Question for people that live in the USA

page: 13
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Part of it is the fact that Ahmedinimidget stated in no uncertain terms that given the chance, he would wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Since we are allied with Israel, it stands to reason that we would defend them as such. I think it's a pretty compelling reason for preemptive action.

However, I think there needs to be undeniable proof that they have nukes.

edit on 9-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

No he didn't. Not only are you regurgitating a mistranslation you are embellishing the mistranslation. Jesus H !!!




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by superman2012
 


Congressional Armed Services Sub-Comittee briefing by CIA.

Split Infinity

Do you have a link? I can't seem to find a paper claiming that Iran is building nukes...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I watched the brief. I am sure you could find it as well as many other sources that show that U.S. Intel. services have stated although Iran is attempting to build a Nuke it has not yet done so.

Building an old style Fission Bomb is relatively easy if one has the fuel. Any kid at MIT could build one over a weekend.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by superman2012
 


I watched the brief. I am sure you could find it as well as many other sources that show that U.S. Intel. services have stated although Iran is attempting to build a Nuke it has not yet done so.

Building an old style Fission Bomb is relatively easy if one has the fuel. Any kid at MIT could build one over a weekend.

Split Infinity



I am happy that you have that much faith in me, but, believe me. I can't find it.
PS-I'm not sending my kids to MIT now!

Edit: I didn't want to have another post for thanking you for going to look for that for me. I appreciate it.
edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I will try to find it.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


No, I don't want people to parrot me.

I just wanted people to answer a VERY simple question if they were guilty of doing it.

..some people just don't understand that and put it on the internet for everyone to see...


It has always been very important to me, as a man, to not be a hypocrite. But, as a father, there has been times when I must place certain priorities above my desire to avoid hypocrisy, in order to protect my children. Yes, I have been a hypocrite, but only in protection of those things which I hold dear. I believe many Americans hold their rights dear to them, and in defense of those rights they may well be willing to look like a hypocrite. If that is the case, pointing out the hypocrisy means nothing.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


This is not the brief I saw but it will suffice.

www.gwu.edu...

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


It really doesn't say anything about nuclear weapons. It is mostly circumstantial evidence at best, at worst it is conjecture. I have seen this many times as it is from March of last year.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


The only reason that it is perceived as a "state of war" is because the US is interfering with their local matters. That is what I am talking about. They want to tell countries what to do. But no country can tell them what to do. It is very hypocritical.


What makes you think it is just the US against Iran?


In June 2006, the Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the P5 and Germany offer of diplomatic and economic incentives and demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. In December 2006, after Tehran's failure to comply, the Council imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology. Following the IAEA's offer to Tehran of a 60 day grace period where halting of the country's uranium enrichment would be exchanged for suspension of UN sanctions which Iran did not take up, the Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, intensifying the previous sanctions package while also naming specific officials as targets of the sanctions and adding additional sanctions against Iranian financial institutions.

www.globalpolicy.org...


By the way, according to that same article, earlier US Sanctions against Iran kept US oil companies out of Iran.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


So are you saying because of your unjustified fear of Iran mixed with your love of your children you would support/do support what is going on in Iran (sanctions) because of a "what if"? I admire your honesty and if I thought my children were in danger, I too, would most likely be guilty of being a hypocrite.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I don't think it is just the US, I have stated as much. This thread is a question to US ATS members though, so I stuck with that. My country is also right along with the US and I don't agree with it either.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I pulled it quickly but I did so because of the detail it shows of secret and Treaty Violating secret Iranian Nuclear Sites that the U.S. discovered. The NPT states that a country cannot build secret Nuclear Sites once it signs the NPT.

The issue here is simple.

Did Iran sign the NPT to be able to purchase Nuclear Tech? YES.
Did Iran break the NPT? YES.
Does this give the U.N. the power to enforce the treaty? YES.
Does enforcing the treaty mean possible military action to do so? YES
Will the U.S. allow Iran to develop Nuclear Weapons? NO.
Will the U.S. unilaterally force Iran to follow the NPT if Iran develops a Nuke? YES.
Is the U.S. capable of doing this? YES>

It's that simple.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I can't focus enough tonight to read 13 pages, so my input will probably be redundant and/or meaningless. But
I see the same hypocrisy the OP points at, and the people who have such conflicting opinions make me embarrassed of being American. But in every country, there are lots of hypocritical, illogical (and many other unattractive attributes) posting on the internet!

To me, it should be clear how, in a society, some members might oppose other members having weapons they can kill with. Just like some members of the international community feel some shouldn't be allowed to have weapons that could allow them to kill their neighbor,
it also makes sense that within a national community, some may feel that others shouldn't have weapons with which they could kill their neighbors quickly and easily, if they got in the mood to do it.

