Question for people that live in the USA

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Fog of what? Let me google that!
haha




Serious question looking for serious answers. I know this will not dissuade some of you, but at least I tried.
Quite a few people that believe Iran is building towards a nuclear bomb are saying that they should not be doing so.
Quite a few people, in the US, responded in quite a few 2nd amendment threads where people from other countries, were telling them they should get rid of their guns.

So, my question is, why is it ok for some US citizens to tell people what to do in their country, but, if someone tells you what to do in your country, it is stupid and they should keep their nose out of your business? Is this a case of, do as I say, not as I do? Also, why, in the face of this double standard, should we take anything you say from now on seriously?

Thanks in advance for keeping this civil.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Hmm sounds like family...

Like..I can say my brother is a whacked out asphole but I better not catch you saying anything bad about him!!

Right?

Eh, people are too sensitive.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by anton74
 


But the very fact that it isn't done means it is in violation. It doesn't say, "after a time", "within", no timeline at all. Which would means that it should have been done as quick as possible.

Think back to when you were a kid. Your parents told you to clean your room. What did that mean? As long as it gets done sometime before you move out? No. It means now. If your room isn't cleaned within a satisfactory and easy to handle timeline you are in violation of what your parent said and there would be consequences.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Oh no you didn't......



So, any way.

Y'all were saying?




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by anton74
 


But the very fact that it isn't done means it is in violation. It doesn't say, "after a time", "within", no timeline at all. Which would means that it should have been done as quick as possible.

Think back to when you were a kid. Your parents told you to clean your room. What did that mean? As long as it gets done sometime before you move out? No. It means now. If your room isn't cleaned within a satisfactory and easy to handle timeline you are in violation of what your parent said and there would be consequences.


The IAEA has said that Iran is not in compliance, where is their complaint against the U.S.?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by anton74
 


I haven't heard of one.

The problems with Iran stems from Natanz. It is a military base claims Iran, which is not in the jurisdiction of the IAEA. They want to inspect it. Iran says no. Israel says they must be building nukes. US gov't agrees. Not one intelligence agency agrees with this, on either side.
So tell me. If a military base is not in the jurisdiction of the IAEA, isn't Iran covered by the 3rd point until it is proven otherwise?

I never said the US had an investigation or complaint by the IAEA. I was merely making a point that they are not following the NPT to the letter, which they aren't.

Edit: Be back tomorrow morning with some more headache inducing arguments/facts.
edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Where can I buy one pair of glasses like those ?



But another double standard is when they need relief who do they come crawling too?


Can you provide a case so I can attest to its validity ? If you are still referring to WW2 the US was in large measure responsible for letting it get as far as it went. It could have been better managed before the Spanish Civil war. In fact the US profited extremely from WW2, they even got to dictate the end of all other empires, including the British (something that Churchill fought tooth and nails to preserve) I think that even in more recent events the US only gets into something for profit... Note that I'm not stating that the US is unique in this behavior it is just extremely laud and always pretends that its is doing other people a favor.



And who rushes to their Aid?


As corporations, nations aren't people. Their domain is about power (not only economic power), nations aren't altruistic. I would also state that nations have a thing that is defined as national pride, part patriotisms part recognition for the great dead of their society, in general the older the nation the better they tend to protect their national dignity, as it is money in the bank for future generations, this is were resides the national memory. Why the French dislike the English (and vice versa) etc etc You can also at China or the reasons it has grievances with some nations. Something like a national karma may indeed exist.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
In the first few decades of the new world, (America) our laws, theology, and freedoms were clear, we had a vision, a way of life, a way to make life free from the powers that squash human rights and ability to create a happy people. Time moved forward and expansion and a diverse population created an enviornment that was perpetual change and forever fluid. America still to this day tries to be the place and source for freedom and rights for everyone, even on the other side of the planet. After WW2 the world was a different place and former allies who acomplished the almost impossible, drew apart and trust and progress evaporated. This is where all parties involved failed the world in my humble opinion. technology and human invention seperated and pointed their agressions at each other instead of working together for the good of mankind. The world now is just a bag of insanity in a microwave with an infinite timer. Seriously, after America, list all of the aggressors on this planet, everyone who has a hand in weapons, weapon technology, warfare anything and they are part of the whole mass insanity that is seconds away from disaster. There are no simple solutions, But someone has to start the cooldown process and Iran with a nuke is not the answer. With superpower status comes super responsibility, And you can only work with a people who want peace and prosperity for everyone on the rock. Any moron with a keyboard can search google and see the list of times that leaders have said certain countries should be wiped off the map, dont deny something you can search and find easy. We are not the answer to everything, and we do not do what is right and fair all of the time, no one is perfect, but as a whole, we are not the worst thing going, cause if that was the case, people would be fleeing, not flocking to America.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The Iran nuke argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

First, you trust Zionists with nukes more then a country that hasn't invaded another country in over 200 years?

Even if they do get nukes, so what? Do you guys honestly think Iran will commit seppuku? If they nuke Israel Iran would be finished.

It is illogical to think that a country like Iran is a threat. Who is the the real threat? Israel and the United states.

The US averages a war every 20 years.
Who are you going to trust more? A country that hasn't invaded another country in over 200 years or an Empire that averages a war every 20 years?

