enough to support violence, if only the end justifies the means.

At what point do you think it becomes dangerous to America and "America's interests" if the government's foreign policy doesn't ease up on the gas, and continues to assert it's power across the globe? In simpler terms, it's called 'blowback', and if America fails to reign-in it's military and other 'assets' (along with Israel etc.), then we could be looking at a doomsday scenario for not only America, but the world.

How many wars do you want to see in your lifetime? I think I've had enough, what about you.

Again, all I see is the same old song and dance. "The US is in peril, there may be a bomb, etc." Zero evidence other than speculation and assertions.The reality is that the US currently occupies (militarily) countries bordering Iran, and bombs many in the region, and also in Africa. This is a reality. There is no "sudden surprise attack" from Iran. Iran is not trying to be sneaky. The US has been overpowering this region with full military-force and destabilization for decades.

I for one, do not think we have reached the point of "no return", but if we keep pursuing our affairs with Iran, and continue to threaten and meddle, then I truly believe we will reach the point of no return and then some. The event horizon for our self-fulfilling prophecy of an apocalypse. Mutually assured destruction. Where the world will be thrust into a hell on Earth at America's expense. All because a handful oligarchs and their lackeys cannot control themselves.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 
You and others keep slamming and all I do is ask for alternatives.

Realistic alternatives. Not rainbows and unicorns.

And the fact is, like it, hate it, America is the best we've got so far to "police" the rest of this screwed up planet.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The world doesn't work like that. America has utterly failed as "world police" for decades. It's to the point where America itself is crumbling, and it has come to the point where the US has made it unbearable to live on this planet for many places. This is just in referral to the military and meddling, we haven't even scratched the surface on corporate raiding and instituting banana republics.

There is no like it or hate it. There is only "stop it". If America doesn't "stop it", then it's game over, and there will be suffering on an unimaginable, needless scale not seen since the crusades.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 

Then what (I ask again) is a viable alternative?

Being pragmatic isn't taking a stance one way or another. It's recognising the fundamental truths that exist.

Hate America all you want. But until you or anyone can come up with a viable, working solution, it's what you and the rest of us are stuck with.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SyphonX
 

Then what (I ask again) is a viable alternative?

Being pragmatic isn't taking a stance one way or another. It's recognising the fundamental truths that exist.

Hate America all you want. But until you or anyone can come up with a viable, working solution, it's what you and the rest of us are stuck with.

I just want to throw out what I think IS an alternative. It's short and sweet. We need a Security Council within the existing one. No offense Britain..and France..but we need the 3 nations with the true global reach and power. The U.S., China and Russia.

It's absurd to think the three could ever understand the benefit in NOT working against one another, but if just those three Governments could work together, then they'd represent the balance along with the force to ENFORCE peace, world wide between nations in a way never seen..and beyond any nation's ability to fight.

I think it could have been done for the briefest of times after 9/11. The international mood and shock of doing something.. anything..was there. Not for long though..and it was wasted on Patriot Acts and Afghani Marine invasions.


You asked for an honest to goodness, viable alternative. Well.. that is one I think is viable...and it'd only take the real agreement of 3 men when it comes right down to the heart of the matter.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Maybe it starts with not furthering warmonger policies, and jingoist attitudes... at all stops. At all. Non-compliance is the best form of protest for powers too great that they're unreachable. There is nothing anti-American about it, it's decidedly pro-American, and pro-Mankind.

War paranoia spreads like a nasty virus. Every time someone talks about "a bomb", or incites hatred, or continues to disperse what is nothing more but propaganda for an imperialist war effort... well, it just never stops. It goes on and on, and there is no need for it. You end up with a population of buffoons and verbal-vomiting drones, in other words a fully-compliant nation of war.

If more people were stubborn to the insane war policies of the US and other countries, and didn't get so emotional whenever an official tells them to... then we can all finally grow up and the oligarchs would find it much more difficult to achieve their goals.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
We were hearing end of the world scenarios about Iraq and WMDs and how if we didn't get Saddam we would find out with a mushroom cloud.

Mobile chemical weapons labs that turned out to be ice cream trucks?
How many lies did the Bush administration and the MSM tell the American public to sell them on the idea of attacking Iraq?
Why would the case with Iran be any different?

How many countries has Iran attacked?
Answer: 0
How many countries has the US attacked?
Answer: Dozens and that;s just since WW2

Acts of terrorism have been committed by nearly every large nation and Iran has been smeared by endless propaganda about their support of Hezbollah and Hamas.
You believe it's true because the Israelis or Pentagon says it is?

This warmongering isn't about nuclear weapons at all, it's about religion and the Islamic boogeyman Mahdi.
Christian end times eschatology doesn;t necessarily have to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We ALWAYS have a choice.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Iran has over 25000 jews living peacefully , not being killed.

Keyword you forgot to put into that statement belongs at the end. That word is yet

So that statement should read as: Iran has over 25000 jews living peacefully, not being killed...yet.

Yet, . Yet.
You seem right at home in a Warmonger thread.