That is the hypocrisy I see- for the firearms question in the US is between Americans.
Maybe your neighbor doesn't trust you to be such a brilliantly intelligent, ethical and self disciplined weapons owner.
You could blow them away whenever you just got in the mood for it- heck you could do it on accident! One of your kids could!
It might have serious consequences for them. They should have just as much right to protest against that.

So in that way, I think it makes sense for other countries to say Iran shouldn't have nukes.... BUT then they shouldn't have them either!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


So are you saying because of your unjustified fear of Iran mixed with your love of your children you would support/do support what is going on in Iran (sanctions) because of a "what if"? I admire your honesty and if I thought my children were in danger, I too, would most likely be guilty of being a hypocrite.


First, I need to appoligize, I originaly believed gun rights to be the topic. Secondly, I support the sanctions against Iran because I believe that they are a threat to Israel and global security. I suppose that many in the world consider the US a threat, and by all means, they should take what ever actions they deem fit to defend themselves. That said, they should realize that those actions will only up the stakes, and in a time when a world war may be the only option for world powers that are edging up on insolvency. No, Americans won't lay down, we are far to proud, as well as much of the rest of the world, but we are playing this game from the respects of a large advantage. Hypocrisy? Maybe, but we will most likely write the history for the next generation, and we will just leave that little part out.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by dominicus
 





Doesn't matter about the structure of the Iranian government, when there were recently protests in that country to change the status quo, but the protesters were beaten into submission.


Kind of like the Occupy protests in the oh-so-more civilized US?


Occupy is mostly a staged Leftist protest against Capitalism and Representative Republicanism, mostly in favor of Socialistic programs and baillouts for student loans, mostly anti-Corporate, actively pursuing such things as "direct democracy" and something called "participatory democracy"...that is a mechanism for overruling our Representative form of govt and replacing with what they think is a movement of the Proletariat....which Lenin and Marx called a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or overthrow of the Petty Bourgeois merchants and installation of Proletariat rule. Even the CPUSA and the Neo Nazi Party marched with them. They were originally organized by a Canadian anti Capitalist faction with members from from former Communist countries, and also far left Day of Rage people.
Occupy does not represent the majority of American citizens, and many were even foreigners and likely illegals as well as new immigrants who have no true loyalty to the US.

www.fastcompany.com...

Many of these people were what my Dad would have called "Sh&^-Disturbers", pardon the expression, and were intent on starting skirmishes. They were camping out in public places like parks and other areas, and causing problems with local shops especially in New York.

Please do not compare this movement with a genuine movement of students and others in Iran who rose up against a nutty leadership.
edit on 10-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


So are you saying because of your unjustified fear of Iran mixed with your love of your children you would support/do support what is going on in Iran (sanctions) because of a "what if"? I admire your honesty and if I thought my children were in danger, I too, would most likely be guilty of being a hypocrite.


First, I need to appoligize, I originaly believed gun rights to be the topic. Secondly, I support the sanctions against Iran because I believe that they are a threat to Israel and global security. I suppose that many in the world consider the US a threat, and by all means, they should take what ever actions they deem fit to defend themselves. That said, they should realize that those actions will only up the stakes, and in a time when a world war may be the only option for world powers that are edging up on insolvency. No, Americans won't lay down, we are far to proud, as well as much of the rest of the world, but we are playing this game from the respects of a large advantage. Hypocrisy? Maybe, but we will most likely write the history for the next generation, and we will just leave that little part out.


ROFL! You win...please hand over all my stars, flags, karma, wats(?), and ATS points to onthedownlow. That last sentence is already a classic.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


It is not an issue or debate over whether it is right or wrong for one country to have Nukes and since they do tell another country they can't have Nukes. This is not the issue.

The issue is that a country that does not have Nukes or Nuclear Tech. signing a treaty to be able to purchase tech. they do not have. To purchase that tech. they must agree to conditions which they sign a treaty that states if they break the treaty they recognize the right of the U.N. to force them into compliance.

Iran knew what it was getting into.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


LIke others have said here, the gun control issue being pushed here by Progressives is far different than Nuclear Weapons development by a rogue country sporting Sharia Law and the return of the 12th Imam.

If you find Americans' adherence to the 2nd Amendment embarrassing, go ahead and be embarrassed. Who of us who still live in the US and are still Patriots care what embarrassment you feel.
edit on 10-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Break the NPT or assuming they broke it?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Haven't you heard, Americans are better than everyone else, so we can do things others can't.

And yes, sometimes I am very ashamed that I am an American.





top topics
 
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join