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.

 

If US or anyone fights Iran, the Russian new weapons will become battle tested

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
He thought he could invade Kuwait and then negotiate a deal concerning their slant drilling and other issues. He did NOT expect to get bombed at all and in fact tried his best to get out of situation without losing too much face. The truth seems to be that the American government suckered him into the invasion and then refused to allow him to leave with his pride even remotely intact; the USA WANTED a excuse to move in the ME with gusto.


Ah huh. Come on Stellar out with it, how far up in the state department are you? I mean you claim to know what Saddam's motives were back in 90-91 and that he got suckered in by the US so the US could expand its influence in the region which we already had(i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain). Ever stop to consider that Saddam had some interests of his own that he was looking after(i.e. war loans, greater Iraq).


Originally posted by stellarX
Then you need to study history. There really is so much information and it's pretty hard for me to try sum it up simply due to you not having much of a clue. ...


Point me in the right direction then. I'm sure the info you give me will be from neutral sources and well respected scholars. Not left-wing activists who gloss over or dismiss the crimes commited in the name of communist ideology.


Originally posted by StellarX
Serbians ( and everyone else who got bombed, by NATO by accident hardly deserved that and there is still no evidence of anything even remotely genocidal looking. Milosevic brought the war on himself in as much as he thought he could pursue a terrorist organization outside his borders with the use of regular armed forces. If NATO had a problem with him for prior actions in the region they should just say so ( and provide some evidence) and not make up such blatant lies in this instance.


And you say I don't have a clue.




posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Orangetom- In a word yes. While I am personally no fan of Boyd, since he never fought anyone in actual air to air combat, the concept he uses is the same basic one.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Is this supposed to be a threat to america? "If US or anyone attacks Iran New russian secret weapons will be battle tested"? Are ya kidding me? Is it suppose to scare americans because those evil ugly russians are sailing weapons to a country that has a loonie toon for a leader? Do you want war so these russian weapons can become battle tested? The cold war is OVER! The americans won.. Russia is powerful.. Just not like it used to be in the soviet years... It certainly cant compete with a power like america anymore.. No one can. War isnt the answer ppl. Some of these weapons would make some pretty neat hunting gear though......



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Is this supposed to be a threat to america? "If US or anyone attacks Iran New russian secret weapons will be battle tested"? Are ya kidding me? Is it suppose to scare americans because those evil ugly russians are sailing weapons to a country that has a loonie toon for a leader? Do you want war so these russian weapons can become battle tested? The cold war is OVER! The americans won.. Russia is powerful.. Just not like it used to be in the soviet years... It certainly cant compete with a power like america anymore.. No one can. War isnt the answer ppl. Some of these weapons would make some pretty neat hunting gear though......


No one won the cold war, but of course some of you in your minds think you won it, just like in vietnam
give me a break, the cold war was just what's it caled, a cold war with out action, not a single bulet was fierd at each other, but proxy wars did hapen, like vietnam.
Since the 2 nations have a nuclear arsenal exceding thoulsands and thoulsads of nukes no one can win, 1 single nuke can wipe out an entire city and more.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Ok well the fall of the soviet union (which was the goal) happened... If the americans didnt win the cold war (they did) then they have a huge advantage now with all the $$$ theyve put into R&D theyre leaps and bounds ahead of russia... remeber if we didnt win the coldwar which was unrestricted war fare (more physcioligical warfare) then whos to blame for the downfall of the soviet union? The US isnt at war with russia like they were when it was the soviet union... Maybe the threat has left?


Anyways, who gives a *snip*?...




Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/16/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Yo semperfoo thanks for bringing some sanity to this crazyazzed thread. There seem to be those who think it would be cool to see some sort of showdown with Russky weapons. Geez!

The Cold War was a conflict of one-upsmanship and capital expenditures. We won cause the USSR went broke and rotted from the core outward flinging off new states as it degenerated! Now we're sweating it cause some lone schlub corporal out in the sticks at some nuke storage facility hasn't been paid for 2 months and might jump at the opportunity for $10,000 rubles to look the other way.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
No one won the cold war, but of course some of you in your minds think you won it, just like in vietnam
give me a break, the cold war was just what's it caled, a cold war with out action, not a single bulet was fierd at each other, but proxy wars did hapen, like vietnam.


