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 trying to build nuclear missiles capable of hitting London, Cameron warns MPs

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
The bottom line is:

What does the anorak cladden Armadinijad (sorry if that's spelt incorrectly) really think will happen to him, his country and everyone in it if he fires a nuclear missile at London, or New York, or Tel Aviv. He would have to have the IQ of a carrot to even consider doing something like that.

As someone has mentioned here already, Britain has at least 1 Trident ballistic missile submarine at sea at all times, just 1 of these submarines can vaporise an entire country.

The Americans, would of course, have any number of these 'Boomers' dotted around the planet with the same capability.

I don't know, but I suspect the Israelis are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons too, remember Mordecia Venunu (this is probably spelt wrong as well, sorry about that).

Armadinijad is going to need a lot more than a tasteful new brown anorak if he presses the button.




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Irrelevant what it is "in your books", to be honest.

What say you about Hawaii then? It's "half a world away" from the US and, unlike the Falklands, actually belonged to someone and has an indigineous population when US Marines turned up and forced the Hawaiian King to submit.


Are you telling me i'm not allowed to have an opinion?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I agree. Colonialism is not to this day and age, and is a thing of the past. As you say, cameron is trying to send the country back to victorian times it seems.

It's just that whenever the tories are in power the first thing they do is start some kurfuffle about the falklands as if it is their first priority and nothing else matters (or is second rate).

In this case, cameron is starting another fight over who owns the land with the argentinians, while he is also waging war rhetoric against Iran. I meerly pointed that out, as it's stupid to start 2 wars at once.

There are more important issues than to falklands to worry about right now.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesmart

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by EvanB
 


Yes you can tell when Cameron lies
His lips move



haha
im sure that bugger was got caught trying to sing the national anthem
and he did not know the words


Yes I heard he got caught singing

God save my lying ass
Long live my noble ass
God save my ass etc
edit on 9-3-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

edit on 9-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 




In this case, cameron is starting another fight over who owns the land with the argentinians


To be fair to Cameron it is Argentina who are stirring things up, or more specifically their President Christine Kirchner who views herself as some modern day Evita and is seeking to further her own profile and reputation at the expense of the Argentinian people.
She is using classic deflection tactics to divert attention from her domestic failings by exploiting the natural latino emotions of her countrymen.

The UK offered Argentina a full and equal share of all mineral deposits in The Falklands area and to finance an oil refinery on the Argentinian mainland, a more than generous offer as the UK has absolutely no legal or moral duty to do so.
Kirchner turned the offer down and then started rattling on about sovereignty and taking childish actions against the UK and the Islanders.
Kirchner even publicly proclaimed that in her opinion the Islanders have no Right To Self-Determination as clearly outlined in The UN Charter and in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The UK has a permanent garrison, manned on a rotational basis, stationed in The Falklands along with 4 Typhoon fighters.
HMS Dauntless, the most advanced warship of it's type in the world, is starting a tour in The South Atlantic and it's generally accepted that one of our nuclear submarines is on patrol in the area.

Combined they could easily eliminate both the Argentinian Navy and Air Force in a very short time.

Argentina knows this and will not start any armed conflict.
It's politics and has very little to do with people.

Cameron certainly wouldn't jeapordise the international support he has by provoking an incident, especially with so much oil etc at stake.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Cameron like Obama is just the puppet head not the master
He is like an empty hardrive onto which others programmes are installed



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Showing a total lack or even a basic appreciation of History there...

1982 - Argentines invade the Falklands to distract from domestic issues. Thatcher had already been in power for 3 years prior, although admittedly the Victory helped her in the next election, but as surely as a defeat would have destroyed her. Nothing to do with "as soon as the Tories get into power they start something in the Falklands".

Current era - Argentina has been prattling about the Falklands since about 2007-2008, during the end of Blairs tenure and continuing during Browns' reign or terror. Again, has bugger all to do with the Tories.

It seems, rather than being interested in facts, you are prattling this line due to party prejudice.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Showing a total lack or even a basic appreciation of History there...

1982 - Argentines invade the Falklands to distract from domestic issues. Thatcher had already been in power for 3 years prior, although admittedly the Victory helped her in the next election, but as surely as a defeat would have destroyed her. Nothing to do with "as soon as the Tories get into power they start something in the Falklands".


Opinion exists throughout history, that is a fact. The truth of the matter is that the falklands/maldinas or whatever you want to call them, are nothing to do with britain. The use of the word invasion implies that someone from "elsewhere" is an attacking force. Thatcher was behind the falklands war, thus being the invader, just because a british map labels the falklands as british territory doesn't me so for everyone else. Argentina has disputed for many many years that the islands are their territory and they decided to take action to get rid of the colonialist's.

