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: enlightenedservant
a reply to: face23785
I simply think the plan to take down those specific countries within that specific time frame was delayed. I don't think the Democrats are innocent of anything. I simply pointed out that a Democrat who campaigned on ending those wars was elected, which delayed the plan regarding Iran. I then pointed out the pressure on his administration to go after Iran anyway.
I'm not seeing what the misunderstanding is here?
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: dragonridr
Have you actually looked at where Mecca and Medina are in relation to Riyadh and Iran? My points about them getting touched in an Iranian land invasion are valid. You're the one who seems to think that any attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on Mecca and Medina themselves, which is patently untrue. If it were true, all of those Muslims would be currently attacking Yemen, but they're not.
Also, I've been including facts in my posts as opposed to your mere opinions & conjecture, yet you say I'm the one simply believing conspiracies? Then let's double check:
1. I said that the House of Saud only gained control over Mecca and Medina by militarily conquering the former custodians in the Kingdom of Hejaz in the 1920s. Is that true or false?
2. I said the predominantly Shiite Houthi alliance is currently attacking Saudi Arabia and yet the 700 million Muslims you claim would defend the Saudis are nowhere to be found. Is that true or false?
3. I even pointed out on several occasions the estimated troop numbers for the largest Muslim troop deployments in the Saudi coalition against Yemen and the largest Muslim troop deployments in Operation Desert Storm. Since they don't come anywhere close to your fantasy numbers (they don't even come close to half a million troops, much less 700 million), does that also make them part of some hypothetical conspiracy that I'm believing?
4. I pointed out that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, several other GCC nations, and several Western nations all backed Saddam's Iraq against Iran in the war in the 1980s, yet Iraq still couldn't beat Iran. Is that true or false?
5. I pointed out that the first battle in Operation Desert Storm was actually in Saudi Arabian territory, at the battle of Khafji. Is that true or false? And if it's true, then why were Saudi Arabia and its allies fighting Iraq in Saudi territory if Iraq was never entering Saudi Arabian territory as I rightly claimed?
6. I pointed out that the Saudi coalition can't even beat poverty stricken Yemen and that Saudi Arabia needed the West to push back Saddam's Iraq. So logically, I don't think they can beat an Iran which is vastly larger, more populous, better equipped, and has better civilian and industrial infrastructure than Yemen and Iraq. Anyone can see that this is a logical conclusion.
You just keep on peddling that Wahhabi propaganda & excuses that even they don't believe. Because if they really believed that nonsense, they would've already gathered an alliance of these nations and beaten Iran. Oh wait, they tried in the 1980s by backing Saddam's Iraq and they failed miserably. And they haven't tried again since, instead relying on Western govts to try to bring down Iran for them.
ETA: And one more thing. You gave excuses to why the Saudis still haven't beaten Yemen yet. But those excuses haven't stopped the Saudis from indiscriminately killing Yemeni civilians or placing a crippling blockade against Yemen, which has contributed to a massive famine there. So why should I believe they're only losing because they're basically "holding back" when they clearly don't care about killing or starving non-combatants there?
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: face23785
We'll just have to agree to disagree. My original post to you was simply pointing out that the original plan could've been delayed (HERE). You don't seem to think that's possible. Either way, I don't value your opinion on this enough to keep discussing it with you.