LOL the US did win the Cold War in case you didn't notice teh USSR collapsed. The comparison to Vietnam is just stupid.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Just reading, some info on USSR from the early 50s


"We have nonspeculative, concrete evidence that the USSR is technically mature in the atomic-weapons-design field. Information on the Soviet A-bomb shots in September and October 1951, is quite specific. They are producing high-efficiency weapons, and excellent scientists are working on their atomic-energy program. It is clear that Soviet capabilities in the atomic field are high in reasearch, development, and probably in production.
There is some evidence that the Soviets were actively experimenting in the thermonuclear field after 1946. There is also some intelligence information which is difficult to explain in any terms other than as development by them of thermonuclear weapons. Our country did little thinking in the thermonuclear field between 1946 and 1949: the Russians may well have continued to think and work during that 3-year period.
While there is little sign of Soviet industrial effort assosiated with such a program, the evidence we have is not negative. The industrial effort need not be extremely large in comparison with the standard atomic effort.
We must assume that the USSR can have fusion bombs of one form or another sometime in the near or distant future. They may have done better: they may be abreast of us or even ahead of us. In any case, the time will come when the Russians can have many megaton H-bombs if they want them. Finally, while the soviets would have a difficulty delivery problem, they have the technical ability to develop the means of aerial delivery if and when the bombs are available."

interesting stuff
www.gwu.edu...



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Orangetom- In a word yes. While I am personally no fan of Boyd, since he never fought anyone in actual air to air combat, the concept he uses is the same basic one.


I am trying to remember certain points of the book as the plot thickened and the concept was refined to the reader.

What I recall was that Boyd's concepts were actually a refinement of what he knew and and learned of earlier successful combat pilots doing against thier enemys. I am talking about successful pilots even back to WW1. A successful piece of the puzzle here ..another there and then combining them into a winning tactic for the certain design of aircraft. They were not strictly his concept per se.
Boyd seemed to be perceptive enough to realize what many other pilots naturally were doing out of experience and surviving. Then Boyd clarified it and gave it a name.

Then Boyd and some others began to look at the aircraft and their performance envelopes and concluding this aircraft is better..this design feature is more desirable than that ..etc etc. Not the kind of stuff to endear them to designers, manufacturers,...lobbys and Generals who were lobbied by the manufacturers.
That in particular ..in addition to the tactics is what I found intresting. The amount of politicing which goes into the next aircraft or weapons design. Quite a eye opener. Talk about a cut throat buisness...Wow!!

Anyway...what I recall ..the buisness of effeciently harnessing the flight energy of ones aircraft verses your opponents aircraft and abilities..is very revealing to those who can follow this concept. It is a very dynamic constantly moving type of thinking....not static.

Am I even saying this correctly..does this even make sense??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveG
Just reading, some info on USSR from the early 50s


"We have nonspeculative, concrete evidence that the USSR is technically mature in the atomic-weapons-design field. Information on the Soviet A-bomb shots in September and October 1951, is quite specific. They are producing high-efficiency weapons, and excellent scientists are working on their atomic-energy program. It is clear that Soviet capabilities in the atomic field are high in reasearch, development, and probably in production.
There is some evidence that the Soviets were actively experimenting in the thermonuclear field after 1946. There is also some intelligence information which is difficult to explain in any terms other than as development by them of thermonuclear weapons. Our country did little thinking in the thermonuclear field between 1946 and 1949: the Russians may well have continued to think and work during that 3-year period.
While there is little sign of Soviet industrial effort assosiated with such a program, the evidence we have is not negative. The industrial effort need not be extremely large in comparison with the standard atomic effort.
We must assume that the USSR can have fusion bombs of one form or another sometime in the near or distant future. They may have done better: they may be abreast of us or even ahead of us. In any case, the time will come when the Russians can have many megaton H-bombs if they want them. Finally, while the soviets would have a difficulty delivery problem, they have the technical ability to develop the means of aerial delivery if and when the bombs are available."

interesting stuff
www.gwu.edu...




