It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unmasking The United Nations: Tool of American Terror

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I wonder if the Iranian government has informed the Iranian people that shortages are the result of an attempt by the United States to economically strangle Iran in order to force "regime change".

I wonder how the Iranians would respond to that.

Iran has been under some form of sanctions by the United States and varying numbers of Allies since 1980. Would you assume the Iranian people weren't aware of why they're short some things in the stores? It's a long long way from a 3rd world nation though. They produce most of what they use or buy it from other World Powers who don't care.

Isn't strangulation of the elderly and the sick a crime in the United States? I'm not sure about the case of Nazi Germany. I'm sure it would be fine to strangle some of the sick and the elderly there. In Nazi Germany certain categories of the sick and the elderly could be dispatched relatively easily.

Did the Nazi Germany reference really need to come in? (sigh)

What is the current thinking in the United States? Is it alright to strangle Iranian sick and elderly people in order to force "regime change" in Iran. Wasn't the Iranian government elected in an internationally observed election that was judged "fair", as such things go?

Can you link to any official sanction material that lists items that directly harm elderly or sick people by their being excluded? If so...are these items Russia, China and the allies to that side of things won't or can't supply? They still do brisk business with Iran on all levels, after all.

We know that the United States has forced "regime change" in Iran in the past. There was a problem about the oil export business. The Iranian government was fighting with its business partners over the price it was getting for oil.

You realize you are reaching back to 1953 and Eisenhower's Presidency to cite that example? Err... I'll agree that Ike did make quite a mistake with all that ... 60 years ago.

Most people would say that if one were fighting with the manager of a store over the prices, that organizing a boycott of the store in order to remove the manager and put one's friend in as the new manager in order to lower prices in the store, might be going a little too far, particularly if one started issuing threats to people in order to get them to go along with the boycott.

What store manager has terrorists operating out in the residential neighborhood and may even have weapons he shouldn't, right under the counter of the business? We don't know the second part for sure..or what nature those weapons would be ...but that's kinda the point. Iran isn't helpful on that matter and they could be if they chose to be. Parchin is a Military facility and a Nuclear one. They make no bones about it and even cite THAT as the reason the IAEA can't see inside. Military facilities aren't covered by the agreements, apparently.

The American government doesn't believe that Iran should have a nuclear weapon and doesn't believe Iran should have the ability to make a nuclear weapon. It has neither but even if Iran had never heard of nuclear fission, America would still want regime change.

Perhaps so.... I'm not happy with the direction George Bush and Barack Obama have taken this nation. Collectively, they've changed it to something I hardly recognize anymore. However, I'll say the same thing about Iran that I did about Iraq in 2002. Iran CAN END THIS. Any time they choose...and they can make Obama look like a TOTAL ASS. Just as Saddam could have with Bush...and in hindsight, knowing what he didn't have, I'll never understand why he didn't. Iran can throw open the doors of the places people say this stuff what IS NOT THERE ...and then dare the U.S. or anyone to touch them. The world would go to war against US before they'd let us then. We can end this...but so can they.

The nuclear issue has been a "red herring" for a long time but by means of its aggression the Americans are starting to turn the "red herring" into a "salty, silver herring". North Korea, a regime one hundred times further away from the American ideal than Iran, has proved the utility of a nuclear arsenal.

See above with regard to Iran. They can end this by showing what they don't have. Some may say they shouldn't have to ....but then, Saddam didn't have to either. He hung until dead for making that decision too. Right or Wrong (and I'd agree it was wrong) it's how this works now.

I agree on North Korea though and it's a bad bad example for the US to set. NK is safe...and Gadaffi became a rape victim before being executed because he DID surrender everything he had in 2003, by choice and freely. Had he kept them, I'll bet he'd still be alive. Libya isn't Iran tho... nothing remotely similar.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:08 PM
Today's modernly labelled "economic sanctions" is what used to be known as a common tactic of war:


We just gave it a nice shiny new name to make it all warm and fuzzy feeling to give the illusion of "peaceful resolutions".

But the tactic is exactly the same... you "starve out" the enemy by way of impairing their ability to continue functioning properly as a country/society/village. In today's trade-dependent world, it's just a simple matter of freezing their import/export abilities, bit by bit, sanction by sanction.

Then you just sit back and watch the civilians die off slowly... eventually forcing the enemy leaders to beg for mercy and agree to anything you demand of them.

The civilians are the ones that pay the highest price in this "siege" tactic.

All in the name of "humanitarian peaceful resolutions".

It's a sick and twisted world we live in.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by CranialSponge

There's a big difference between these sanctions and any kind of siege though.

US extends waivers on Iran oil sanctions

Sieges didn't come with enough waivers issued to make the overall effort more symbolic than real. Oil is but one area they've been handed out rather freely in.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:25 PM
I don't want to toot my own horn too much but I and a few others on ATS regularly put up a better defence of Middle Eastern countries in America's gunsights than the leaders of those countries do themselves.

Do you know why that is? It is because all of those countries operate under the pathetic delusion that their arguments with the United States are failures of communication or misunderstandings.

They are operating under the assumption that American foreign policy is sophisticated and that it reflects some sort of informed appreciation of the overall picture in the Middle East.

They don't realize what has happened in America. They don't realize that the world has changed in ways it never has before. They don't realize that they are locked in their own drugstore with a drug addict that also happens to be a homicidal maniac, driven so by his addiction.

America is addicted to cheap energy. When I say America, I mean the only people who really matter in America, the American oligarchy, the people who own and operate the United States.

Middle Eastern leaders didn't wake up to whom they were dealing with until it was too late. Their replacements still think that everything is going to be alright, the new stooges that is. The Egyptian students think that it's all going to be alright.

They don't realize that they have made a deal with Jack the Ripper.

I think America should be better than it has been since 2001. I believe in America. I think that they can get it together and become decent again. If they can't, we are all going to be living in the Fourth Reich before too much longer.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

Would it be worth while discovering the killers owners?

Follow the money sounds right.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in