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.

 

what excuse to invade Iran/Syria

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
What is Bushes administration to come up with now to have the excuse they need to invade Syria and/or Iran??

Another terrorist attack on American soil like 9-11 perhaps!?

A small atomicbomb detonated in a us city would do the trick, pointing the finger at the ''terrorists".
How shocked everyone(national and international) will be....disgusted by this they will be and so will be giving bush permission of whiping out every potential and likely terrorist in the world.
And so having cart blanche to invade every muslim country which is suspected to have or support terrorist activity en en passant confiscating their oil fields.
How convinient ......what a bargain for only the deaths of maybe a 100.000 us citizens!!

Maybe they are going to buy it for alot cheaper who knows...depends how fast they want to get it all!







posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
new fairy tales that will be cooked up by the US

they have bad breathe which will kill instantly ( of course some people in the US will believe that
)



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Nuclear threat is enough for Iran. Remember, Iran is part of Dubya's "Axis of evil"

As far as Syria is concerned, they are just very hatefull of the US. Dont quote me, but I seem to remember that Syria has supported terrorists with either sanctuary or finances. I dont think it would be terribly hard for Dubya to manufac....er...build a case against Syria.

Anyways, what does it matter? Dubya does what he wants now days anyways...

[edit on 1-12-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
yup, no need to set another Reichstag on fire when the world is already burning



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Nuclear threat is enough for Iran. Remember, Iran is part of Dubya's "Axis of evil"

As far as Syria is concerned, they are just very hatefull of the US. Dont quote me, but I seem to remember that Syria has supported terrorists with either sanctuary or finances. I dont think it would be terribly hard for Dubya to manufac....er...build a case against Syria.

Anyways, what does it matter? Dubya does what he wants now days anyways...

[edit on 1-12-2004 by skippytjc]


He has to have a good argument to the International coumminity though, he can ofcourse go without their approval but wont get any credit from within and without the us.
Dubya wont risk that and will let something happen so that they will approve or atleast undertstand



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I can see the next excuse now: "I don't like the way their leader looked at me!"

I just see it as Bush starting trouble all over the place. C'mon, Iraq was no real threat! Neither is Iran!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
So are Iran and Syria "good countries" now?...Are you guys serious?...Especially Syria...they have been just wrong for years...a KNOWN terrorist state...in my opinion theyre more of a threat then Iraq was...and should have been dealt with first...Iran is mainly talk...no action...but Iraq (Saddam Iraq)has proven not to care about its people nor its neighbors who try and do good for themselves...Syria openly supports terroist groups...You may not think they should be taken care off...but no way make them out as the good guys...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
It would be pretty difficult to attack Iran when the job in Iraq isn't finished, and won't be for a long time. Iraq is a nice stagiing ground for an attack, except for all the instability and war.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Iran doesn't have nukes yet or the missile capability to hit the US with one. They COULD supply terrorists with a nuke, again IF they had one.

But lets suppose they were to do so and a nuke was detonated in the US, there would only be a handful of countries that the US would suspect as responsible for the attack. I credit the CIA enough, believe it or not, to be able to find those actually responsible.

America would obliterate Iran and Iran would be unable to retaliate, Iran would gain nothing from this exchange. There may be suicidal terrorists in Iran or supported by Iran, but i doubt that its leaders are so willing to give up their power.

The same basically applies to Syria. I'm not saying that nothing should be done about either obtaining more WMD, but certaintly there has to be better ways. Isn't there a large number of pro-democratic youth in Iran anyway?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Let's think here people...

The US objective is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If Iran does not want to become one like they claim, all will work out in the internation negotiation scene. If they are trying to develope nukes, well, the US won't stand for that (and niether will Europe, so don't try to act like this is all the US here people).

That being said, Iran can be invaded at will. The argument that the US doesn't have the troops just doesn't hold up. The US has over 2 million in it's military - there are only like 1 or two hundred thousand in Iraq.

What I think is MORE likely though IF we go to war, is that the US will do an air campiegn and nock out everything from the air while supporting the MILLIONS of young people in Iran that WANT a democracy. It would be the same as Afghanasta.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   
What excuse ? Even If the USA wanted to attack Iran they dont have the man power to occupy the countrie. So unless the USA bring in the draft there wont be an attack on Iran. I guess some people would love to see insurgents running amock in another countrie occupied by the USA.


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ponderosa
Isn't there a large number of pro-democratic youth in Iran anyway?