SteveG
You probably want to begin this line of thought by reading a little known book titled....

"From Major Jordans Diarys" by George Racey Jordan

Library of Congress Number 52-6448 Copywright 1952

This book will give one a begining look into the function our US State Department has played in insuring that the Soviets have the latest technology our industry can produce. This technology transfer continued into the 60s,70s,80s, 90s, and today.
It will give the reader who can think outside of public education ...a understanding of why the IL 76 looks so much like a C141 Starlifter. Why the Russian Space Shuttle looks like ours. Why so many of thier fighters follow the F15 pattern. Why the Russians even today have not produced a marketable I pod... a desk top or laptop computer...etc etc etc. Did the Soviets ever field a Formula One type race team..super powers can do this??? Think about what this means.
If Major Racey Jordan is correct ...American politicians and the US State Department were helping the Soviets with the status of thier fledgling nuclear program with knowlege and materials even during WW2 and at a time when even we did not have much of this material available for our own uses.
Dont worry...our State Department is following the same pattern with the Chinese.

I am just one of those nutty people who dont believe the Chinese have stolen any nuclear weapons secrets from us. Think about that a while.

If you can even find a copy of George Racey Jordans book you might want to move on to

"Military Aid to the Soviet Union". By Anthony Sutton. ISBN 0870002074

Another indictment of the US State Department and American politicians in helping the Soviet Military might.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
And every one of the Sov's 1st generation and many of the 2nd generation post- WW 2 jets are of German design. There's nothing original there and most can be traced back to projects in Germany during the war.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
And every one of the Sov's 1st generation and many of the 2nd generation post- WW 2 jets are of German design. There's nothing original there and most can be traced back to projects in Germany during the war.


YOu know I am aware that we too built on German know how. Our F86 fighter design has origins in German designs. The submarine snorkel has origins in German designs. As I recall reading that our intelligence people were astounded when they went into German Shipyards and saw what was on the drawing boards and in submarines under construction.

Our rocket and space program is built on early German/Nazi designs and know how. This has been taken into new areas with designs and technology but in its roots and origins it is German.

I too was astounded to read what our intelligence peoples found when our military overan an airfield which turned out to be mostlly experimental aircraft designs.
What they found there was a jet airplane with movable swept back wings. Mind you now the wings were not powered like today with a hydraulic apparatus but instead the plane would land and a large pin removed the wings were then moved to a different angle for testing. Nonetheless it was quite a shock for our people to realize the portent of what they were seeing. The very potential of this was astounding to our people and I am talking back about 1945.

While it is somewhat difficult to find accurate information on these events it is intresting to read of the quantitys of equipment,,aircraft, rockets, manuals, blueprints, Tanks, etc. etc. etc. Which were transported back to the states or our allies. This was very intresting to see the pictures of German aircraft with Western decals on them or being loaded onto ships and docks or flown off of airfields to the West. You have to really dig for this type of information.

Make no mistake. We still do this in any conflict today. WE sent observers there to gather military and commercial informations of any use to us..hardware too. Mountains of this type of information are gathered...way below the radar level of the average American.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL negotiate a deal, yeah right. So the fact that his security forces imprisoned tortured and killed thousands of Kuwaiti's were to lay the foundations for negotiations. You need to educate yourself somewhat.


War's are settled by negotiations and how many dies are not really relevant when both parties at the negotiating table see profit. Saddam mistakenly thought that the USA had no interest in joining a war in the ME at the time and that may be due to what April Glaspie ( Sp?) had to say....


The fcat is Saddam was pissed because the Kuwaiti's called in his Iran-Iraq war debt adn he thought that the debt should be forgiven.


While that is not inaccurate i would say that their deliberate effort to try undermine oil prices, to prevent him from being able to repay, was not at all endearing considering his strenght and their weakness.


Slant drillig was a minor issue at best.


Do you get most angry when a lion or a mosquito tries to get at your blood? The fact that Kuwait had the temerity to drill Iraqi oil to help drive down global prices could not have gone over well with someone like Saddam...