You can't find any legitimate reason to attack this country, Iran.

That you want to attack them for crimes they HAVEN'T committed YET. .YET.


In my opinion, we have plenty of reasons to sanction Iran, even without nukes. Did you notice the increased violence and bombings in Iraq after the U.S. pulled out? Who do you think was funding terrorists to do that? Even one of the Sunni members of Iraq's government that fled the country was blaming Iran for turning the Shiite and Sunni members of the government against each other. After all of the time and money the U.S. spent trying to set up Iraq's government and rebuild their community, I certainly don't want to see Iran tear it all down.

Once again, no one wants to attack, but I more than welcome the sanctions if it's going to impede their terrorist activities. The other Middle Eastern countries certainly don't want to see someone stir up violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites again!! Iran is a bigger troublemaker in the M.E. than any of you even realize! Iran spent years demanding that the U.S. leave Iraq, and for what? Peace? Hell, they're the ones that couldn't wait to start crap again over there after we left!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 

No, it does not say that in Farsi. I am a linguist and while I do not speak Farsi I know about famous mistranslations and I have looked at that sentence in detail.
The word "map" is not in it for one.
"Israel" is not in it. It says, the Zionist regime.

When we said we do not want to harm Iraq, we would just want to remove Saddam's regime, in other words, its government, we said THE SAME THING about another country as Iran's Ahmadinedjad said about Israel.

I tried to illuminate this difference to a Fox News True Believer but in vain.
Such subtle differences require brains too, not only hearts. The subtleties of language escape all Foxers.

This is like some folks believeing the Bible was written by King James in English.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Viable and practical.

Sweet.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi
reply to post by Deetermined
 

No, it does not say that in Farsi. I am a linguist and while I do not speak Farsi I know about famous mistranslations and I have looked at that sentence in detail.
The word "map" is not in it for one.
"Israel" is not in it. It says, the Zionist regime.

When we said we do not want to harm Iraq, we would just want to remove Saddam's regime, in other words, its government, we said THE SAME THING about another country as Iran's Ahmadinedjad said about Israel.

I tried to illuminate this difference to a Fox News True Believer but in vain.
Such subtle differences require brains too, not only hearts. The subtleties of language escape all Foxers.

This is like some folks believeing the Bible was written by King James in English.


Next you're going to tell me that all of the maps in the Middle East show Israel on them too!

Argue all you want about the "map", but I think "Death to Israel" clearly backs up the same sentiment.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

edit on 17-1-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 
To change attitudes, you'll need alot more than just an ad campaign.

It'd be a paradigm shift, if possible.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SyphonX
 
You and others keep slamming and all I do is ask for alternatives.

Realistic alternatives. Not rainbows and unicorns.

And the fact is, like it, hate it, America is the best we've got so far to "police" the rest of this screwed up planet.


No need to police the world.
We are all grown-ups - but guess what: we are grown-ups in DIFFERENT ways:
One person's vision is another's nightmare.

Rhetorics is much stronger in Iran than deeds. Just listen to their music. It tells you volumes.
Israel is also so Middle Eastern in this regard. (In fact the whole thing smacks of a sibling problem.)
Everyday life in the US taught me that the proportion of rhetoric to action is simply culturally different.
Guess what: I nearly paid for such misunderstandings with my life.

This image of America as a strongman is an image of JUST POWER. That is the problem with it. It allures fundamentally weak people, who lack enough independent individuality and who need to project an image of power to the outside world.

"Just" means - if you translate the term - "my version of reality is better than yours." My justice versus your justice. He said / she said.

As an American, I would draw the limits at the borders and the laws of my own country and would not want to rule the whole world. Let Iran and Israel do whatever they wish. Sorry. At one point I might want to help somebody if I can afford it. But I would definitely reject the fulfilment of the wishes of a screaming, delusional paranoiac, no matter how white and technocratical he may well be (so he feels closer to "my kind of people").

It may be OK to wish to rule the world with an iron fist - in the terms of a person like Ahmadinedjad - but this thinking is not OK and not encouraged in America. Nevertheless, it is tolerated because we are by definition a tolerant society.

Until the aggressive-paranoid streak wins the upper hand - and suddenly we find ourselves at the wrong end of a world war. And many of us start to wonder:

How did we get here?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

This warmongering isn't about nuclear weapons at all, it's about religion and the Islamic boogeyman Mahdi.
Christian end times eschatology doesn;t necessarily have to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We ALWAYS have a choice.


It's about more than the Mahdi. You have more homework to do. You may not believe the religion has to become self-fulfilling prophecy, but the Muslims do. Even then, read what the Qu'ran says about Israel and the land of Palestine. It clearly tells them to fight for the land, not negotiate for it. Iran was the first one to condemn the Palestinian Authority for going to the U.N. to try and make Palestine a state just for that reason. No negotiations. Period. Maybe a Google search on the words "Ahmadinejad" and "Resistance" will help to clear things up.

edit on 17-1-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SyphonX
 

Then what (I ask again) is a viable alternative?

