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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Iranians have no problem with the American people. Pro-America does not mean pro-U.S. government, sorry to disappoint you. Any questions?


Let's see if you got any questions sweat....




May 05, 2004
The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof



Finally, I've found a pro-American country.

Everywhere I've gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President Bush as well. Even when I was detained a couple of days ago in the city of Isfahan for asking a group of young people whether they thought the Islamic revolution had been a mistake (they did), the police were courteous and let me go after an apology.

They apologized; I didn't.


Excerpted from.
www.iranvajahan.net...



A sideshow of the horrendous earthquake that hit the southern Iranian city of Bam has been the warm reception that Iranians, including members of the Revolutionary Guard, have given American humanitarian-assistance teams that included U.S. military-plane crews.

These images of friendly attitude are at odds with an earlier impression of widespread hatred of America in Iran - as well as elsewhere in the world. Recent events clearly have brought to light the gratitude felt by many in Iran, but what needs far more emphasis is the strength and depth of a widespread liking and appreciation of America among Iranians of all ages and social classes.


Excerpted from.
www.insightmag.com...

Monica..or Monico or whatever your name....any questions?




Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Fortunately, Iran has shown not to be cowardly and scared in the face of bullies and those who screw other nation's people for their own needs, especially when it comes to helping a guy named Saddam and kissing the feet of a monarch named Reza. So you, and General Abizaid and everyone in the U.S. gov't who agrees with you can all shove it. Way up.

Go cry to Abizaid and find more people to threaten.


First of all, I do not care if you are gay, your sexuality is your business, you can shove whatever you like as many times as you want to, but this forum is not for telling others what you do in your spare time or with your sexual life, so leave this "shoving whatever it is that you like to shove" out of the forums.

Second, the Iranian government many times has threatened the west, in general, not only the U.S. and Israel, with attacks...so if anyone is not a coward it would be those countries that do not bow down to the threats that the Iranian government keeps throwing our way....

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Muaddib]




posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
No questions. If they like Bush, fine by me. Plus it only supports what I've been saying, that the Iranians do not hate Americans and that any threats or hostility towards Iran by America is unfounded.

Again, considering America never helped Iran despite our continuing rhetoric of human rights, blah blah crap.


Tell Bush and Abizaid I said hi.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Marge you're whacked - this thread is about a US general making a warning. Not about heroin producing poppies in Afghanistan or something else in Venezuela.

While we all go off an tangents now and then, you come up with several in the same thread. Maybe you should start a new subject next time & you wont get so much bad attention.

While the ignore button is a nice feature, I find it equivalent to a child putting his fingers in his/her ears. Just calm down take a chill pill - your valium, heroin, cig, or whatever it is.


[edit on 30-11-2004 by outsider]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
You are as onesided as those who defend terrorists. Did you read my whole thread? I was asking for some help or something that might show me why Iran should not be a threat that the US should worry about.
, not to be bashed about what the documentary I saw was about , or what history books or websites i have visisted. I have a very open mind.

THe documentary Actually it was about a women who fled with her parents in the 60's and became a famous photographer, and went back to see her country (Iran) later in life. There was no political spin, it was the story of a women who wanted to see good for her homeland, that's all. It showed what is good in Iran, the hardworking people, and how there is progress to be a industrial nation. It also showed the political turmoil of hte last 40-50 years.

However, they are very close to having access to missles that would be able to reach Europe, and eventually the US. If we can attempt to bully them now to stop this, why should we not? Should we wait till there is an attack? I am unsure. PRe-emptive talking is better than pre-emptive strike, no?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
PRe-emptive talking is better than pre-emptive strike, no?


Yes, but only to a point. And Iran has been stalling man, bigtime. We've given them plenty of time. And look. Now they're saying the nuclear freeze will only last for a few months, at most. That's where the military is coming from, I gather. All the talking has bought Iran much, much time. Question is, time for what, to develop their nuclear energy? Could these last few months be all the time they need to finish missiles and deploy? Or sell them to terrorists?

At some point it is time to act, lest one day we wake up and find out LA, London, Tel Aviv or somewhere was obliterated. And that's one thing we have government for, is to figure out just how long they can go before they must act. And with a new CIA, maybe the evidence will be a little more credible this time. I'll offer some faith, at least to that.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Personally, I thought we were preparing to attack Iran after we secured Iraq. I thought that was always hte original plan. Keep the war off our shores.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
At some point it is time to act, lest one day we wake up and find out LA, London, Tel Aviv or somewhere was obliterated. And that's one thing we have government for, is to figure out just how long they can go before they must act. And with a new CIA, maybe the evidence will be a little more credible this time. I'll offer some faith, at least to that.


out of intrest when would this be?
because as history has shown ownly one nation( USA used WMD's on a large population,

what makes you think Iran would use them in a pre-emtive strike?
( nukes are the only viable deturrent against the US and Israel )



[edit on 30-11-2004 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
Marge you're whacked - this thread is about a US general making a warning. Not about heroin producing poppies in Afghanistan or something else in Venezuela.