Go look at a map and tell me why britain should have the falklands?



Originally posted by stumason
Current era - Argentina has been prattling about the Falklands since about 2007-2008, during the end of Blairs tenure and continuing during Browns' reign or terror. Again, has bugger all to do with the Tories.

Tell me why it becomes a headline, a moment of debate, and a priority everytime the Tories are in power then please.



It seems, rather than being interested in facts, you are prattling this line due to party prejudice.

Well i'm not going to agree with a Tory party am i, unless of course i were to be a capitalist pig who gets excited about war rhetoric involving the falklands.

I would have to say to look at facts from the otherside, it is fact that the falklands are off the coast of argentina, they are not off the coast of the UK... If argentina claimed an island off the coast of britain, you think the government would like that?

The falklands debate is a joke.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Did you not read my reply to you?

Kirchner re-ignited this debate, not Cameron.
The UK made a more than generous offer to Argentina, they turned it down.

Argentina are trying to provoke a reaction from the UK.
The UK will nor rise to the bait, they pose no threat whatsoever.

The Islands has never been Argentinian property and there has never been a permanent civilian Argentinian colony.
So please explain why the islands belongs to them when it has been inhabited by Britain since before Argentina even existed?

Thatcher didn't provoke or cause the '82 conflict.
Argentina illegally invaded the Islands and despite being requested to leave they refused.
British forces reclaimed what is both legally and morally UK territory.
Thatcher did exploit events to enable her re-election.....as much as I despise Thatcher I must say that I dare say the vast majority of politicians, regardless of political persuassion, would have done the same.

Why do you wilfully disregard the Islanders Right To Self-Determination as enshrined within the UN Charter and other UN articles?

I'm sure stu will have a more comprehensive reply in due course.


edit on 14/3/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Opinion exists throughout history, that is a fact. The truth of the matter is that the falklands/maldinas or whatever you want to call them, are nothing to do with britain. The use of the word invasion implies that someone from "elsewhere" is an attacking force. Thatcher was behind the falklands war, thus being the invader, just because a british map labels the falklands as british territory doesn't me so for everyone else. Argentina has disputed for many many years that the islands are their territory and they decided to take action to get rid of the colonialist's.


Argentina has only disputed the claim since WW2, long after international law recognises the lapsing of any territorial claims. They also never actually had possesion of the islands and we had them before Argenina even existed. They base their claim off the Spanish claim, but they gave up that claim in the Nootka Conventions, so it cannot be inherited by Argentina as a descendant of the Spanish Empire.


Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Go look at a map and tell me why britain should have the falklands?


Irrelevant. Geographic proximity has little to do with sovereignty. Look at Hawaii, for example. Or French Guyana. Or Curacao. I could go on, but your point is rubbish.


Originally posted by InsideYourMind
Tell me why it becomes a headline, a moment of debate, and a priority everytime the Tories are in power then please.


It hasn't. If you actually bothered to avail yourself of facts, you would know (and I have already told you) this has been going on for several years, during Blair and Browns tenure and was making headlines then.


Originally posted by InsideYourMind
I would have to say to look at facts from the otherside, it is fact that the falklands are off the coast of argentina, they are not off the coast of the UK... If argentina claimed an island off the coast of britain, you think the government would like that?


Your such a plank. They aren't "off the coast" of Argentina any more than the UK is "off the coast" of Spain. Again, proximity has nothing to do with it. The islands were settled by British people and no Argentines were there, they were uninhabited. The Argentine claim is based upojn Spains claim, which itself is derived from a Papal Bull dividing the "New World" between Spain and Portugal. If anything, their attempts are more "colonial" than anything we are doing.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 




Your such a plank.

Ironic.



They aren't "off the coast" of Argentina any more than the UK is "off the coast" of Spain. Again, proximity has nothing to do with it. The islands were settled by British people and no Argentines were there, they were uninhabited. The Argentine claim is based upojn Spains claim, which itself is derived from a Papal Bull dividing the "New World" between Spain and Portugal. If anything, their attempts are more "colonial" than anything we are doing.


The UK is a sovereign state. So it cannot be spanish. That is a terrible example.
And hawaii is technically "off the coast" of the US, it may be far out, but it's near enough to be classified as american territory.

Proximity has everything to do with it, as i was speaking about colonialism. Occupying and claiming scattered territory all over the globe is colonialism. It seems you do not like to read.

I don't see how a small island at the other end of the globe can be called british, if anything it should be a sovereign state, just as the UK is. In a similar way as to Australia being a sovereign state. Best bet, is that if it were too split-off and become a self dependant nation it would end the dispute between argentina.

Again, seems i am not entitled to an opinion.

Seig Heil cameron
...

(PS, wasn't this thread about Iran?)
edit on 15/3/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join