Hmm, if they didn't choose teh air campaign option they would have put forces on the ground, which would have dealt with the Serbs very very quickly.


The Serbs have a long history of fighting vastly superior forces and considering what is happening in Iraq i think trying to take on the highly skilled Serbian forces would have led to quite the bloodbath for everyone involved.


The Serbian Army in Kosovo would hvae been completely destroyed. SO they were lucky NATO chose the air campaign road.


The Serbian army in Kosovo would have retreated and fought in their own terrain at home and if one looks at the Russian experience in Chechnya ( I was not previously aware of the scale of it) i think it would have been far bloodier than Iraq is turning out to be. Their official doctrine have always been to wear out Soviet/NATO advances with their armored forces while their infantry formations assemble and disperse for a protracted campaign in the mountains and forests...


The thing is you don't either, you read fringe websited and books and have never travelled outside of South Africa.


Since when is the pages i link you to 'the fringe'? I may read strange things but i certainly do not base my ideas or arguments on them! Show me how 'fringe' material is what i normally use on ats!


You are hardly a worldly person.


Thank you for the compliment.


You display teh typical Afrikaaner arrogance though, which I find quite amusing.


Whatever our faults may be at least we never set out to butcher an entire race of people as you Australian folk still seem hell bent on doing.


So executing civilians piece mealnis fighting terrorism, I think you need to do some more research.


Executing civilians , if that's what they are, is a war crime and whoever indulges in it should pay which would obviously include most of the American defense establishment. If we are going to be fair lets start with the nation that has actively been destroying freedom movements all around the world for a century!


Couple this with the 10's of thousands of civilans teh Serbs killed in teh Balkan Wars, NATO had every right to be worried. Come on step into the real world for a change.


Which will still make the Serbs petty criminals compared to those who seek to punish them for their relative (to American war crimes the last few decades) , but horrendous war crimes. You just have no sense of history and you are as badly informed on this topic as every other. NATO simple has no authority over other criminals when it's a criminal organization to the core.

Stellar

[edit on 20-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Ah huh. Come on Stellar out with it, how far up in the state department are you?


Why do i have to be in the state department to read their documents?


I mean you claim to know what Saddam's motives were back in 90-91 and that he got suckered in by the US so the US could expand its influence in the region which we already had(i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain).


Oh sure he was looking after number one ( himself) but as with all such types their ego's can be used against them. I really believe ( and think i can prove) that he thought he could arrange a favourable negotiating position by taking Kuwait and then using it as a bargaining tool to further his ambitions in the region. What he failed to understand was that he was only a bit player in far larger scheme and he was simple not allowed a way out which is simple not how negotiation works if both sides wants a peaceful settlement as end. The US was simple seeking to 'legitimately ( in the eyes of it's citizens) expand it's influence in the region.


Ever stop to consider that Saddam had some interests of his own that he was looking after(i.e. war loans, greater Iraq).


Well it would be absolutely impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that SH was a self interested man..... Why is this a point of discussion?


Point me in the right direction then. I'm sure the info you give me will be from neutral sources and well respected scholars.


That depends on your definition of 'respect' ( whoever agrees with you?), 'neutral ( whoever agrees with commonly accepted norms?) and 'scholars' ( whoever gets air time on the controlled media?). Once we sorted that out we can start!


Not left-wing activists who gloss over or dismiss the crimes commited in the name of communist ideology.


What communist ideology? Show me which of the American interventions of the last 60 years was actually a 'anti communist' campaign ( pick the best one...) and i show you that it was in fact just another exercise in crushing freedom and self expression. One does not have to dismiss the crimes of others to consider your own you know...


And you say I don't have a clue.


It's not that you do not have a clue but that you believe exactly what you were told to believe instead of what actually took place.
What i said is well supported by main stream articles so just say what things bother you most so i can start helping you in the right direction...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Yo semperfoo thanks for bringing some sanity to this crazyazzed thread. There seem to be those who think it would be cool to see some sort of showdown with Russky weapons. Geez!


