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.

 

WAR: US General Warns Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I don't really perceive the General's statements quite the way some others here are taking it. It's not a direct threat, IMO. It is really just a reminder.




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
wow the US even has a comical ali

even so the USA can over run IRAN it will so with heavy loses
of a couple of thousends US marines and a few ships in the gulf

what the heck they are expendable they are just like pawns in a game of chess


Iran is stocking up on
anti aircraft missiles
anti ship missiles
it has thousends of anti tank rockets

it has a few hundred air craft that it can try and use ( unless they do a saddam and bury them )

what does the general think that the iranians are going just drop to their knees and say we give up?


in the end of the day there is always people or just someone that will stand up to a bully and there is always 3 outcomes

1. they bully beats crap them up
2. they beat the bully up
3. they make a truce with the bully



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   
If I was the U.S, I would put presure on European countries to step up and take charge of this,this way it doesn't look like another U.S led war against the middle east,it would save them alot of money and alot less bull#.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
If I was the U.S, I would put presure on European countries to step up and take charge of this,this way it doesn't look like another U.S led war against the middle east.


Very good point, I agree with you if US invade or target another country after Afghanistan and Iraq it definitely will look like US is against the muslin countries in the middle east, and I think that it will be more terror attacks directed at US interest in the world.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
If I was the U.S, I would put presure on European countries to step up and take charge of this,this way it doesn't look like another U.S led war against the middle east,it would save them alot of money and alot less bull#.


where has Iran even treatend europe?
i never saw news article were europe was directly threatend

it always seems to the US that has problems

i dont see the point in the US draging the rest of europe down to its level
like its done to the UK



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I think it sounds like there may be reason to say some of these things. Maybe something we as Americans have not been told. Secret intelligence ops know way more than we will ever hear on public broadcast. Maybe there has been some sort of threat of war on US soil???
And as an American I can say that when threated I will become defensive. And would prolly act the same. Not so much a bully, just standing my ground. Protecting whats mine. Keeping my family safe. Its human nature in all mankind.
Just a thought...



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by thecry
If I was the U.S, I would put presure on European countries to step up and take charge of this,this way it doesn't look like another U.S led war against the middle east,it would save them alot of money and alot less bull#.


where has Iran even treatend europe?
i never saw news article were europe was directly threatend

it always seems to the US that has problems

i dont see the point in the US draging the rest of europe down to its level
like its done to the UK



Europe has policies against nuclear proliferation aswell,it would not benefit any european country or any country for that matter to let Iran make nuclear weapons because for ever country that has nuclear weapons the odds that nuclear weapons will be used goes up as well..
I can see why Iran feels threatened by the U.S but making WMD's is only going to make more enemies for themselves.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
sweatmonicaIdo (ahg i really hate that name), The US didn't kill over a million Iranians.
damn liberals
[edit on 29-11-2004 by Murcielago]


So, you don't like my name. What are you going to do about it? Call General Abizaid and have him threaten me?


And nice going cementhead. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're illiterate! I said America is partially responsible for the deaths of over a million Iranians. Sadly for you, history is history. And you continue to feed the false image America is illiterate.


Damn dumb@$$es.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Bodrul
where has Iran even treatend europe?
i never saw news article were europe was directly threatend

it always seems to the US that has problems

i dont see the point in the US draging the rest of europe down to its level
like its done to the UK


Iran has just developed there newest longest range missile called the Shahab-3 and it has a range of 1,250 miles, which puts Europe within range. Iran also is planning on using this new missile (which by the way can use nuclear or conventional) to put satellites into Low Earth Orbit, and you can imagine that if the percieved a US air assault they could launch it with a nuclear warhead and into space and have it explode, and with the blast, debris, EMP, this could cause extensive damage to the US military's satellites.

