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.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mossme89
What is the problem?
In warfare, you kill your enemy.
I want my dangerous enemies dead.
Don't see the issue here.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by macman
Not asking for a lot of research out of you, but could you show me one statement where they say they would strike first. Thanks.
www.ynetnews.com...
First several paragraphs say enough for me.
Originally posted by Diablos
Typical bleeding heart pacifists.
If you don't want to kill our enemies, how about we dump you with them? Let's see how humane they are with you.
Our prime enemies are the majority of Middle Eastern countries, and we need to take them out one by one until we can isolate and finally conquer the ones with the most resources (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). If they don't have an adequate defense to defend their resources, then they are essentially begging for a powerful and merciful country like America to take it from them.
Then it's time to take out Asian and African countries. The world is ripe with resources and people who are too poor to harness it themselves, so we might as well take it away from them.
Human nature is human nature. People always fight over resources and the best always win the war.
Originally posted by ShiftTrio
reply to post by Destinyone
Please do not feed the trolls =)
Ignoring idiocy is your best defense IMHO =P
Originally posted by ShiftTrioPlease do not feed the trolls =)
Originally posted by Diablos
Typical bleeding heart pacifists.
If you don't want to kill our enemies, how about we dump you with them? Let's see how humane they are with you.
Our prime enemies are the majority of Middle Eastern countries, and we need to take them out one by one until we can isolate and finally conquer the ones with the most resources (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). If they don't have an adequate defense to defend their resources, then they are essentially begging for a powerful and merciful country like America to take it from them.
Then it's time to take out Asian and African countries. The world is ripe with resources and people who are too poor to harness it themselves, so we might as well take it away from them.
Human nature is human nature. People always fight over resources and the best always win the war.
Why is this video controversial? The audience responded in approval. Why? Because what Newt said was factually accurate. So what?
Originally posted by Drew99GTTypical internet tough guy child who has not lived in the real world. The US is right at 100% debt to GDP ratio and you want to engage in MORE colonization of the world?
Originally posted by Drew99GTYou'd never pick up a rifle and join the US military of course and put your own life at risk.
Originally posted by Drew99GTThe ideas you espouse really are childish, ignorant, and sickening.
Originally posted by Drew99GTWhy have trade when we can just march into sovereign lands and take the resources.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by P12SOLD
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by P12SOLD
Kind of like a really big Suicide Bomber, huh?
Yeah, you go ahead and believe that Iran would not do it.
Thats a false analogy. And, what prove have you got to show Iran would fire first upon Israel, if it had a nuclear weapon? Israel, it seems is carrying out covert actions inside Iran. Has Iran been as belligerent, as Israel?edit on 17-1-2012 by P12SOLD because: (no reason given)
I am not going to do your research.
There are many quotes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other groups stating they would strike if given the opportunity.
And yes, Iran has been on the covert, just like other countries.