I sanction the defense of freedom at any cost but that can never involved offensive cross border action.


The Cold War was a conflict of one-upsmanship and capital expenditures.


Well the USA in fact used the cold war excuse to persecute every freedom related movement it could so it was hardly a peaceful time.


We won cause the USSR went broke and rotted from the core outward flinging off new states as it degenerated!


If what the USA has become is considered 'winning' i would hate to see what losing would look like. Russia is hardly broke by any stretch of the imagination and you really have to involve creative thinking to arrive at that conclusion. Having poor and or starving people can hardly be a indication of that as that would mean the USA went broke as well.



Now we're sweating it cause some lone schlub corporal out in the sticks at some nuke storage facility hasn't been paid for 2 months and might jump at the opportunity for $10,000 rubles to look the other way.


And it's quite funny that people buy this kind of absolute hogwash but here we are looking at at shopping cart full of it!

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL the US did win the Cold War in case you didn't notice teh USSR collapsed. The comparison to Vietnam is just stupid.


As collapses go this was a interesting one in that the owners seemed to have kicked out the supports themselves... Is that your definition of a collapse or what are we to make of the fact that they just did nothing to hold it all together? There is a vast amount of information indication that the 'collapse' of the USSR was a stage play under which guise the Kremlin could do the type of rapid reforms they could not otherwise get away with. The certainly did not lose control over their ability to defend themselves and they are still more than able to fight and win the nuclear war they always thought they would eventually have to survive.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
No one won the cold war, but of course some of you in your minds think you won it, just like in vietnam


Well the aim was never to destroy communism in Vietnam as there was not much of it to start with! The aim was to destroy the freedom and independence movement and that one was pretty successful imo...


give me a break, the cold war was just what's it caled, a cold war with out action, not a single bulet was fierd at each other, but proxy wars did hapen, like vietnam.


The USSR involved in Vietnam only as far as arms dealers gets involved in wars. According to William Blum the USSR sold the US about 600 000 tons of titanium in the late 60's so one gets to wondering who was who's enemy and when. The Vietnamese bought weapons where they could as one in the end must fight with what you can get. The cold war was certainly NOT cold as under the American definition of communist ( freedom and independence movements of every nature) there was plenty and persistent action with bullets being fired by the tens of millions...


Since the 2 nations have a nuclear arsenal exceding thoulsands and thoulsads of nukes no one can win, 1 single nuke can wipe out an entire city and more.


Well the risks involved are certainly tremendous but that did not prevent the USSR ( and now Russian ) from investing most of labour of it's citizens in preparing to fight, survive and win a nuclear war. I am not sure if you have some of my previous work on the topic on ATS but i think i make a convincing argument in favour of the USSR having the capability to do so if and when a nuclear war broke out.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by pepsi78
No one won the cold war, but of course some of you in your minds think you won it, just like in vietnam


Well the aim was never to destroy communism in Vietnam as there was not much of it to start with! The aim was to destroy the freedom and independence movement and that one was pretty successful imo...


give me a break, the cold war was just what's it caled, a cold war with out action, not a single bulet was fierd at each other, but proxy wars did hapen, like vietnam.


The USSR involved in Vietnam only as far as arms dealers gets involved in wars. According to William Blum the USSR sold the US about 600 000 tons of titanium in the late 60's so one gets to wondering who was who's enemy and when. The Vietnamese bought weapons where they could as one in the end must fight with what you can get. The cold war was certainly NOT cold as under the American definition of communist ( freedom and independence movements of every nature) there was plenty and persistent action with bullets being fired by the tens of millions...


Since the 2 nations have a nuclear arsenal exceding thoulsands and thoulsads of nukes no one can win, 1 single nuke can wipe out an entire city and more.


Well the risks involved are certainly tremendous but that did not prevent the USSR ( and now Russian ) from investing most of labour of it's citizens in preparing to fight, survive and win a nuclear war. I am not sure if you have some of my previous work on the topic on ATS but i think i make a convincing argument in favour of the USSR having the capability to do so if and when a nuclear war broke out.

