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.

 

US fears defeat in Iran war

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
If you think Fallujah was filled with civilians and whiskey pete used on school children, you weren't there. Fact is they are insurgents not rebels.


Rebel- ETA, IRA, Mandela, Washington, Ortega,etc.

(I don't agree with the principles in many cases)

insurgent- all jihadis


Principle. A certain amount of negotiation with your values always happens when your fighting a stronger enemy, but the Jihadis have no values. They are the tyrants, the bad guys, only they are in the minority. Mandela did not stoop to hiding bombs in the bodies of school children, Mandela did not stoop to killing children in Beslan, Mandela did not be. AID workers. There was a core value which could not be negotiated with. The Jihadis lack it.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Nakash]




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Fact is they are insurgents not rebels.


Rebel- ETA, IRA, Mandela, Washington, Ortega,etc.

(I don't agree with the principles in many cases)

insurgent- all jihadis


What dictionary are you using?


Definition of insurgent

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party



Thesaurus entry for insurgent

Entry Word: insurgent
Function: adjective
Text: taking part in a rebellion < insurgent soldiers will be dealt with harshly > -- see REBELLIOUS 1


Nice try at putting a spin there



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

scarecrowGo a. educate us on what CAUS is.
Now is this resistence you refer to the Iraqis who used to be in power, the minority Sunnis? Or do you refer to the AQ that have moved in with the foreign fighters whose only real reason to be there is kill anyone who does not adhere to their extremist views of Islam? I mean look at who they are killing. They have killed more Iraqis then the US has since the start of the war. As for the Sunnis, who are they killing even now? Mostly Shia Iraqis. And they are doing it using terror tactics. Do you recall why the sanctions against Iraq went in in the first place? Who started the Iran v Iraq war? Who invaded Kuwait? Who refused to adhere to UN sanctions for 13 years? Did the US act alone in Desert Storm? While you are on your anti-american tirades, at least try to be factually and historically correct in your comments.


I am not "anti-American".

Do I hate the Great Stuttering Murdering Filthy Dog Bush?

Guess.

Do I hate the word "Haji's"?

Guess.

The Badr Brigades and Wolf Brigades are composed of Shi'ites.

These are Interior Ministry employees .

The Very Grand and Glorious Iraqi Government employees.

Kidnapping, torturing and murdering Iraqi citizens.

Now, as far as history;

The Iraq-Iran war was a great tragedy. Perhaps 1,000,000 died, and many became refugees.

There were subversions by each country inside the other, and clashes on the border.

But it was IRAQ who launched a full-scale invasion of Iran.

The Leadership on both sides display a callous disregard for human life.

France and Russia were Iraq's weapons suppliers, Israel supplied Iran, hoping to prolong the conflict and bleed the Iranians, and several other countries as well made great profit from the corpses.

The US armed BOTH sides of the conflict, as was revealed in the Iran-Contra affair, and the USS VINCENNES scandal.

The CIA illegally supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, which, when exposed after the fact, was a gross scandal in the US.

The US also taught the Iraqi's how to calibrate their mustard gas attacks.

The US sent Iraq trucks, communictions equipment, computers and hardware, planes etc. etc.
When, in 1986, the Security Council of the UN attempted to issue a statement condemning Iraq for illegally using chemical weapons in war, the US voted against its issuance.

The US hopes the conflict will align Bahgdad with the Egyptians and other Arab states who are friendly with the US, and cause Iran to open a relationship with Washington, in order to obtain the parts needed for their weapons, which were all US supplied during the rule of hated puppet Shah.

The dislocations and disorder caused by war would also enable the US to carry out covert activity in both countries.

Kuwait was invaded for their illegal slant-drilling.

The US and it's corporations were selling equipment and weapons, in fact $4,800,000 worth in a period of less than one month, July 18 to August 1, 1990.

Kuwait was invaded August 2, 1990.

Madeline Albright, then Secretary of State, said during an interview on 60 minutes, that the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of 5 in Iraq was "worth it", in response to a question about the very high price Iraqi's were/are paying as a result of these sanctions.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What's up with all the semantics? The dictionary definition of insurgent above is pretty clear, and seems to apply to the rebellion in Iraq, so why do so many dispute when they are called insurgents? Who cares what they're called anyway? I'm sure they don't. The pont Nakash made was valid IMO. There's a huge difference between striking out at an occupying force, and striking out at your own innocent countrymen, in order to intentionally destabilize your country in order to cause trouble for the occupying force. That just shows a complete lack of regard for the very country they claim to be fighting for...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
OK gang, one last nice reminder to get back to the topic.

Edit: To remind people what the topic is, "US fears defeat in Iran war."

[edit on 24-3-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
If you think Fallujah was filled with civilians and whiskey pete used on school children, you weren't there. Fact is they are insurgents not rebels.


