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 deltaboy
We helping the people...not our fault that the insurgents decided to kill more people than America does. We can't protect everyone. Not to mention that Iraq HAD WMDs, these days the CIA has no reliable intel on Iraq so its a guessing game. Nothing new there, in CIA's history.
Originally posted by deltaboy
We invaded NK, China backed them up and we lost over 40,000 men for that. We invade NK, we go to war with China since its nearby and NK is China's ally. We still have about 25,000 troops in SK. But then SK won't support our invasion of NK if we decided to. Not to mention we are stretch thin.
Originally posted by deltaboy
We could invade NK but then we have only 25,000 men. against how many NK men? 1.2 million?
Originally posted by deltaboy
Your opinion, Al Qaeda has been left alone for years, about time we strike back.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Give us another million soldiers and we could do it.
Originally posted by deltaboy
We gave Afghanistan about a month before we invaded. Iraq 3 years.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Definitely yes.
Originally posted by deltaboy
I'm sorry thats pretty much wrong, since we fought conflicts with many non-oil producing countries than oil producing countries.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats funny. Thats based on what you believe not current news reality.
Where are the Bush supporters now??
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?
US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.
Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.
Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.
I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?
If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.
On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.
Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaeda attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?
I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.
In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.
I forgot to add one thing. If you answer is gonna be that US cannot invade NK because its too tied up in Iraq then let me ask you this:
Why didn't the US attack NK in the first place when it named it among the 'axis of avil' knowing full well that of all the US enemies, NK would possibly be the first to make nukes and use them against US or its allies.
When Bush 'suspected' saddam of having WMDs, im sure he suspected Kim of the same thing. Given the 'US intelligence', wouldn't Bush have known about Kim's plans. I mean it didnt take them long to know that Osama was behind 9/11.
After attacking Afghanistan, Bush had 'choice' between Iraq and NK.
Iraq had oil, NK did not. Iraq was easier to attack then NK, being the pushover US is. NK had a higher probability of having WMDs than Iraq, much higher. Kim is crazier than Saddam ever was. Bush knew after putting hisarmy into afghanistan and iraq, there wudnt be much left to put anywhere else and would therefore make the US 'vulnerable' against bigger threats like NK, still he did not attack NK.
Now, after all those above mentioned points, Bush chose to attack Iraq and ignore NK, makes one wonder as to the true motive of the US government and then lot more questions arise like maybe 9/11 was an inside job considering all the conspiracies around it.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Right here
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Look at this from a military point of view. North Korea not only has a massive army of their own, but they had Chinese support in 2003 when Iraq was invaded. That's one hell of a war to go into. The casualties of the War on Terror are nearly 3,000. They would've been 50x that if the US invaded North Korea.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Not to mention a while nation full of brain washed civilians.
So I understand what you're saying politically, but militarily is a totally different matter.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
What's best for the American people was removing the two easiest threats back in 2003. Ever since this Nuclear test the United States will now be able to place more sanctions and further gain Chinese support for action against North Korea. This will greatly minimize casualties in any kind of war.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Kim Jong Il will be dealt with the same as Saddam. Once the US has South Korea, Japanse and possibly Chinese support for an attack on the North it will happen. Right now is a good time. North Korea doesn't have deployable nukes yet and China is rather mad at them.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
For starters WMD's that have been formally classified as illegal which Saddam DENIED having have been found in Iraq. In fact over 700 munitions containing Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found and tested.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
That and proven connections between Mussab Al-Zarqawi and Saddam's regime are plenty of a reason to go to war. Not to mention the genocide and murder of innocent civilians performed by Saddam.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked first because they were the easiest targets and/or the top priority at the time. Would it have made sense to invade North Korea right after 9/11?
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Not scared, but wise. Read my initial responses for more info. No point attacking in '03 without Chinese support.
It's not aimed at 'control' of the Middle East. A better word would be stabilization. Saddam's regime had caused ALOT of trouble in the Middle East. From attacking Iran to attacking Kuwiat. May aswell stop him before he can cause more trouble.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
The US couldn't invade NK because they didn't have enough support from neighbouring nations to complete a difficult mission.
At that point in 2003 Japan would not have commited troops, South Korea would have hesitated and China would have backed up North Korea. But times change and the whole situation is different now.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
As I said before, Saddam did have illegal arms. So it wasn't 'suspected' it was fact. That's simply ignoring the 14 trucks that left a suspected bio lab in Iraq and entered Syria.
Like I said before they've known about Kim's plans for ages. I guess they were hoping diplomacy would work but due to recent events that's been disproven.
Diplomacy didn't have to work in Afghanistan or Iraq because the US was equipped to handle a military situation against smaller armies and malitia. North Korea has 6,000,000 troops including reservers. Too much for a ground invasion.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Iraq had an inexperienced pitiful excuse for an army, NK did not. Kim crazier than Saddam? Mabey now because Saddam is out of power but Kim aint the one with Human Shredding machines who gased the Kurds and invaded two of his neighbours.
