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: Iranian Commander Threatens US Troops

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
QUOTE:
The hype is mostly around keeping Americans whipped into a frenzy so Bush can justify Patriot Act II - and slide it in right under the radar.
[sigh]



.

Hello Soficrow!!! Congrats on your award!!!


As far as my quote was concerned, i was more or less depicting the Nuclear Hype from Iran's point of view. As they use it more as a Rhetoric bolster for their moral.... and try to use Bold warnings against the allies to create fear of not knowing if they have the nuclear capabilites to retaliate or not. Our troups are quite close.......and some nuclear Rhetoric makes for a good short-term deterrent.

Thanks,
Carburetor

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Mr Carburetor]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Mr Carburetor]




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Ok so the Iranians are sabre rattling and pumping up their rhetoric for their forces moral...so what...

I seem to remember another local area despot making similar threats....
untill we found him hidding in a hole in the ground....all his threats amounted to squat.

Iranian leaders can shoot off thier mouthes all they want...not doing so would be presenting a weak face to their population.
The proof will come IF and When trouble ensues.

Soficrow alleges,


The hype is mostly around keeping Americans whipped into a frenzy so Bush can justify Patriot Act II - and slide it in right under the radar.
AND YOUR GOING TO BACK THIS UP HOW? ANY EXCUSE to slip into your usual anti-Bush baseless rhetoric eh Sofi? Ive already congratulated you for getting a WATS award for leading the blind masses with your opinionated, baseless, and always bashing accusations against the President. Sort of like the HYPE i just quoted you on again eh? Please bring up some non related support for your position that you'd like us to stretch into also suporting your allegations here.
Lets see here, an Iranian general makes threats and that translates into Bush signing PatAct II how? Oh the huge leap of logic i see comming, and with again nothing to support it.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Iran attacking US troops would be nothing more than a free ride for Bush to start the next war without him even having to work for it, Justify it, or gather a coalition etc.. Result would be the same. Iran would lose and be changed into a democracy. How long and how hard the war would be is another post entirely.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   


I seem to remember another local area despot making similar threats....
untill we found him hidding in a hole in the ground....all his threats amounted to squat.

Iranian leaders can shoot off thier mouthes all they want...not doing so would be presenting a weak face to their population.
The proof will come IF and When trouble ensues.


Yes, and I also seem to remember this rat in the hole not having a substantialy powerfull military force, or nuclear weapons, unlike his Iranian counterparts. People seem to forget this little fact, no?




AND YOUR GOING TO BACK THIS UP HOW? ANY EXCUSE to slip into your usual anti-Bush baseless rhetoric eh Sofi? Ive already congratulated you for getting a WATS award for leading the blind masses with your opinionated, baseless, and always bashing accusations against the President. Sort of like the HYPE i just quoted you on again eh? Please bring up some non related support for your position that you'd like us to stretch into also suporting your allegations here.
Lets see here, an Iranian general makes threats and that translates into Bush signing PatAct II how? Oh the huge leap of logic i see comming, and with again nothing to support it.


The personal remarks aside, Sofi is simply stating a general assumption based on empirical facts, which in question, holds some merit if one takes for granted the first proposition to instate the Patriot Act and the subsequent response from Congress. It's not a far stretch to assume that Iran could simply be a scapegoat to brush the Patriot Acts in.

There are times when evidence and factual support is need, in this case, the only thing needed, is a intuition.

Deep



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Zerodeep responds to my assertion that iran could just be running its lips,


I also seem to remember this rat in the hole not having a substantialy powerfull military force, or nuclear weapons, unlike his Iranian counterparts. People seem to forget this little fact, no?
NOPE, i havnt forgotten the unanimous UN resolution right before the war statred that pretty much spelled out the WORLDS opinion of the believed state of WMD's in Iraq, NOR have i forgotten that many world intelligence agencies had provided what we NOW know to be incorrect information that the decision to war on was partially based.
Saddam said he had WMD's and would use them right up to the very end....weather he was bluffing, shipped out the WMD's or indeed wasnt able to revamp his WMD program after the gulf war is still in contention....but as he had used WMD's before, and claimed he would again and we KNOW we gave him some that have NEVER been accounted for, plus world intelligence indicated this was a strong possibillity...
i can see saying we made an error based on poor intel, but NOT one of lying.

Zero CONFIRMS my allegations against Sofi,


Sofi is simply stating a general assumption based on empirical facts,
While i agree that a person can make opinions based of of assumptive empirical facts, that doenst mean those empirical facts actually translate or equate to the opinion given.
How valuable is an opinion based off of assumptions and thinly stretched facts that indicate things could be, but arent known to be, really worth anyway? Isnt this a true embracement of ignorance by touting such stuff, especially as trying to pass this off as a fact? Please, you would burn me in a second if i made a acqusation that i couldnt substantiate with hard data, not empirical assumptions, im only asking for the same criteria to be applied evenly to everyone.

How is an Iranian general, under the Bush "payroll" to be use as a scapegoat for pushing in the patriot act? Are you saying the USA government had anything to do with that general making those comments?
To hear threats made against you and take no actions in defense is stupid...and Im glad that our government recognizes the need for the patriot act, even if it has some parts that are questionable for citizens.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
this will not look good for the usa making another country go threw war over what.we still dont know any reasons poor iran should be picked on.who is making iran mad?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The intelligence in regards to Saddams WMD's indicated that he had a very sketchy arms programs being devoloped, or dare I say, a program to devolop arms was being devoloped. The Chief CIA weapons Inspector, David Kay, confirmed that Saddam had no WMD's afor the U.S. invasions, so regardless, we knew that he had nothing, nor was the threating anyone during that time. Do also remember that the U.S goverment encouraged, if not wavered his behaviour throughout the decades. Regardless, Saddam was a responsibility of the U.S.; the United States goverment had an obligation to undermine his authority.

Iran has admited to a Nuclear Weapons programs, and has a military force that is heavy handed and not as deplorable as was Iraqs: this is a fully capable army able to sustain a war with U.S. troops on equal terms, bar nuclear fall out. Don't underestimate thier military. On top of that, Russia has promised to help build Nuclear reactors, and they have digressed from adhering to the spurious notion that Iran is "harboring" terrorists and chided America for thier accusations against Syria.

To you this may seem like school yard sophistry, but it's clearly evident that the U.S. dare not invade this country lest they honour thier superficial image of the worlds strongest military power.





How is an Iranian general, under the Bush "payroll" to be use as a scapegoat for pushing in the patriot act?


You forget to read where I stated the reasons for the first Patriot Act. Sofi's assumption is perfectly viable if one take into play the public reaction to the Bush Adminstrations tautologous innuendo of terrorist activities that may occur on American soil, and that from Iran. The American peoples have already declared that security is more important than personal liberties, there is no reason to believe that they would not allow this Goverment to do it again.

Deep



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join