[edit on 30-11-2004 by outsider]


Well you seem to has missed some of the post in which I was called a liar about the drug problem in Afghanistan, I take very seriously when my integrity as a poster is challenged.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Squid

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Fact. The U.S. has been waging a very meticulously controlled battle in Iraq.

Fact. If the U.S. would so desire, it could obliterate Iraq in a matter of days, or sooner

Fact. If the U.S. would so desire, it could obliterate Iran in a matter of days, or sooner

Fact. If the U.S. would so desire, it could obliterate the entire region in a mater of days, or sooner.



This is absolute crap, and the only person who would say that about any country would be a country loving person who is too bigheaded to realise that its harder than it looks, and that their country is not as powerful as they think.

The only way America could do that is nuke the hell out of the region, but there would be some retaliation if the region had nukes, belonged to country that had nukes... or was even CLOSE to a country that had nukes.

Also the UN would serriously disaprove of America doing this and throw America out of the UN unless the action HAD to be done, with no other option.


The US could not take out Iran in a day or two without nuclear weapons, and since that is what we are accusing them of making, theres no way in hell that America will use nukes on them. However by conventional means they could be brought to there knees with in a week.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by edsinger
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.


So ed then we should allowed Mr. Bush become a Hitler and do genocide on the middle east. Right?

That is OK for you, after all your views on homosexual border on fanaticism. so lets get those less than human middle east people after all they are not christians like you.Shame on you.



What? OK listen marg, I was being ironic with YOU in my statement and it went 15,000 ft above your head...re-read it.





Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by Muaddib
I saw the other post about opium in Afghanistan...but since when hasn't Afghanistan been an opium nation?.....


Afganistan was not an opium nation when the Taleban were in power, it was a BIG no no. I believe drug control was one of the reasons the US supported the Taleban getting in to power.




This is dead wrong, the Taliban while publicly denouncing the drug crops used the money to support the government. They just exerted much more control over the trade, production might be up but who knows. But it is a fact that the Taliban used poppy proceeds.


The ruling Taliban, which harbors Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda operatives, has a unique connection to the drug trade. Despite the Korans strictures against intoxicants, the Taliban until recently encouraged opium cultivation to help finance its war against the Northern Alliance. Under the Taliban, opium production in Afghanistan tripled, reaching an estimated 3,600 tons in 2000. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program, the opium crop generated about $100 million in 2000. The Taliban, which taxes opium farmers, took about $10 million. The Northern Alliance, which controls about 10 percent of the countryside, also benefits from opium production, using drug profits to buy weapons and military equipment.

Taliban and Opium





Also I work with an Iranian and I asked about this and was told something that blew my mind. Iranians want the US to remove the mullahs, as their life is hell now and getting worse. Thats right, the people that this person knows and talks with weekly says they want the US to remove the mullahs!

The power in the country is absolute and in a 'few' hands. The young especially are growing more disgruntled daily.

We do not have to invade as I have said, it will implode soon enough.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
out of intrest when would this be?
because as history has shown ownly one nation( USA used WMD's on a large population,

what makes you think Iran would use them in a pre-emtive strike?
( nukes are the only viable deturrent against the US and Israel )


Well, good question, and here are some possible reasons:

1) the sheer hatred the Iranian people have shown for America, for starters, although to some extent I can't say I blame them.
2) the call of Jihad, or Holy War
3) the recent perception of Muslims extremists that the US defense network can be penetrated, due to 9/11 and other things.
4) I don't think that Iran would consider their act of using a WMD pre-emptive, necessarily.
5) And I don't think that they would necessarily fire the first strike.

6) It is a situation where if pre-emptive, conventional weapon strikes were issued against their nuke facilities, that they would be tempted to escalate it quickly, by firing such a WMD. It's kind of like North Korea. If we did do conventional, pre-emptive strikes on NK, Kim has threatened to immediately turn South Korea into a "sea of fire, " and many have speculated that implies the use of a WMD. Kind of like "hit me, and will I hit you back twice as hard."

And really, the immediate issue will be Israel, if Iran is known to possess WMDs. Best I can offer you, at the moment.

Regards,
TA



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The power in the country is absolute and in a 'few' hands. The young especially are growing more disgruntled daily.

We do not have to invade as I have said, it will implode soon enough.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by edsinger]


You know what edsinger your Iranian friend you go to his country and help his fellow iranian man to take out their government.


Our American troops and our government has not business in the affairs of that country, the people of the country are the ones to take care of it.

Let them die for their nation, not my children or your children or the children of the American people.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Marge
Let them die for their nation, not my children or your children or the children of the American people.

