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.

 

The "OH SO GREAT" United States of America

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 02:46 AM
link   
"Once again think before you post. Right after 9/11 we withdrew from this treaty. This is one of the reasons that N.Korea is acting the way it is. By withdrawing from that treaty we basically said that we might use our nuclear weapons if we feel we have to. I see you don't follow the news lucker "

LOL!!! If someone had a gun to your head and said they might use it if you continue to act like a moron what would you do? Act like a moron and get killed or would you shut the # up?

Hilarious!




posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 05:37 AM
link   
erm.... sorry, have i missed something here? im being told to think before i post!?!?! and YOU are telling me not to say 'shutup'?

id like someone who isnt from america to prove these right or wrong...... it seems people are trying to protect their country by saying that these are incorrect because of an opinion of theirs, instead of a fact.

"I SUGGEST TO ALL OF YOU IN THIS FORUM NOT TO ANSWER JC DENTON UNTILL HE ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS ABOVE. YOUR CREDIBILITY IS ON THE LINE MY FRIEND."
erm, like the admin said, its a discussion forum.... answers? and answer sources plz? i dont want opinion and poor attempts at insults. thankyou

and what is "PWNED"?



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JCDenton

1) Which is the only country in the world to have
dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945?

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?

4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?

5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law?

6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support"
for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?

7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile(ABM)Treaty in December 2001?

8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?

9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001?

10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be applied to children?

12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?

13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?

14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?

15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?


check this out:

free.freespeech.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

check this out:

free.freespeech.org...


Almost all is good info, the problem of americans agreeing on that, is that they won´t recognize it as a bad thing, cause media shows to them that they do it "for the good", or for the "free" when it´s pure hipocrisy and sarcasm...
People that doesn´t read what is in the web won´t get it, and the ppl that is gonna read it, are gonna try to face those facts...
Starting from the massacre done to indians before 1776 we start in the land of the free and brave



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:58 AM
link   
ARGGGGGGGGGGGG


free.freespeech.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
Its so good to see the masses fighting for control of the master's whip. If we beat ourselves with it first does it sting a little less???

The point is being missed in this discussion. All authority is invasion. All governments are guilty of aggression. Is it the greater evil to kill 600,000 in one instant or force millions to live on their knees for centuries?

I am stunned by the fact that men who have little or no knowledge of psychology, ontology, philosophy or sociology are armed and sent into the world to police me...



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dangerous_Brian
"Once again think before you post. Right after 9/11 we withdrew from this treaty. This is one of the reasons that N.Korea is acting the way it is. By withdrawing from that treaty we basically said that we might use our nuclear weapons if we feel we have to. I see you don't follow the news lucker "

LOL!!! If someone had a gun to your head and said they might use it if you continue to act like a moron what would you do? Act like a moron and get killed or would you shut the # up?

Hilarious!


The treaty was with Russia!!!! Not Iraq, not North Korea or Afghanistan. Your analogy dosen't apply here. Opps try again



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JCDenton
erm.... sorry, have i missed something here? im being told to think before i post!?!?! and YOU are telling me not to say 'shutup'?

id like someone who isnt from america to prove these right or wrong...... it seems people are trying to protect their country by saying that these are incorrect because of an opinion of theirs, instead of a fact.

"I SUGGEST TO ALL OF YOU IN THIS FORUM NOT TO ANSWER JC DENTON UNTILL HE ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS ABOVE. YOUR CREDIBILITY IS ON THE LINE MY FRIEND."
erm, like the admin said, its a discussion forum.... answers? and answer sources plz? i dont want opinion and poor attempts at insults. thankyou

and what is "PWNED"?


I wasn't talking to you Neo I was talking to lucker. I see that you didn't read my post did you



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 09:14 AM
link   


The 3 BIG LIES About Iraq

by John Pilger
www.rense.com...

1 – Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq — the threat of its “weapons of mass destruction”.

Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq’s arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.”

As for Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear threat,” the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance.

Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that “the weapons inspectors are allowed back”. Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

2 – Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11.

There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, [2002] a New York Times investigation concluded:

“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.”

3 – Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, “is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq.” (British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain).

The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
"15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?"

Bwhahahahahahahahahahha! This statement shoots all your credibility to heck!
Because Every Security Council Member has incurred debt...in fact at last count...I believe there were a total of three countries who had paid their debt to the UN and they had done so by taking out loans from America! I'll find the link later when I get home from school (to give myself more credibility) but wow...just wow....



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by abstract_alao


The 3 BIG LIES About Iraq

by John Pilger
www.rense.com...

1 – Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq — the threat of its “weapons of mass destruction”.

Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq’s arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.”

As for Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear threat,” the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance.

Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that “the weapons inspectors are allowed back”. Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

2 – Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11.

There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, [2002] a New York Times investigation concluded:

“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.”

3 – Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, “is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq.” (British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain).

The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.


1) It doesn't matter how many weapons of mass destruction they have. It's the pure and simple fact that they will use them.