Rebel- ETA, IRA, Mandela, Washington, Ortega,etc.

(I don't agree with the principles in many cases)

insurgent- all jihadis


Principle. A certain amount of negotiation with your values always happens when your fighting a stronger enemy, but the Jihadis have no values. They are the tyrants, the bad guys, only they are in the minority. Mandela did not stoop to hiding bombs in the bodies of school children, Mandela did not stoop to killing children in Beslan, Mandela did not be. AID workers. There was a core value which could not be negotiated with. The Jihadis lack it.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Nakash]


Who is be.ing aid workers? Who is doing that? People are being kidnapped and held for ransom, so is the Resistance doing that as well?

Mandela? Mandela who says "One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." Bush/Iraq.

Since Iraq was a country thrusted by ARAB NATIONALISM, not "Jihadi's" or Islam, how are you coming to these very strange conclusions of yours?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I suggest you read my post above. Stick to the topic.

Further posts derailing this thread will be deleted and the author warned.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I also suggest that you take this seriously. The topic is NOT Iraq.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
A Quiet, Flameside Chat

Just jumping up from my comfy chair to say "Hey! Relax!"


I know this is an emotional subject for many people. There's nothing nice or relaxing about war.

But there is no war on ATS. Our nationalities mean nothing here, only our ideas.

We're all members of the same online community, we all deserve respect, and we all deserve to be heard.

It's okay. You're among friends.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Apologies to the moderators.

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole if the US attacks.

How will the Russians and the Chinese react? Do they not have great investment in Iran?

Perhaps China will put out a rumor, a sell order, down the wire.

The US is learning that it can no longer prop up it's broken economy with wars.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
Apologies to the moderators.

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole if the US attacks.

How will the Russians and the Chinese react? Do they not have great investment in Iran?

Perhaps China will put out a rumor, a sell order, down the wire.

The US is learning that it can no longer prop up it's broken economy with wars.


Iran will not be able to do much in the green zone against US troops.
But on the off chance that they did make it a pothole, you can only imagine what the US could do to Tehran and every other major city in Iran.

Russia and China may sound off against the issues, but neither will do anything to jepordize their current standing with the US. You just don't seem to grasp that the US is far more important to China and Russia then Iran is.

You just don't get it that China relies heavily on trade with the US. They are not going to lose that over Iran.

Please name all the wars the US has used to prop up our economy.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
That's something I considered- why would China tank it's economy over Iran ? They relie EXTREMELY heavily on U.S. markets, if they go to war against America their busted. Few people seem to think about that one.Iran also couldn't touch the green zone if they wanted to, Saddam didn't even have the balls to put a single plane in the air (too smart- he knew they would be shot down as soon as they were turned on). Well, maybe they could shoot a missile at it, or have one of those militias stir up trouble, nothing we couldn't handle though. Prop, quit this "my Dad is gonna beat your dad" type of thinking- America cannot be defeated militarily, PERIOD (unless we are talking treachery, ie: sneak attack). That's not debatable, it is FACT. Move one, why do you want Iran to go to war? Are you like ahmadenijad? No, of course not.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
China is "dependent" on the US?

The US/China relationship is MUTUAL.

Now, how would US dollars circulate back into the US economy if China were not buying your Bonds and making you loans?

What will the US do as China diversifies it's currency basket, and finds other countries to buy it's products?

From whom will you borrow $2,000,000,000 a day just to function?

Without sounding malicious, I must say, the USAns are very arrogant and cocky.


Answer me this;

Since Iran is a country that is a signatory to the NPT, and since it has developed it's technology within the parameters of the legal framework of the NPT, and since countries like Pakistan, India and Israel all acquired Nuclear technology outside the law, unlike Iran, and since the US arms arms usurper regimes close to Iran with chemical and biological weapons, how is the US qualified to talk this talk?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Since Iran is a country that is a signatory to the NPT, and since it has developed it's technology within the parameters of the legal framework of the NPT, and since countries like Pakistan, India and Israel all acquired Nuclear technology outside the law, unlike Iran, and since the US arms arms usurper regimes close to Iran with chemical and biological weapons, how is the US qualified to talk this talk


I think you ask a good question. All I can answer you is don't believe the hype. Iraq wasn't about WMD, and niether is Iran.

Be aware though, Iran is apart of the NPT so they can get assistance from Russia. Pakistan and Israel were not apart of the NPT, but still got outside help to build their nuclear programs. India on the other hand developed their nuclear program on their own.

The NPT didn't stop China from helping North Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear programs, including nuclear weapon programs, but you don't seem too upset about that. Don't worry, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care either. If you are France, UK, US, China, or Russia you can break treaties by proxy and nobody will say anything, and nobody is going to do anything about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
What will the US do as China diversifies it's currency basket, and finds other countries to buy it's products?


