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 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.
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. ...
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.
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......
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Slant drillig was a minor issue at best.
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 Serbian Army in Kosovo would hvae been completely destroyed. SO they were lucky NATO chose the air campaign road.
The thing is you don't either, you read fringe websited and books and have never travelled outside of South Africa.
You are hardly a worldly person.
You display teh typical Afrikaaner arrogance though, which I find quite amusing.
So executing civilians piece mealnis fighting terrorism, I think you need to do some more research.
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.
Originally posted by danwild6
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).
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.
And you say I don't have a clue.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by StellarX
Why do i have to be in the state department to read their documents?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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...
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...
Originally posted by danwild6
Okay then who's your source? And how do you know these documents are authentic?
He very well may have thought that but that doesn't mean we put him up to it.
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.
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.
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).
Cop out.
Well there's the Korean War for one.
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.