2) This is where you seem a little mixed up. It's not that they have a direct tie, it's that he was cutting a check to the families of people to perpetuate terrorism. The last time I checked, this would make him a supporter of terrorism, and not to be tolerated.

3) He was also killing over 1000 a week, and didn't we just ask to open sanctions. I know you posted this before, but it looks to me like we're not trying to block anything.


AF1

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 02:28 PM
link   
What a lot of you fail to realize is why the United States has done these things. Sure, anyone can take a fact and turn it around to meet their needs. Example, the only country to use nuclear weapons in a war, the United States. Well, a quick check of history will show WHY it was needed, and why it was not a bad decision. Countless more would have died, on both sides, unless the A-bomb was dropped. The Japanese were planning to have their kids use sticks to fight, come on sticks. So the decision to use the A-bomb was in fact a good tactical maneuver. It ended the war quickly and though killed many people, saved many more lives. Most fail to realize their are REASONS why these things are done. Libya was bombed because they sponsored terrorism, I haven't heard a peep from them since. Don't distort the facts to fit your own agenda, and only the truly ignorant will believe these things. I suggest that you all go take some History classes, and if you live in the US i understand why you would believe why all these things are bad, they don't teach these things in school. Stop for a second and educate yourself, then you will have a much better understanding of the subject and will be able to debate better. Plus it will look much better than copying and pasting.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ok. So we should all realize the accountant-mentality you are displaying while juggling with death numbers is a gift to the world ? Let me do some number juggling. Saddam was in power for thirty years. More than 20.000 (probably much more) die in The US from social violence per year, as a consequence of it's economic system(in my bright death-accountant definition). That's 600 000 domestic deaths. Plus 500.000 from the embargo in Iraq (I'm a D.A.). Thats 1.100.000 killed for the US in the US/Iraq balance. How many did Saddam kill ? let's say 100.000. Ok there was more in wars, but wars happen, you know .. look to vietnam. That's, all in all 1.100.000 against perhaps 100.000. WOW. Who's the bad guy now ?

There is no justification for the use of nuclear weapons.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 04:11 PM
link   
(I hope TC sees this)

Max, if that's not 'liberal math' then....

Nukes were indeed justified in WW II. There is no shame in admitting that lesser negative consequences might be touched off even as one accomplishes a greater good



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AF1
What a lot of you fail to realize is why the United States has done these things. Sure, anyone can take a fact and turn it around to meet their needs. Example, the only country to use nuclear weapons in a war, the United States. Well, a quick check of history will show WHY it was needed, and why it was not a bad decision. Countless more would have died, on both sides, unless the A-bomb was dropped. The Japanese were planning to have their kids use sticks to fight, come on sticks. So the decision to use the A-bomb was in fact a good tactical maneuver. It ended the war quickly and though killed many people, saved many more lives. Most fail to realize their are REASONS why these things are done.


Now that may apply when they droped the first bomb. After they droped the first one the jappenses were ready to surrender. But We didn't care. We wanted revenge!!!! We droped the second bomb out of revenge. Can't you see that?!?!?



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Abstract, do you know what 'revisionist history' means?



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR
ARGGGGGGGGGGGG


free.freespeech.org...


poor donkey


AF1

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Now that may apply when they droped the first bomb. After they droped the first one the jappenses were ready to surrender. But We didn't care. We wanted revenge!!!! We droped the second bomb out of revenge. Can't you see that?!?!?




If we wanted revenge so bad then we could have easily left the Japanese after we won, turned our back and left their country for ruin. Do you think they would have honestly been able to recover, especially in this century? Alas, the evil America didn't do this though. Instead they took their enemy who they had just defeated, and helped restructure their entire country. They rebuilt an entire economy, which is one of the top ones not just in the Asian market, but in the world market as well. This was a country that had attacked America, yet we helped them so much afterward. We weren't obligated to do anything. Now they are one of our only true allies left. Now honestly, do you think Japan would be as successful as it is today if it wasn't for what America has done.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:51 PM
link   
This thread is the epitome of how Americans have been brainwashed to love their country that is a serial killer.

Just let me add to the infinite amounts of evil acts committed by America.

The My Lai Massacre, Vietnam.



posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AF1

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Now that may apply when they droped the first bomb. After they droped the first one the jappenses were ready to surrender. But We didn't care. We wanted revenge!!!! We droped the second bomb out of revenge. Can't you see that?!?!?




If we wanted revenge so bad then we could have easily left the Japanese after we won, turned our back and left their country for ruin. Do you think they would have honestly been able to recover, especially in this century? Alas, the evil America didn't do this though. Instead they took their enemy who they had just defeated, and helped restructure their entire country. They rebuilt an entire economy, which is one of the top ones not just in the Asian market, but in the world market as well. This was a country that had attacked America, yet we helped them so much afterward. We weren't obligated to do anything. Now they are one of our only true allies left. Now honestly, do you think Japan would be as successful as it is today if it wasn't for what America has done.


Look at at the parts in your computer or any electronic for that matter. Where did they come from?!?! nuff said



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join