Why do people say it like this?

The entire US military is voluntary, So if your one of those dumb people who sign up so they help pay for your college, Then I dont think college is gonna help you.
Its not like we just are taking kids off the street and giving them a gun and shipping them to Iraq, if they are there it is because they wanted to be there, and after staying in Iraq for a month and relize that they want to go home, To Damn Bad, they should of thought about there decision more clearly.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The entire US military is voluntary, So if your one of those dumb people who sign up so they help pay for your college, Then I dont think college is gonna help you. Its not like we just are taking kids off the street and giving them a gun and shipping them to Iraq, if they are there it is because they wanted to be there, and after staying in Iraq for a month and relize that they want to go home, To Damn Bad, they should of thought about there decision more clearly.


She does not understand this concept and will not listen. Like I posted the person I talked with talks to 'home' quite frequently and thats what he said right off the bat, even said so in 1978 BEFORE the revolution.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
No questions. If they like Bush, fine by me. Plus it only supports what I've been saying, that the Iranians do not hate Americans and that any threats or hostility towards Iran by America is unfounded.

Again, considering America never helped Iran despite our continuing rhetoric of human rights, blah blah crap.


Tell Bush and Abizaid I said hi.


it supports what you were saying?.....


You said they "do not like the American government", in fact you seem to know this for certain...now you are changing your statement to safe some face?....instead you are looking like a liar now.

As for your statement that any hostility towards Iran is wrong tells me you have no idea what is going on in there. I do not know everything that happens there, but i know enough to say for certain that what the Iranian government want and what the Iranian people want, are two different things. The government in Iran, and the terrorist organizations they sponsor, are the ones that are hostile towards the U.S. and the west in general, and they have threatened us with attacks.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Well, good question, and here are some possible reasons:

1) the sheer hatred the Iranian people have shown for America, for starters, although to some extent I can't say I blame them.
2) the call of Jihad, or Holy War
3) the recent perception of Muslims extremists that the US defense network can be penetrated, due to 9/11 and other things.
4) I don't think that Iran would consider their act of using a WMD pre-emptive, necessarily.
5) And I don't think that they would necessarily fire the first strike.

6) It is a situation where if pre-emptive, conventional weapon strikes were issued against their nuke facilities, that they would be tempted to escalate it quickly, by firing such a WMD. It's kind of like North Korea. If we did do conventional, pre-emptive strikes on NK, Kim has threatened to immediately turn South Korea into a "sea of fire, " and many have speculated that implies the use of a WMD. Kind of like "hit me, and will I hit you back twice as hard."

And really, the immediate issue will be Israel, if Iran is known to possess WMDs. Best I can offer you, at the moment.

Regards,
TA


4,5 are good enough reaons for Iran to have nukes
you even said they wouldnt strike first with it ( in a pre-emtive strike )

6. isnt that why nukes are for to make sure people stay of their country
if they had the nukes would Israel and the US keep on threatening them?

Iran hasnt preached Jihad ( never seen it )

of course their hate would grow when the US keeps adding fual to the fire



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Work for less nukes, not more.

Should the entire world audienence allow another memeber to enter the nuclear arena? Iran should be yelling and screaming that they feel threatened by the American war machine and the nuclear missles they possess. Isn't that the only reason they would need them, is if the watned them for defense. At the IAEA meetings and where ever else the can they are basically giving the US the finger.

What i read is a old school hatred for the US in Iran with older or more fundamental Islamic groups, where as the younger want a change, and maybe they are a little worried since the got so screwed by the Khomeni, who promised change and ushered in the same type of control the Shah had and was feared for. I would not say they want liberation, but there will be change in the next 10 years on its own if there is no conflict. This is human nature.

So, it seems to me that this is only aggressive act since they claim no fear, which means no need, which means it can only be for destructive use. The world community should continue to call for the end of all nuclear weapons as it is now and hopefully one day it will be achieved through peaceful means, and not B-2 and F-117 strikes.....



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Mucielage, Edsinger the rational of your war happy egos does not count when it comes to the death of our sons and daughters in unjustly wars to satisfy the war happy president we have in the white house.

Tell me what Mr. Bush war has done so far? Beside destruction and death.

The last time I check Terrorist are still active and making the American people unsafe every where they go.

Denied ignorance don't encourage it.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Don't piss us off .... b/c we are the U.S. and we will do something stupid like bomb everyone and make everyone die. In another words our leaders would rather see everyone dead rather than just see us dead. I love that about our nation. Just start blowin sh*t up ...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The last time I check Terrorist are still active and making the American people unsafe every where they go.


Oh great wise one! How do we fight terror then? You seem to ignore a threat. How does your husband feel about the war by the way?




Originally posted by marg6043Denied ignorance don't encourage it


Ironic statement coming from you I would think.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join