Being pragmatic isn't taking a stance one way or another. It's recognising the fundamental truths that exist.

Hate America all you want. But until you or anyone can come up with a viable, working solution, it's what you and the rest of us are stuck with.

I just want to throw out what I think IS an alternative. It's short and sweet. We need a Security Council within the existing one. No offense Britain..and France..but we need the 3 nations with the true global reach and power. The U.S., China and Russia.

It's absurd to think the three could ever understand the benefit in NOT working against one another, but if just those three Governments could work together, then they'd represent the balance along with the force to ENFORCE peace, world wide between nations in a way never seen..and beyond any nation's ability to fight.

I think it could have been done for the briefest of times after 9/11. The international mood and shock of doing something.. anything..was there. Not for long though..and it was wasted on Patriot Acts and Afghani Marine invasions.


You asked for an honest to goodness, viable alternative. Well.. that is one I think is viable...and it'd only take the real agreement of 3 men when it comes right down to the heart of the matter.


I think in time, this will be the structure of the Security Council, it is logical and sound that nuclear weaponry be held as a balance by the 3.

The responsibility for disarming the rest of the world should then fall on and be shared by, the 3.

To achieve that, there needs to be a defense agreement for all those nations currently holding nuclear weapons as a deterrence who are not one of the 3.

There is a requirement for nuclear weaponry to be separated from economic and political issues, but at the same time, there are economic and political issues that need to be addressed.

Nuclear power for electricity generation should be run and maintained by 3 companies administered by the 3, they should be shareholds with host nations having shares proportionate to there investment in nuclear power stations and research/development.

I believe this will be the eventuality of our current course, the question remains ,will it be the hard way ? or the easy way ? ,the hard way comes with hubris and ego, the easy way will require humility and trust.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by Kokatsi
reply to post by Deetermined
 

No, it does not say that in Farsi. I am a linguist and while I do not speak Farsi I know about famous mistranslations and I have looked at that sentence in detail.
The word "map" is not in it for one.
"Israel" is not in it. It says, the Zionist regime.

When we said we do not want to harm Iraq, we would just want to remove Saddam's regime, in other words, its government, we said THE SAME THING about another country as Iran's Ahmadinedjad said about Israel.

I tried to illuminate this difference to a Fox News True Believer but in vain.
Such subtle differences require brains too, not only hearts. The subtleties of language escape all Foxers.

This is like some folks believeing the Bible was written by King James in English.


Next you're going to tell me that all of the maps in the Middle East show Israel on them too!

Argue all you want about the "map", but I think "Death to Israel" clearly backs up the same sentiment.


What sentiment?
It is merely the sentiment of the government and the ruling class.
Do you think ordinary Iranians REALLY want to annihilate Israel?
They couldn't care less. They want their iPods and their subway and cheap gas and so on...

Really, when Hungarian servants of Soviet Premier Brezhniew ordered all schools in the capital of Hungary - 2 million people - to march out to the airport to signal their joy over receiving him - the great leader of our Big Brother - at the airport, and we all had to cheer, you really think we were overjoyed?

We couldn't wait till we got home and lsitened to our Rolling Stones records - from the "decadent West."

However, later when I lived in the free world, I learned that such freaks as Brezhniew were actually kept in power partly by the paranoia of the West.

Nevertheless, Iran will be atatcked because some folks spent the money, the Western middle class is unsure of the nature of their existential threat, and the road towards a bit of Fascism and paranoia is far easier than learning to live in the real world... and tackling problems closer to home.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Dear Seabag,
I'm glad you're content in your nationalistic love of the United States of America.

I'd like all of the US of A's arsenal to be removed, I'd like all of America's nuclear arsenal removed, because the US of A is a global threat. It is not only a warmongering country, it lies to the world and it's population about it's intent.

It goes to war in the pretext of bringing democracy to the world and rooting out all evil, when in fact it is simply pushing a zionist and corporate regime in the guise of democracy.

The US of A is one of the biggest roots of all evil, it deserves everything that has happened to it in response to it's illegal wars, killing of civilians and support of the Israeli regime of barbarism and destruction of the people of Palestine.

What is sad is that you're posting on ATS which prides itself in denying and removing ignorance with the most ignorant rhetoric I've read in a long time. Surely you have enough content on this website to realise that your government is lying to you and the evil you seek to root out is much MUCH closer to home than you think. No?

See, it goes both ways dear. And the reason why Iran hates the US, well.. look in a mirror and study your history .. there's a good chap!

T


edit on 17-1-2012 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


1st line of your opening post, and i'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to achieve:

I am not a warmonger but that is the title given to everybody who supports removing threats in the world.


Contradictory?

When there is no threat and you try to support the removal of a non-existant threat. You are war mongering.

A person promoting something undesirable or discreditable.


Tell me how promoting the use of bomb's, artillery, airstrikes, and murder on a nation who is not a threat is a desirable or needed action?

I'll try to read the rest of your post now.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join