The US is equipped for a war with North Korea but that would leave them short of a war with China or Russia. That's the main priority of the US army. Defending against Russia and China. If you don't have enough guys to do that... you don't have an army at all.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
No point arguing your conclusion. The rest of my threads put it to rest.
Save your 9/11 crap for its respective forum. Which should probably be renamed to "ATS Trash Can".
Originally posted by half_minded
You help the people? So according to your logic, Iraq was less peaceful and more people were dying there on a daily basis even though we all know thats not the case. welcome to the real world.
Iraq NEVER had WMDs, even Bush admitted that and to top it off he also admitted that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaida.
Still they stopped hunting the person they should be after (Osama) and went ahead in a hurry to attack Saddam. CIA always does not seem to have the correct intel when it need to be. However, after 9/11 it was immediately determined that Osama was after the attacks.
Shouldn't you be doubting where your billion of tax dollars go when you country does not even have the correct intel and decides to launch a huge attack on country which they knew would not get over soon and would eventually cause the death of thousands of people, including their own soldiers. Nice help there to the innocent people of these countries. I hope US never decides to help anyone else if that there idea of help.
You never actually invaded NK because the international world leaders, including China stopped you.
You see, unlike US, the rest of the world belives in handling things without violence and launching attacks on countries and destroying homes and lives.
You have lot of troops in SK and also in lot of countries around the world including middle eastern countries. And what do you think the 'terrorists' are protesting in the first place. They want the US military out of their countries. Yet US ignores them and continues its plan of world domination by occupying so many countries, peacefully or forcefully.
So, you just agreed that US likes to bully countries when it knows that they cant fight back.
Why not pull troops out of Iraq and other countries and attack the immediate threat. Ofcourse, if they were so concerned with world peace that wud be the case but sadly its not.
And so has been Kim (who is clearly a bigger threat. Just need common sense to figure that one out), yet US attacked the countries which were weaker and less capable of harming US while NK has been MAKING nukes and TESTED them and now they are threatening US that would use them. All they want to do is that, yet US does not want to talk because they dont belive in peace talks, only attacking and occupying countries. If US is being such a daddy to other countries and trying to make them more peaceful then why not talk to NK and try to resolve matters, esp. now when NK has nukes and could possibly use them against the world.
Originally posted by half_minded
You already have the military power, you dont need equal numbers of soldiers to win the war, just better technology, which u already have. Regardless, you do have a big military, i mean you must be having it right? since you can fight wars in 2 countries at the same time and also place lot of military in different countries around the world. Too bad the military is more busy in occupying the oil rich countries and filling up pockets of the people who control your military. so busy in fact that they cannot even fight a country which is openly threatning them of using nukes against them.
Yes, you may have given them time but that still does not disprove my point that Iraq war was based on lies. Giving them time has nothing to do with what the war was based upon. Because, simply put, the same logic and reasoning appllies even more to NK than Iraq. It always has, yet US chose to attack Iraq and not NK, knowing full well that this would cause them to be open to threats from NK and possible attacks.
I asked a question which could not have been answered by yes or no. Read the question carefully again. And just a simple yes does not really refute my argument. You have to give some logical reasoning or facts to answer my question.
I am talking about current world situation which has been ongoing since the 'war on terror' started. After that, the only agenda of the US gov. has been to attack oil rich countries and clearly ignoring the real threats like NK. If you have any other wars in mind you must have fought before 9/11 with some other countries then its irrelevant to this topic. Not to mention, Bush wasn't even the president then.
Yet again, you state a simple statement saying that whta i say is against wats in the current news. Hello, thats what ive been trying to say, US news and media is filled with propoganda, and if you belive anything you see on the news then you are very ignorant of wats really happening in the world. In any case, watver I have stated above is in accordance with the current and recent news. Except my conclusion, which I deduced from my own common sense and logical reasoning after seeing the 'evidence'.
Except my conclusion, which I deduced from my own common sense and logical reasoning after seeing the 'evidence'.
Originally posted by half_minded
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?
US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.
Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.
Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.
I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?
If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.
On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.
Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaida attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?
I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.
In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Who says it was need to be less peaceful to go to war? Afghanistan must have been peaceful before we went to war there as well. Welcome to the real world.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Sure he did. Have you forgotten Halabja? Or the attacks on Iranian soldiers during Iran-Iraq war? As I say before, the CIA had lack of intel in Iraq so its a guessing game now.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Who says we stopped hunting? We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border fighting and dying. We found out that it was Osama thanks to the NSA, not the CIA.
Originally posted by deltaboy
We are helping as best as we can, after all not our fault that insurgents like to kill many people. We have over 130,000 troops compare to the population of millions.
Originally posted by deltaboy
We invaded them in 1950s, China responded by sending hundred of thousands of troops so its a stalemate.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Well it seems to me that it didn't work, and now China admits to wanting to punish NK, go figure.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Yeah, go figure, we got troops in South Korea and you are complaining about why we have troops in the Middle East for oil. You have yet to explain why we have troops in South Korea or Kosovo or Bosnia for example? No answer to that?
