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.

 

Middle east! lets get it sorted

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I was against the iraq war to start with and i can remember my grandfather who was in WW11 on a landing craft as a machine gunner on the normandy landings, telling the familly in the early 60s that ww111 would be in the midle east over oil and the arabs!.
My opinion has now changed and i think the us/uk/west should sort the lot out now, syria,iran,jordan.egypt,saudi arabia and the rest!
They are fanatics,brain washed and have no sense or worth of human life.
Lets do it to them , before they do it to us!!!!!!!




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Yes , it would make world domination by the US so much simpler, without all those undesirables. What pile will you fall in when it is your turn to be sorted?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Ok, we will all sit back do nothing talk away to the arabs for another 50 or less years until they have gained enough strength i.e. nuclear weapons united arabs together and then we will have to sort them out at a much greater cost?
Neville chamberlain comes to mind?
It may not be nice but then the arabs are not very nice?
ask new york and london how nice they are?
alternatively we could all not buy their oil and we could all jump on our bikes to get to work,run our factories with nuclear fuel then the arabs would be broke and back living in their tents? but then again would YOU give up your
US... gas guzzlingcars?
Top.... polluting nation
Dont think so?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Now wasn't that a thoughtful well said educated comment? Could you, you know back up your claims? You are stereotyping all "arabs" after all.
and by sort them out, is that the PC way of saying Genocide?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Certainly not.
What i mean is take away the possibility of them being able to destroy western civilisation with an army or nuclear threat!
Once this is done take away their ability to manipulate the west by controlling the oil.
Distribute the oil and give the arab nations a fair share to keep their country from starving until other fuels have been developed!
Once new or the oil has run out let them return to allah/and the desert?
tough i know............in't life a bitch



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The terror attacks on September 11, 2001 was a foreign civilian criminal act. If all the information given to the public on the events were true, then there is still a vast majority of non-violent muslim civilians that exist. The U.S. military then responded to this extremely small civilian threat by invading and taking over two countries. Neither of which militarily attacked the United States and one of which didn't even harbor the men alleged to be involved in the 09/11/01 attacks and neither of which posed any actual threat.

The threat of islamic extremist terrorism is so small. So minute, that to destroy an entire group of people over it is the most ludicrous thing that can be imagined. There is no threat. What threat that does now exist has been created out of the violence that western nations have brought with them on their exaggerated reaction to a very small civilian threat.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Frith]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
The terror attacks on September 11, 2001 was a foreign civilian criminal act. If all the information given to the public on the events were true, then there is still a vast majority of non-violent muslim civilians that exist.
all true and i agree,but as i said in my original post i was against invading iraq to start with.
The genie is now out of the bottle and there is growing muslim/arab resentment
against the west which is not going to go away?
As for countries being un involved,i supposed Iran,Saudia arabia etc never turn a blind eye to their extremists and pursue them as best they can?
saudi arabia are making an attemp now, mainly because the rulers themselves may be over thrown by muslim fanatics not because they want to save the west?
Pacification and sticking your head in the sand doesnt work.
Oil is why the west cares what happens in the middle east if there was no oil the west couldnt care less, so unless the oil runs out ,or some new technology comes along, this problem isnt going to go away.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Around a month ago a Canadian general said that the Afghanistan occupation is going to last 20 years. He also noted that for every muslim militant killed, 15 more take his place in revenge. Yet he claimed its all worth it. Does the public see it that way? So far that does not seem to be the case. Further wars would therefore seemingly be out of the question.


The U.S. is now involved in two guerilla warfare scenarios in a situation that now is well over 100 days longer than the war in which it is most commonly attempted to be compared to: World War II. I can only wonder what lies in store for the nations involved in it. The military of the United States of America and Canada are seemingly willing to tough out decades of war. But the question is, what of the civilians? With the approval of Iraq falling quicker than even Vietnam time-wise, and that is without a draft involved, I can only wonder how much the coalition of countries invovled in the War on Terror will be able to stand.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Frith]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   


The U.S. is now involved in two guerilla warfare scenarios in a situation that now is well over 100 days longer than the war in which it is most commonly attempted to be compared to: World War II.