Stellar


Vietnam was never about winning and I am begining to suspect that the same people who kept the Vietnam war going for buisness reasons are doing the same in Iraq/Afganistan and eventually other places. They have hijacked the war for their profit purposes.

Vietnam was about bringing a nation into the Twentieth Century in ten short years or less and then when the nations was sufficiently developed...and the oil discovered and capped off the nation was then ready to be put into storage. Yes you can put a nation into storage. You only have to make sure a Communist government is installed. Communist Governments are excellent for keeping out competitors and at the same time making sure no unauthorized progress takes place. Communist nations are perfect for this role as certain progresses are impossible under such a controlling government. The same could be said for a Taliban type government. Certain progresses are impossible here too. These types of Government would be perfect for Global buisnesses to put a whole nation into storage while at the same time keeping competitors out. They will replace the Communists in this role.

Chairman Mao was perfect for keeping progress out of China and other competitors out...until the time for developement...then the ping pong team comes in and opens the doors...wola..progress happens and then you have Wal Mart. The epitome of civilized development. Next thing you know they will be moving up to the oriental equivalent of Hooters.

The trick is spotting the next development area..either for resources or Labor. The materials can be shipped anywhere in the world ..even the manufacturing plants can be shipped. The competition today is in Labor...cheap labor. Resources is a different problem ..by this I mean raw materials....though one could also look at cheap labor as a resource......ala...Mexico.

Take a close look at the history ...you will see this fingerprint there in the background..behind several layers.

The USA has been one of the biggest supporters of the Soviet UNion....and kept them afloat several times when they would have gone under. Our US State Deparement is anything but Pro American. THey are pro Buisness and this often means getting in bed with nations which dont like us and would like to see us go down the tubes. The State Departmet going back to the days of Woodrow Wilson was always pro Communist...even in the days of FDR...unto today.

The point that so many people miss is that the history of the world is not written in the Wars ...which is the drivel one gets in the media and public education. THe history of the world is written in its buisness dealings..who is sleeping with whom and why. I am speaking of Banks, Insurance companys, manufacturers, companys which harness the raw materials/resources, Transport them etc etc. These buisness dealings are what is really happening and govern the future of nations. Not the drivel which passes for news, information, and public education.
When you understand this type of concept and the portent of it ..it changes the way you look at governments, news and informations.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Why do i have to be in the state department to read their documents?


Okay then who's your source? And how do you know these documents are authentic?


Originally posted by StellarX
Oh sure he was looking after number one ( himself) but as with all such types their ego's can be used against them. I really believe ( and think i can prove) that he thought he could arrange a favourable negotiating position by taking Kuwait and then using it as a bargaining tool to further his ambitions in the region.


He very well may have thought that but that doesn't mean we put him up to it.


Originally posted by StellarX
What he failed to understand was that he was only a bit player in far larger scheme and he was simple not allowed a way out which is simple not how negotiation works if both sides wants a peaceful settlement as end.


Well both sides didn't. You do recall Saddam invaded Kuwait don't you? And what he failed to understand is that the US and the rest of the world wasn't going to legitimize his actions by negotiating with him.


Originally posted by StellarX
The US was simple seeking to 'legitimately ( in the eyes of it's citizens) expand it's influence in the region.


Well the US did get UN approval to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. So our actions weren't just legitimate in the eyes of Americans.


Originally posted by StellarX
Well it would be absolutely impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that SH was a self interested man..... Why is this a point of discussion?


My point is that the US isn't behind every bad thing that happens on this planet(like you try to make it out to be). There are plenty of bad people in positions of power on this planet that don't need a "go ahead" from the US or anyone else to further their own agenda(and Saddam Hussein was certainly one of them).


Originally posted by StellarX
That depends on your definition of 'respect' ( whoever agrees with you?), 'neutral ( whoever agrees with commonly accepted norms?) and 'scholars' ( whoever gets air time on the controlled media?). Once we sorted that out we can start!


Cop out.


Originally posted by StellarX
What communist ideology? Show me which of the American interventions of the last 60 years was actually a 'anti communist' campaign ( pick the best one...) and i show you that it was in fact just another exercise in crushing freedom and self expression. One does not have to dismiss the crimes of others to consider your own you know...