Originally posted by deltaboy
No we target countries that bullies others. Like for example North Korea invaded South Korea, we intervene for that. People always assume that superpowers starts wars first all the time. Go figure.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Its true, we too busy in Iraq. Unless you believe we should leave it as it is. But then we be condemned for leaving the job unfinished.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Kim is a big threat, thats why Bush compares to the 3 countries to Axis of Evil unless you forgotten. The Clinton talked with North Korea, but results failed no surprise there. We can do peace talks, but you know how some dictators refuse to listen. Remember the six nation party talks, which NK REFUSED.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats pretty funny since it looks good on paper, but then technology don't always compensate for everything. We have troops in countries that don't have oil. Pretty weird eh? Too busy there as well.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Based on false intel. We pretty much can attack whoever we perceived as a threat. But then explain the attacks on Serbia in 1999? They weren't a threat to America, but we bombed them anyways.
Originally posted by deltaboy
You asked a simple question which is did you believe that Al Qaeda had something to do with 9/11. Simple answer was yes. You did not add, why or why not.
Originally posted by deltaboy
O yes, now we are talking about the current situation which you feel comfortable talking about. We have tens of thousands of soldiers in 6 continents currently, and many of those nations do not have oil or few oil fields to be considered worth fighting for, yet you probably going to ignore it anyways. Bush has sent troops like the Phillipines, Liberia, etc. So those nations must have some oil at least to die for.
Originally posted by deltaboy
It is based on your opinion and not what has happened. You are not a journalist nor an anchor person.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Huh?
Originally posted by half_minded
So you are admitting that both countries were more peaceful than before US army went there. So automatically you are admitting that Bush lied when he said he was actually helping the citizens of that country. And the smart ass comment about 'Welcome to the real world' is completely out of context and does not contribute towards proving anything.
So CIA has lack of intel and US launches its massive attacks across the globe based on guesses. No wonder Bush administration is such a failure. Even then, Iraq was just a 'guess'. NK however openly tested a nuke and has openly threatened to use it. Yu do not nmeed CIA or NSA intel to figure that out.
Who said....umm let me see....YOUR PRESIDENT DID. Please do some research......Bush agreed that he is not concerned about Osama. And you have thousands of troops fighting and dying. You makei tsound like they are the only ones dying. Wat about the innocent people they have killed and homes they have destroyed. Whos benefitting from all this? Only Bush and Co. are.
You are helping by attacking countries and palcing troops there? Insurgents want US army to leave THIER country and yet US army wont leave...I wonder why. You are saying that you dont have enough troops to kill every million of them? Every million of them is a terrorist? So you drop a bomb on a city, completely disregarding whether its the innocent people who are getting killed. Some help thr buddy. I hope you never help my country. Btw....help should be offered only when asked for. No one asked you to help.
So peace across the globe doesnt work? but attacking a country and pretty much turning it into rubble works? Killing thousands of people and destroying lives works? And what do you hope to achieve.......maybe out of every 100 people you kill, you might be able to bag that 1 extremist muslim who threatens your country?
I already answered your question. Yet you post a reply asking for the same answer. Please read carefully before you post a reply.
Originally posted by half_minded
The attacks carried out by Bush were against the will of other world leaders and also not supported by the UN. Enough said. I am sure you can do the math and see who is the bully here.
Job unfinished? You mean the job of killing more people? Coz Saddam is out of power which was supposed to be your motive in the first place. And anyways, my point of argument was that Bush should have attacked NK rather than Iraq.
No I did not forget about the 'Axis of evil' crap. I even mentioned it in my original post. I suggest you read it first before making assumptions about me. So Clinton did peace talks and from what I see, NK did not test or use nukes then. But now however, under Bush power, NK successfully managed to test a nuke and even threaten to launch it. Bravo BUSH. I guess every individual in the world should follow suit and never resolve anything by peaceful talks, instead use force and aggression. Simple Rule. Attack First Talk Later. Bravo!
Funny indeed! So then if technology is only good on paper then why waste billions of dollars of tax payer money on advancing technology. The whole world knows that US military superiority is largely due to its technological superiority rather than size of military. And if you read my post carefully you will notice that I mention that US has military all over world for OIL and WORLD DOMINATION. Just like carefully placed chess pieces. Only waiting for checkmate.
Ok Ok...this is funny. So you agree you have false intel most of the time. And yet you support bush and his administration. You can pretty much attack anyone you see as a threat? Who in the world gave you that power? Serbia was not a threat to america and yet you bombed it.
So you agree Bush acts mostly on false intel and also attacks countries which are not a threat to america. And yet you are here supporting Bush. You got me confused there.
Please read the question before you make assumptions. And you picked one sentence out of context and tried to make it look like a simple question when its more than clear that the question was aimed at the entire post in general and not just the sentence right before it. Again I urge you to actually read carefully before posting replies.