Also, Marge -- The Iranian people would not be our concern, as we would only take out nuclear facilities and military bases, and we would do it with conventional means (IE:No nukes & radiation or Chem or Bio). So the civilian casualties would be low.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Murcielago
sweatmonicaIdo (ahg i really hate that name), The US didn't kill over a million Iranians.
damn liberals
[edit on 29-11-2004 by Murcielago]


So, you don't like my name. What are you going to do about it? Call General Abizaid and have him threaten me?


And nice going cementhead. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're illiterate! I said America is partially responsible for the deaths of over a million Iranians. Sadly for you, history is history. And you continue to feed the false image America is illiterate.


Damn dumb@$$es.


Nothing, I was just thinking to myself and decided to type it.

Go on, Almighty Enlightened One, explain how the US had a hand in Killing a million Iranians.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The General is sending a clear message "make any moves against us and we will use whatever means necessary to defeat you and we do have the means". As long as no moves are made against the US nothing happens.


Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Violent gestures like this, a typical 'mad dog' policy, are the sign that the war effort is wearing the US down. Even in full gear the US warmachine stand not an ounce of a chance against a really powerful country like Iran. After the mess in Iraq, Abizaid's saber-rattling can only be qualified as very silly.


I don't think it's silly at all. The only silly thing I read here is what you said " a really powerful country like Iran". They might be powerful when compared to many countries on the planet, but their not even in the same league as the US.

Did you even bother to read the whole article? If you did maybe you missed this part.

"If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."
Enough said.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Nothing, I was just thinking to myself and decided to type it.

Go on, Almighty Enlightened One, explain how the US had a hand in Killing a million Iranians.


Saddam was America's violent protege in the Middle East, America financially and militarily supported Iraq, Saddam asked if the U.S. was okay with picking on Iran, America said "have fun." America and France supplied them heavily with weapons and other forms of support. I think that's helping the killing of Iranians, not preventing.

Did you call General Abizaid yet? My phone has been dead.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Thats rediculous, monica guy.

Gee, why dont we blame September 11th on Boeing for supplying the aircraft.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The Arabs do not see the world as you two do. The y do not see strength as a bully, they see it as power and everyone knows not to piss on a power outlet. They do not see compassion or the lack of willingness to go to war as anything but weakness. That is why we have been attacked - we appear castrated. Liberalism made us look like a bunch of weak guys in skirts, and this appearance got us hit.



Spot on m8. The Islamic countries respect strength and the willingness to use it, unlike the liberals on this board as they will never understand it.




Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Americans need to understand Iranians hate America because America, with all it's morals and rhetoric, failed to live up to that billing when the Iranian people needed it most. And who paid the biggest price? The Iranian people. Thanks to Team Saddam/Shah/America.




Is this why a good portion of the Iranian people want better relations with the West and want the mullahs out? Is that why they canceled all opposition in the last election (if you call it that) in Iran.




Originally posted by Samiralfey
US can not afford another war unless it goes nuclear or aiding Israel attacking Iran. Look where the war in Iraq got US into, record debt and it ain't even over yet. Almost 6 billion dollars per month to fund the Iraq-operation. Nope, ain't going to happen.




And you think this $200 billion has caused our debt problems?No , its those social welfare programs and government give me's that burned us. The Iraq war put us into debt! Quick everyone got that!






Originally posted by esdad71 and MArg, please, post ANYTHING, ANYTHING, other than how this administration is screwing things up. I swear to god, that is all you post......



It is all she knows, Americans are evil and Nazi's and babykillers(except if you abort them)




Originally posted by marg6043Remember we have to feed, give medical care and provide safety for the countries we invade, US is also responsible for the people's lives in those countries, look at Afghanistan the only reason they are surviving is through drug traffic now.

I don't know but I think we are really into a financial mess right now can you imagine if we have to provide for another country?



Marg why would we care for these people, I mean we are indiscriminately killing them everyday , them evil US troops! You cant have it both ways marg.

And this war is not the cause of our debt.....8 trillion is a # pile more than $200 billion, I know it is only one more zero, but it is a BIG zero.




Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And nice going cementhead. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're illiterate! I said America is partially responsible for the deaths of over a million Iranians. Sadly for you, history is history. And you continue to feed the false image America is illiterate.


Is this because we supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war? Hmmm didn't we sell arms to the Iranians via the Israelis?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Saddam was America's violent protege in the Middle East, America financially and militarily supported Iraq, Saddam asked if the U.S. was okay with picking on Iran, America said "have fun." America and France supplied them heavily with weapons and other forms of support. I think that's helping the killing of Iranians, not preventing.


Is that why his Air Force and Army was made of Russian and French equipment?

Get a grip, we supported him to keep Iran in containment, as that was the policy at the time.




Originally posted by Murcielago
Thats rediculous, monica guy.

Gee, why dont we blame September 11th on Boeing for supplying the aircraft.



Because that is the logic that they use.......it comes natural.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
This is a truthful statment saying...."Dont think we've got our pants down around our ankles....we have a lot of capasity to react should any of you (hint hint Iran) decide you think we're not able to deal with threats.

Hmm the old thinking in the mid-east was: the USA didnt have the guts or will to actually come over here and put troops on the ground and fight and take and give casualties...
Guess that idea changed eh? For the better I'd say.

Pakistan understood the stakes, Ghadafi gets it, now it seems shortly after the USA election, when the world can see 4 more years with President Bush....Iran is trying to play nice with its nuke programs....think they get it now too?

Now the message is.."If you think we're not able to take other/further millitary actions, your mistaken."
Care to find out?

Its about time some of these people in rouge nations understand that threatening the USA really isnt a good idea.

The generals statement is mearly a reminder of this.


Sep

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Is this because we supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war? Hmmm didn't we sell arms to the Iranians via the Israelis?


Wa this after you destroyed the entire Iranian navy because an Iraqi plane shot your shipp or before?

You weapons that were sold via Israel were good for the future of the army. We are now building the items you sold us but back then they were pretty much usless.

Now lets compare that to what Saddam got. State of the art aircraft for several Europian countries and Russia. Helecopters, tanks and artillary from former USSR. The French even helped them build a nuclear facility. The Germans and the French supplied Saddam with chemical weapons which he, with the blessing of the US, used to kill around 50000 Iranians. and many Kurds. And 6 months after he hit the Kurds the congress alowed $1 dollars to be sent to Iraq. Saddam, after the war was more powerful than when he started.At the end of the war Saddam had 5000 tanks, 7000 armoured infantry vehecles and 3500 artilary pieces. His army in terms of numbers was ten times that of the British army, he had more battle field helecopters than RAF and British Army Air Corps had combined.

Now to me when you say that you helped Iraq AND Iran, that sounds like a joke.


Sep

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Its about time some of these people in rouge nations understand that threatening the USA really isnt a good idea.


I think it was the good General that threatened Iran not the other way around



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Iran has just developed there newest longest range missile called the Shahab-3 and it has a range of 1,250 miles, which puts Europe within range. Iran also is planning on using this new missile (which by the way can use nuclear or conventional) to put satellites into Low Earth Orbit, and you can imagine that if the percieved a US air assault they could launch it with a nuclear warhead and into space and have it explode, and with the blast, debris, EMP, this could cause extensive damage to the US military's satellites.


wow they have missiles that have the range for europe
so do loads of other countries.
why should we be threatend by Iran because it wants to extend its missile range. (if it openly threatend europe then that would be a cause for concern )



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Sep, here is a cut and paste from the article..



"Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me," Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview on the way to his headquarters here from Afghanistan.


How is this rhetorical question percieved as a direct threat?
He in no way in the entire article said anything to the effect of..."We are comming for Iran"

a warning is not a threat....

a threat is "we will come get you if you dont comply"
NOT
"we will act IF you act against us."..that is a warning.

Spin spin spin.....anything to paint the USA as an aggressor eh?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join