Sounds like fuzzy math to me! Sure, the current "war on terror" may be longer than the US involvement in WWII, but not longer than WWII itself. WWII started years before the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Furthermore, I don't know who it is that is comparing the War on Terror to World War II. They are two completely different types of war, against completely different enemies. In WWII, our enemies were clearly defined, not only by their uniforms but by their borders as well. Today we face an enemy who chooses to blend in with the civilian population, and use our freedom against us. But the significance of these two wars is not all that different. They are both monumental struggles of Freedom vs. Terror, and Good vs. Evil. Not a single one of our elected officials, at least to the best of my knowledge, ever said this would be a "quick" war. President Bush told us from the outset that this would be a long, hard battle. This battle against extremism, radical Islamic fundamentalism, totalitarianism, and so on could continue as long as both of us are on this planet. I certainly hope victory comes long before such a time, but we must be realistic. We're not only fighting armed men, we're fighting a twisted and evil ideology. Not every battle will be fought with bullets and bombs. Some will be fought financially, politically, diplomatically, and so on.

This is a struggle to the likes of which most of us could never have imagined. What we must realize is the patience exhibited by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaida terrorist network. We must stand strong along side our brave men and women fighting overseas. We must be patient.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
As long as the west and in particular the over polluting and gas guzzling americans need oil, the american government will do, say whatever it takes to make sure their citizens,companies are supplied with oil.
The Americans(Gov) have always liked a war as they have a very large Military budget to fund?
They made a nice profit in the 2nd ww and didnt want the vietnam war stopped to soon as it would stop the arms factories ,share holders etc making $
(hence JFK no more).
No Red mence now to justify the huge amount the tax payers spend on arms,so they need a demon of some sort to keep the arms churning out.
Greed for oil and $ will rule.
Or maybe all the troops will go home and everything will go back to normal?
Will the us people be willing to pay what the British pay for fuel?
nearly £1.00 per liter or $1.80 per liter?

Perhaps things will take a totally un expected turn and the us will go backrupt as they are running a Trilllion dollar deficit.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!!!
best hope it stays that way?.......

Dont worry its all just a dream.....................



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Sounds like fuzzy math to me! Sure, the current "war on terror" may be longer than the US involvement in WWII, but not longer than WWII itself. WWII started years before the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Furthermore, I don't know who it is that is comparing the War on Terror to World War II. They are two completely different types of war, against completely different enemies. In WWII, our enemies were clearly defined, not only by their uniforms but by their borders as well. Today we face an enemy who chooses to blend in with the civilian population, and use our freedom against us. But the significance of these two wars is not all that different. They are both monumental struggles of Freedom vs. Terror, and Good vs. Evil. Not a single one of our elected officials, at least to the best of my knowledge, ever said this would be a "quick" war. President Bush told us from the outset that this would be a long, hard battle. This battle against extremism, radical Islamic fundamentalism, totalitarianism, and so on could continue as long as both of us are on this planet. I certainly hope victory comes long before such a time, but we must be realistic. We're not only fighting armed men, we're fighting a twisted and evil ideology. Not every battle will be fought with bullets and bombs. Some will be fought financially, politically, diplomatically, and so on.


President of the United States of America George Bush is the one I can note right off the top of my head who has given this comparison.

www.cnn.com...

There are others as well. Mostly political pundits who push the idea that western civilization is dealing with "islamofascists".

As for the length of the war, I have no doubt that world leaders and military forces are willing to accept a long, costly, and deadly schedule. The public does not like protracted wars without any visible end. The idea that these conflicts could last up to 20 years or more is never going to sit well with the public in its current state.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Lets invade the entire middle east?

Well i suppose its something to do, hope your going to volunteer!



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
i thnik that the war on terror was a mistake in some ways but bcause we got saddam it was a good thing as well



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join