Question for people that live in the USA

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by superman2012

 

Why do you believe americans support imperialist wars and conflicts?

We don't support these wars and our congress is not our congress anymore.

I get it. If the corporate nwo hijacked US government attacks iran then all of america supports it.

I understand that logic. No really I do. I am a conspiracy nut.

If you read the thread, or even bothered reading the first post.

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?

Some is not all. I specifically wanted to hear from the "some".

reply to post by superman2012


We don't control our government anymore.

Bush waged two illegal wars and lied about WMD.

CIA condones and shields the opium trade in Afghanistan and is allied with ruthless drug cartels in south america.

reply to post by superman2012


Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't belong to the people anymore. The people who are telling these other countries to butt out are not the voice of the people and in my opinion quite ignorant.

I think instead of building weapons of destruction we should build things to benefit man. Then again as I have said before; the U.S. doesn't belong to the people anymore.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Bush waged two illegal wars and lied about WMD.

And the majority of the western population was ready to swallow that same crap in regards to Iran. That is why I find the majority of those Iran threads hilarious. People have no clue.

Originally posted by isado
reply to post by superman2012

 

Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't belong to the people anymore. The people who are telling these other countries to butt out are not the voice of the people.

I think instead of building weapons of destruction we should build things to benefit man. Then again as I have said before; the U.S. doesn't belong to the people anymore.

I absolutely agree with you, but, I was more specifically talking about the US members of ATS. I have witnessed threads telling people to butt out of the US's business. It made the inventor of being hypocritical facepalm himself.

As you can see, the opinions vary. Typical US responses.

My response is this, first, it's as much the European union that is against iran building nukes as the U.S.. Just look at the sanctions. Those missiles are capable of hitting Europe, not the US.

Next, Iran is breaking it's agreement by developing nukes, if in fact they are.

Next, if we allow them to develope them, then the accords not to develope nukes is basically trashed with the Saudis developing them. Iraq just for self-defense, on and on. sooner or later, a Jihadist group "procures" one and New York or London or Paris gets a suntan. That proliferation is only stopped by an Israeli preempt on Iran, understandibly. There will be war either way.

To only compare US gunrights to Iran, perhaps a valid point, and ignore the consequences of a Nuclear Iraq is myopic/disingenuous on your part.

From my perspective, the US, and the European Union, have drawn a line in the sand. If they cave now, the next cave will be even quicker. An nuclear PLANET becomes inevitable and we all cook.

The current pressure on Iran is, IMO, the least "bad solution" that's out there. There's been too many "least basd solutions" these days....

I'm glad I'm getting old.LMAO.

reply to post by superman2012


I believe some people find it easier to forget all of our problem by simply dismissing it as "stupid," and ignoring the facts. That way everything they have been taught about our "Great Nation," doesn't crumble before them.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

You had me until this:

If so, I would say that is a very good question. However, your example that you used is terrible (IE handguns and rifles vs. nuclear weapons) I'm afraid.

American believe they are pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no proof. If they were indeed pursuing or had nuclear weapons then it would be a terrible analogy. As it stands, it is America's right to have weapons vs Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. Both are national issues as it stands right now.

Then you've changed the subject of the thread I'm afraid. Here is a quote from your OP:

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?

And you've repeated that several times in this thread with other posts.

Now your are saying that this is about Americans vs Iranians, One countries possession of nuclear weapons vs another country (which may or may not be) pursing having nuclear weapons.

You are trying to make yes, what is a National internal issue in the US and comparing it to our government's International issue with another country.

Which is it? What is really your question for this thread?

Is this thread about Americans being opinionated about other countries but being hypocritical about other countries?

You simply can not compare hand guns to WMDs. Armed Americans citizens(IE having guns privately) is not the same thing as the Iranian Government having Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's a horrible analogy.

Can you honestly sit there and say that a US citizen owning a hand gun is the same thing as the Iranian government owning nuclear weapons? It is simply not the same thing.

Now, if your analogy had been something like: ATS members who are Americans, who demand that non-Americans not voice their opinions on internal US affairs, but are at the same time demanding that Iranian citizens not own hand guns, THEN you'd a bit better of an argument.

But right now what you have is: a national US issue vs a International US policy.

Not the same thing. Sorry.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Well played.

reply to post by eriktheawful


No. You are trying to confuse the issue by not seeing everything I am saying and concentrating on one thing I have said at a time.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology is THEIR national issue.
USA's right to bear arms is THEIR national issue.

USA is critical of Iran's right to seek this technology even though it is a NATIONAL issue.
USA gets mad when people from outside the USA criticize their right to bear arms which is a NATIONAL issue.

Clear as mud now? All I was doing before was trying to show that Iran's nuclear program is their own national issue and not a global one, which is what some people believe it to be. It is no more a global issue then France's nuclear program is to anyone.

Again, I know people will not read this disclaimer but, this is not a blanket statement of all Americans, just of the conversations/threads/posts on ATS.

reply to post by superman2012

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?

Because U.S. eventually became a democracy based Republic that was supposed to be decentralized.

In example, the President is in Check by Congress, Congress in check by the Number of senators, which are in Check by the States, which are in check by the counties, which are in check by the people. It was supposed to be a system of checks and balances, and alot of that is still there.

While someone like Iran is basically an uneducated third world country with a dictator at the helm. This type of Government is unstable and there are no checks and balances, as well as having a skewed world view filtered by dogmatic religious fundamentalism.

It's just an unstable form of Government/Leadership. The masses there are uneducated and third world frames of mind rule the people.