Well there's the Korean War for one.


Originally posted by StellarX
It's not that you do not have a clue but that you believe exactly what you were told to believe instead of what actually took place.
What i said is well supported by main stream articles so just say what things bother you most so i can start helping you in the right direction...


And I guess it depends on what you call mainstream. You infur that there is a media bais in favor of the US. I say that the media is anything but favorable to the US(and justifiably so sometimes). Just turn on CNN and you'll see plenty of reports that paint a less than flattering picture of the US its people its culture and its history.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Okay then who's your source? And how do you know these documents are authentic?


Because it reflects what sort of weapons were deployed and who they were used against in what way and for which reasons? I can do vague! Carrier battle groups are a great way of projecting power against third world nations which can not sink them just as slow B-52's are useful carpet bombing devices when the other guy can hardly shoot back. Why no passive civil defense and active ABM defense network? Knowing the weaponry tells you as much if not more than official policy documents.


He very well may have thought that but that doesn't mean we put him up to it.


Tin pot dictators installed by the west are normally on short leashes and i have seen no evidence that SH was not a loyal ally of the west. He was trying to save face as far as he could but behind the scenes he was desperately trying to satisfy weapon inspectors, the UN and NATO. I think he simply thought that the west was willing to give him Kuwait ( or at least great concessions after he showed what Iraq could do) as reward for his loyalty in keeping Iran busy for almost a decade. I have not seen anything to suggest that he was brave ( some would say suicidal) enough to invade another country without having good reason to believe that he would be allowed such action...


Well both sides didn't. You do recall Saddam invaded Kuwait don't you? And what he failed to understand is that the US and the rest of the world wasn't going to legitimize his actions by negotiating with him.


What nonsense. The US and allies negotiate with whoever they want when it suits them to do so and the whole ' we do not negotiate with terrorist/madmen' is dragged up when they have things just as they like them. If they choose to negotiate ( as with North Korea) things are probably not going the way they want it to. Legitimacy is not something most rulers care much about as long as they believe they can fool most of the people into going along with their actions.


Well the US did get UN approval to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. So our actions weren't just legitimate in the eyes of Americans.


Well the US pressed to get the war started and refused to negotiate a more logical and peaceful settlement which they sure did in other situations around the world. They WANTED war and they made sure they got one.


My point is that the US isn't behind every bad thing that happens on this planet(like you try to make it out to be).


Well i am not sure where you got that idea from but that's not what i believe. The US seems to be a instrument of the old European powers and that's why i normally say 'the West' even if i should probably be more specific and say ' international bankers'.


There are plenty of bad people in positions of power on this planet that don't need a "go ahead" from the US or anyone else to further their own agenda(and Saddam Hussein was certainly one of them).


National Independence in international matters is largely illusion for public consumption and if one investigates most large scale actions or economic activities you will discover that you either tow the line or have very very bad things happen to you or the country you are currently running.


Cop out.


If that is your opinion.....


Well there's the Korean War for one.


You will need to be more specific as while i might love debunking and disproving large sections of such articles i don't always have the time. The Soviet backed North Korean ruler would have won a national election by a landslide and since the west wanted to keep the region unstable they partitioned the country so as to keep control of at least one part. There is good evidence to suggest that the South attacked the North and not the other way round... Whatever the case may be the west hardly had any reason to intervene in a civil war when the majority of the South was very much against the western backed and installed ruler they had to put up.


And I guess it depends on what you call mainstream. You infur that there is a media bais in favor of the US. I say that the media is anything but favorable to the US(and justifiably so sometimes).


If you can not even discover that the news media is massively biased in favour of US policies you are very far gone and it will take me some time to try help you along the right way....


just turn on CNN and you'll see plenty of reports that paint a less than flattering picture of the US its people its culture and its history.


But since the US actions are far far far worse than anything portrayed in the media i guess that proves my point? Why does there have to be something wrong with American culture or history when these sorts of things have happened in most nations?

Stellar


[edit on 23-10-2006 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join