China currently has a basket of currencies consisting primarily of the US Dollar, Euro, Yen, Won, UK Pound, Tai Baht and Rouble. According to the PBC governor Xiochuan, the ‘basket’ is designed to reflect levels vs. trading partner(s). Most of these ‘currency reforms’ began back in July of 2005, which helped prop the Yuan (revalued) with a moderate increase.


Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
From whom will you borrow $2,000,000,000 a day just to function?


Understanding the US debt is not as simple as looking at a ‘bottom line’ number.
There are differences between the intergovernmental holdings and debt held by the public. There are tangible indicators such as the debt to GDP ratio (very basically ability to pay incurred debt). These fiscal debt/GDP ratios have been much, much higher in the past for the US. There is more at play, however the basics are outlined above and it is not all ‘gloom and doom’.

Simple GDP/debt Ratio Table


Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
Since Iran is a country that is a signatory to the NPT, and since it has developed it's technology within the parameters of the legal framework of the NPT,


The argument is the NPT gives states the right to acquire uranium enrichment and separate plutonium as long as they comply fully with their Safeguards Agreement obligations and do not seek nuclear weapons. Iran operated outside of its’ NPT treaty obligations for eighteen years and still has not answered most of the questions posed by the IAEA.


Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where the material was stored and processed. These failures, and the actions taken thus far to correct them, can be summarized as follows:
IAEA


However, the IAEA is an absolte "Tootless Dog"


Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
and since countries like Pakistan, India and Israel all acquired Nuclear technology outside the law,


Pakistan and India are outside the treaty, not the law, and C&B weapons are not an issue with in the IAEA.


mg



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Prop, China is completely dependant on U.S. markets, if we slap some tarrifs on them they go bankrupt, but we won't do it because they buy our bonds and are funding our deficit. That's the truth. Their banking system is in shambles and their currency overvalued. They are quite susceptible to trade wars.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided

Since Iran is a country that is a signatory to the NPT, and since it has developed it's technology within the parameters of the legal framework of the NPT, and since countries like Pakistan, India and Israel all acquired Nuclear technology outside the law, unlike Iran, and since the US arms arms usurper regimes close to Iran with chemical and biological weapons, how is the US qualified to talk this talk


I think you ask a good question. All I can answer you is don't believe the hype. Iraq wasn't about WMD, and niether is Iran.

Be aware though, Iran is apart of the NPT so they can get assistance from Russia. Pakistan and Israel were not apart of the NPT, but still got outside help to build their nuclear programs. India on the other hand developed their nuclear program on their own.

The NPT didn't stop China from helping North Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear programs, including nuclear weapon programs, but you don't seem too upset about that. Don't worry, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care either. If you are France, UK, US, China, or Russia you can break treaties by proxy and nobody will say anything, and nobody is going to do anything about it.


Ha ha! Believe the hype, moi?


You are wrong, however, when you say I am not upset about China aiding proliferation.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Prop, China is completely dependant on U.S. markets, if we slap some tarrifs on them they go bankrupt, but we won't do it because they buy our bonds and are funding our deficit. That's the truth. Their banking system is in shambles and their currency overvalued. They are quite susceptible to trade wars.

But Nak, when we talk about US/China, isn't this two parts of one whole?

Isn't anything economically hurtful to the US hurtful for China, and vicey-versey?

If you slap tarriffs on them they go bankrupt? Hardly.

Supposing China starts selling US bonds?

How would that affect the money markets, interest rates etc?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
In plain speak, we ain't goin into Iran. We may bomb the shart out of the Nuke sites etc. if Israel is not given the wink wink, nudge nudge by us in lieu of said attacks.

If diplomacyspeak fails, Israel will be told to stall and the US will operate on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. I hope this will not be. Yet, Irans President is a puppet to the theocratic leadership who calls the show and is not spewing the recent rhetoric for nothing. Believe that radical Isalm is in the hunt for WMD to use againts the infidels (WESTERNERS) and any other glorified panaceaic alternative theory is pure BS.

We (US) may be forced to strike Iran's sites to militate against irresponsible escalation read:NUCLEAR, in the region thus provoking the killer solution via Israel who will not hesitate to use ultimate force in it's defence.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
an air-strike will lead to war and possibly means invasion which russia and china have said many times over, they simply wont allow it. seriously, i dont want to be offensive and be an a** but an air-strike on iran will mean no more iraq democracy nor afghanistan.


You are one seriuosly misguided dude...if you ever believe that russia or even china would back up iran then you may be incredibly astute And yes ive heard all the controversey that russia was supplying inttellingence to iran/iraq, but event the intelligence wasnt even reliable. We could squash iran if we wanted to, but thats not what our purpose is, we just want to make sure no w.o.m.d fall into their hands, I think you really neeed to calm down on the fundamentalist views, you are in america you know.

[Mod Edit: Removed personal insult. - Jak]

[edit on 25/3/06 by JAK]




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join