To put it in context, it's like U.S. being a bunch of people who all have to agree on whether or not they will use a grenade.

Versus One psychotic religious unstable nut who decides for himself when and where he will use his grenade.

Originally posted by isado
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Well played.

If you agree with faulty logic and poor listening skills then yes, it was very well played.

reply to post by dominicus

While someone like Iran is basically an uneducated third world country with a dictator at the helm. This type of Government is unstable and there are no checks and balances, as well as having a skewed world view filtered by dogmatic religious fundamentalism.

You have some reading to do.
..but thanks for the laugh. Do you have any thoughts in relation to my question?

reply to post by superman2012


Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to get Nuclear tech it was not able to develop on it's own. Now it has built thousands of centrifuges in an old style way to enrich Uranium to Weapons Grade. Had Iran developed this tech on it's own and attempted or developed Nuclear Weapons on it's own there would not be so many U.N. resolutions calling for Iran to stop enrichment...but it did.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by superman2012

 

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to get Nuclear tech it was not able to develop on it's own. Now it has built thousands of centrifuges in an old style way to enrich Uranium to Weapons Grade. Had Iran developed this tech on it's own and attempted or developed Nuclear Weapons on it's own there would not be so many U.N. resolutions calling for Iran to stop enrichment...but it did.

Split Infinity

Still spouting your false rhetoric? You should know by now I will ask you for sources...also, what does any of that have to do with this thread? You lost?

reply to post by superman2012


LOL! False Rhetoric? LOL!

I believe it is VERY common knowledge that Iran had purchased it's Nuclear Reactors as well as Nuclear Fuel from Russia as well as the very well know fact it signed the NPT to be able to do this.

You are funny!

Split Infinity

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

No. You are trying to confuse the issue by not seeing everything I am saying and concentrating on one thing I have said at a time.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology is THEIR national issue.
USA's right to bear arms is THEIR national issue.

USA is critical of Iran's right to seek this technology even though it is a NATIONAL issue.
USA gets mad when people from outside the USA criticize their right to bear arms which is a NATIONAL issue.

Clear as mud now? All I was doing before was trying to show that Iran's nuclear program is their own national issue and not a global one, which is what some people believe it to be. It is no more a global issue then France's nuclear program is to anyone.

Again, I know people will not read this disclaimer but, this is not a blanket statement of all Americans, just of the conversations/threads/posts on ATS.

Because Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (IF that is what they are doing) is NOT and "national" issue. It's an international issue.

Look: Exactly HOW does armed (with guns) US citizens threaten any other country (other than by them invading us of course)?

It doesn't.

There are very strict laws about US citizens traveling outside US national borders with hand guns of any kind.

Now, exactly HOW does a armed (with nuclear weapons) Iranian GOVERNMENT threaten any other country?

That should be quite obvious to anyone.

This isn't about technology in one country vs technology in another country.

This thread, created by you, is trying to say that Americans complaining that non-US citizens being critical of the US because of how we feel about our guns, is hypocritical because we (Americans) are complaining about the government (not the citizens) of Iran having nuclear weapons.

Any one that has eyes and can read your OP can plainly see that is the analogy you used.

And it's a bad one, because ONE is about an INTERNAL national issue, while the other is again, an INTERNATIONAL issue that could affect every single country on the face of this planet.

Ludicrous.

Again: if you had shown where Iranians were wanting to have a right to bare arms (guns) and their government was allowing it, yet Americans were complaining about it, then you would be right. A National issue vs a National issue.

But you didn't. You used a completely different set of circumstances to try and make an analogy that just, simply does not work.

reply to post by superman2012


In the end it will always be, "They are wrong, not me!"

As to people on ATS; nine times out of ten a members ego will surpass their ability to reason.

reply to post by isado


Although what you state is true...in this case Iran has broken International Treaties and Laws. It is cut and dry and not subjective as I'm Right YOUR Wrong!

They must either abide by the NPT or risk being forced to do so.

Split Infinity

Well, Alex Jones said in 2010 that sources say the Bilderbergs wanted US air strikes on Iran. It's their agenda, not the citizens of the US. They may try to convince us that we need to do it. Supposedly it was to distract from all the failures of Bilderberg to get their Global Tax. I think they would do it anyway just because they can.
Obama has been too busy with Fast and Furious gun and drug running with the Mexicans and Libyans though. Anyway, he's got his gal Valerie over there acting as Ambassador. After all she was Iranian born to American parents.
www.theblaze.com...

While the body of the report offers no further detail about what full diplomatic relations would mean, a graphic accompanying Maariv’s report (pictured above, beneath the images of Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) states renewed relations would include: direct flights between Washington or New York and Tehran; granting entry permits for American visitors to Iran and for Iranians to visit the U.S.; “security cooperation and defense of citizens visiting in the host country”; diplomatic dialogue at a senior level; and an exchange of senior officials’ visits.

So not only does this admin want to open relations with Iran, it likely wants to open the doors to inviting Sharia Law into the US in the form of increased Iranian immigration. Let us remember that Shia is more prone to the Sharia law than Sunni, and Iranians are almost exclusively Shia.

I don't remember hearing the Obama team wanting to give Tunisians more visas. Why Iran? Amedinajad is reported to be a "Twelver". Maybe Obama is secretly one too?

Here is a link to the AJ article

www.prisonplanet.com...

Oh here is an alternate article on Jarrett and secret talks with Iran, in case there are Beck haters around

washington.cbslocal.com...