Yeh there is alot of pro-democratic and powerful people in Iran. The most respected and powerful is Shirin Ebadi. But the US doesnt want democratic Iranians to gain power. They dont even want their books to be read. What good are they to the US if they arent going to give America their oil and gas for free?
Mossadegh was a pro-democrat who won but was overthrown by the US. The students won the streets in Iran in riots but got no support from the US. and now they are trying to communicate with he people inside the US so that maybe there will be little support for the pro-democrats in Iran but the US will not let them publish their books.

www.boston.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I have a completely different view point. Who are we to be the moral authority as to who gets to have nukes, and who doesn't? Is it just becuase we are the biggest and baddest? Or is it becuase we had the ball first, and we are only going to let our friends play with the ball after we are done, and maybe teach them how to make a ball of their own.

Just becuase the kid down the street is weird, why shouldn't he have the ball too?

Whose to say if that weird kid did have the ball, if he was going to use it anyways? He knows if he uses the ball, the cool kids will come to his house and try to take it from him, or throw their toys at him until he is dead.

It just smacks of me of the cool kids versus the not cool kids.

Now put into this light, what if the ball was something like a basic necessity like water?

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I would find evidence that saddams WMD's were smuggled to syria and then sold to or through tehran. Say radiation detection from spy satelites, unidentified itelliegence assest, etc.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
send lots of cameras in the country, help/ make the

country go on line and then take the "terrorist" out by

GPSS guided/camera guided/pin point accurate damage

controlled air strikes. Not even a soldier has to go in

unless they are invited or have gone in like the old

times to work with one of their (ex)allies on military

cooperation/ training and exercise. I mean the same

thing needs to be done to Iraq and Afghanistan maybe?

well I think sending a bunch of switches, web cams, computers and technology gadgets is much cheaper or maybe comparable to price of sending high tech military equipment and/or especially human lives.


and this is to answer the thread subject:
c'mon the government of the Islamic Republic has been covertely attacking U.S. interests since its conception in 79? what more excuses do you want? an actual A bomb?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ponderosa
Iran doesn't have nukes yet or the missile capability to hit the US with one. They COULD supply terrorists with a nuke, again IF they had one.


i always read Iran will supply terrorists with nukes
if they are going to do that why havent they armed them with chemical and bio weapons? ( so where do you get that from )

Iran supply money and weapons to hazbolah ( but have a liimit )
just like when the US supplied the taliban and so on with money and weapons.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
I have a completely different view point. Who are we to be the moral authority as to who gets to have nukes, and who doesn't? Is it just becuase we are the biggest and baddest? Or is it becuase we had the ball first, and we are only going to let our friends play with the ball after we are done, and maybe teach them how to make a ball of their own.

Just becuase the kid down the street is weird, why shouldn't he have the ball too?

Whose to say if that weird kid did have the ball, if he was going to use it anyways? He knows if he uses the ball, the cool kids will come to his house and try to take it from him, or throw their toys at him until he is dead.

It just smacks of me of the cool kids versus the not cool kids.

Now put into this light, what if the ball was something like a basic necessity like water?

-ADHDsux4me


it's because without the US' limitations on unstable countries and governments, someone would use it.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666
it's because without the US' limitations on unstable countries and governments, someone would use it.


you know thats a load of bollox
no nation has used WMDS apart from the US its self.

and i only see the US pressure countries that defiy the US directly
israel has a couple of hundred nukes why isnt the US getting them to dsarm they dont take a Sh*t about international laws but still they get to posses WMD's freely



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
I have a completely different view point. Who are we to be the moral authority as to who gets to have nukes, and who doesn't? Is it just becuase we are the biggest and baddest? Or is it becuase we had the ball first, and we are only going to let our friends play with the ball after we are done, and maybe teach them how to make a ball of their own.

Just becuase the kid down the street is weird, why shouldn't he have the ball too?


Because that ball has the power to kill millions of people and that kid supports an ideology in direct conflict to the US.

To use your "who are we" statement - who is anyone else to tell the US we cannot do what we feel is needed to defend ourselves?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by fledgling666
it's because without the US' limitations on unstable countries and governments, someone would use it.


you know thats a load of bollox
no nation has used WMDS apart from the US its self.


What an untrue statement! Did you miss WWI? The US wasn't even in that war when chemical weapons were being used. How about Iran/Iraq? The list goes on and on....




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join