And please spare me the "Ahmadinejad wants to annihilate Israel"

He was misquoted, he was talking about the Zionist REGIME.


Check out this interview.


www.youtube.com...
edit on 10-1-2013 by Kang69 because: utube link not working



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
A lot of right wing extremist Americans (like the majority of ATS members) have a superiority complex and are constant hypocrites.

Most Americans are nothing like the fanatics on this website.

edit on 10-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
I live with double standards, But, I totally agree about your post. US should just butt out of other countries business and wars and let them fight it out. But another double standard is when they need relief who do they come crawling too? And who rushes to their Aid?.. The US. lol
edit on 9-1-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

It's a misconception that foreign aid is given freely, there are usually always strings attatched.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
Serious question looking for serious answers. I know this will not dissuade some of you, but at least I tried.

Quite a few people that believe Iran is building towards a nuclear bomb are saying that they should not be doing so.

Quite a few people, in the US, responded in quite a few 2nd amendment threads where people from other countries, were telling them they should get rid of their guns.

So, my question is, why is it ok for some US citizens to tell people what to do in their country, but, if someone tells you what to do in your country, it is stupid and they should keep their nose out of your business?

Is this a case of, do as I say, not as I do? Also, why, in the face of this double standard, should we take anything you say from now on seriously?

Thanks in advance for keeping this civil.


Quite simply put.... we do NOT need ANOTHER nuclear power in the world, we need none honestly.... but comparing bullets to nukes is kind of absurd if you ask me...

I'm also not for gun control.. mostly because it doesn't solve the root problem which is mental health.. a rational, sane person would be fine with a gun.. the problem is identifying and treating people before they commit acts of violence.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
The Iran nuke argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

First, you trust Zionists with nukes more then a country that hasn't invaded another country in over 200 years?

Even if they do get nukes, so what? Do you guys honestly think Iran will commit seppuku? If they nuke Israel Iran would be finished.


It's funny that this argument is used CONSTANTLY to defend Iran ... they haven't invaded a country in 200 years so obviously they are peaceful.. that statement is false...

Iran is very well known for fighting by proxy.. in other words, they don't directly engage their enemies.. instead they provide funding and weapons to groups that attack their enemy for them... Now imagine they had nuclear weapons.... they "lose" one and one of those groups they support "finds" it.....

There's absolutely nothing good to come of Iran going nuclear...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
I'm also not for gun control.. mostly because it doesn't solve the root problem which is mental health.. a rational, sane person would be fine with a gun.. the problem is identifying and treating people before they commit acts of violence.

So, you accept mental health considerations were not made when your FF's decided "everybody has the right to bear arms"? Do you not think truly wise elders would have thought twice about letting even the village idiot run around with a loaded musket?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
Right, comparing nukes to bullets is a bit ridiculous. That's why I didn't do it. I have clarified this about 3 or 4 times in this thread. What are your thoughts regarding my actual question in this thread?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 





Iran is very well known for fighting by proxy.. in other words, they don't directly engage their enemies.. instead they provide funding and weapons to groups that attack their enemy for them... Now imagine they had nuclear weapons.... they "lose" one and one of those groups they support "finds" it.....


Name one country that that doesn't use (or create) a terrorist group to fight for them. Has a nuclear bomb detonation by a terrorist group happened yet? This argument is ridiculous for people against a nuclear Iran. They are following the NPT, they just don't want the IAEA into Natanz, which they claim is a military base, which is not in the jurisdiction of the IAEA. They are allowed to pursue nuclear power.


Edit: In fact, the US people were allowed to donate to the FSA, which as we all know, was compromised of Al-Queda. Now why does that group seem so familiar?...
edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 

The Iranian regime supports terrorism and could supply a weapon to a terrorist group (or they could be the patsy for a false flag preceding an invasion if it is determined that they are close to making one).



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Kang69
 

The Iranian regime supports terrorism and could supply a weapon to a terrorist group (or they could be the patsy for a false flag preceding an invasion if it is determined that they are close to making one).


Any country could do that/be that.

Any thoughts on my question?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


They could, with their Quds forces..no pun meant really....


Those same Iran Quds have gone into Iraq with EFPs, to conduct demonstrations and distributions ops. So, theoretically, if they had a nuke, the same could be done. This is the possed threat from a nuclear Iran, as I understand it.

As for them having nuclear energy, that is a matter related but different.



Yeah, I'm against nuclear weapons, but for it as an energy source. That leaves the problem of sponsoring Iran and handling their disposal, to make that work.

How about them apples?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I was thrown off at first as well because he seemed to be comparing Iran nukes to the US second Amendment which didn’t make any sense.

This is his only real question.




So, my question is, why is it ok for some US citizens to tell people what to do in their country, but, if someone tells you what to do in your country, it is stupid and they should keep their nose out of your business?

Is this a case of, do as I say, not as I do? Also, why, in the face of this double standard, should we take anything you say from now on seriously?


So I gave him a strait forward answer but he didn’t seem to like it but anyway the only real question he is asking I just posted above.

Forget about all the Iran nukes or Americas second amendment stuff it just detracts from his question.





top topics
 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join