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.

 

War by Christmas?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Completely off the topic, Thomas, you have my every sympathy in your action with blacklegs and it's refreshing to see an American pointing out that, in a much quieter way than Mrs Thatcher, successive US administrations have beaten the Trades Unions to their knees.
And on to the point -getting rid of Saddam would be a consummation devoutly to be wished -although we ask why GB! didn't do it - but it is largely irrelevant to terrorism: Saudi money is more influential and Qaddafi is still a bigger nuisance: it's the geopolitics and the issues can only be clear if a firm stance is taken on Iran.
A strong hostile Iran demands, essentially, a pro-Western Pakistan and a lunatic of some sort in charge of Iraq: Iraq -like Afghanistan -is probably democratically ungovernable in Western terms; but if allowed to splinter it would produce several equally ungovernable smaller states that would pose an even bigger threat to stability.
The best time -in American terms - in the region was when the US supported and armed the Shah of Persia -a brutal dictator to be sure - but in control, armed to the teeth and pro-West ( although very much not pro-Israel) -it was a major diplomatic mistake just to let him go.
Saddam, or no Saddam, is irrelevant to the terrorism issue (why is why the mainstream US media spend so much time trying to convince the masses that it is relevant) - America needs to be a bit more confident of her power and tackle the key question of his replacement.
It's been a mess in Afghanistan; but that country scarcely matters: Iraq does matter, geographically and economically.




posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Oh, I'm going to catch alot of flack over my next few lines, I'm sure, but here goes.

You are right, Estragon, in that in the larger picture, Iraq does not carry as much weight on the terror-scene as say, Iran or Syria, and does not finance it as much as say, Saudi Arabia. Right now, however, it is the easiest target, politically, that Bush can strike against and even get U.N. support.
Everyone is hoping that Iran will soon become more moderate. Ok, give them a little time; put them at the end of the list. But how about Syria? Syria is more supportive of terror so why not pummel them into oblivion? Simply because that particularly bloody ruleris more respected in the region and has behaved in a more "Arabic" manner. While punching his lights out would be more of a strike against immediate terror and recent crimes against humanity, the whole Arabic community would burn like a torch against us. After all, Syria is a solid Islamic nation, and even our "friends" in that area support terror themselves. So Iraq, with its recent history of attacking fellow Arabs and causing generally bad press in the area, is a safer target.

In short, the U.S. is afraid to go after the really tough targets in the area.

Ok guys, call me an unAmerican-pinko-faggot-commie-bastard if you like. I just call them as I see them, painful or not.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Iraq is an easy target and it's easier to get support to go against them. It's a fine example for the other nations that we might want to clean up. Iran is prime for another revolution, things might change on their own for the better, unlikely in Iraq. North Korea is at least willing to talk to the US and other countries like S. Korea and Japan. Some people in Lebanon don't like the Syrian occupation so this may affect that. I think Iraq is a fine target as there isn't any real future w/ them and diplomacy.

[Edited on 15-11-2002 by Bob88]



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Agreed, Bob.

Still, my first target would have been Saudi Arabia. Take out the little king and his cronies (why are we supporting a non-democratic government, anyhow?), and use our troops which are already in the country to sieze the oil fields. Checkmate.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Much of the esence of it lieswithin treaties and organisations and deals.
Syria borders Lebanon (big trouble), is a neighbour to Israel, has a Mediterranean coastline and is not terribly far from Turkey (which borders Russia) and is, alas, a Nato Islamic member.
Aggression against Syria is in effect (in a UN backed peace--keeping scenario) an impossible target. Saudi is the keeper of the holy places, so unless you're ready for a new Crusade -forget it.
Let us leave aside the hydrocarbons.
Iran is the key -size, people,oil, quite tough --because it is the one Shi'ite country and therefore, an automatic buffer.
This is still about the containment of Russia, I am quite sure.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Much of the esence of it lieswithin treaties and organisations and deals.
Syria borders Lebanon (big trouble), is a neighbour to Israel, has a Mediterranean coastline and is not terribly far from Turkey (which borders Russia) and is, alas, a Nato Islamic member.
Aggression against Syria is in effect (in a UN backed peace--keeping scenario) an impossible target. Saudi is the keeper of the holy places, so unless you're ready for a new Crusade -forget it.
Let us leave aside the hydrocarbons.
Iran is the key -size, people,oil, quite tough --because it is the one Shi'ite country and therefore, an automatic buffer.
This is still about the containment of Russia, I am quite sure.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I am just sick and tired of this hate Americans have learned from the media.

I am tired of hearing anti-muslim stuff..and you say your tired of hearing anti-american stuff..one of the sides have to stop for the other to stop.

ANd we all know thats not going to happen..so go on kill each other!

OrionSirius



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Illu2act quote:
Still, my first target would have been Saudi Arabia. Take out the little king and his cronies (why are we supporting a non-democratic government, anyhow?), and use our troops which are already in the country to sieze the oil fields. Checkmate

You are joking right?Please reassure me you are joking.
Have you got any idea what the consequences of attacking Saudi would be?
And TC there is a name for attacking a country just because it's easy even though unnecessary.It is bullying.

Let us face facts America is by far the greatest military power today and so it follows of all time.It could only ever be defeated by the rest of the world joining together and first denying the US it's markets for goods and then later standing against the US together.
At the moment the rest world does not see US agression as it's biggest threat but I think we can all see where this could lead.
Only continued US agression beyond Iraq could lead to the other nations on this planet to decide that the biggest threat to their own security comes from the US.
Why is the government of the US willing to let this come to pass?



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 12:11 PM
link   
You missed one thing, John Bull. You are correct in saying that the US cannot be brought down from without except by virtually everyone else on Earth banding together against us.

But that is not what the Muslims want to do. They are going to bring us down from within. Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the US, and as their voting block grows, so does their political power. It will be a long process, but unless the good people of the United States stop being all fuzzy and "tolerant" and get rid of the people (the Muslims) who will not tolerate us (non-Muslims), we are going to fall from within. True, we may still exist in name, but not in substance. That is their aim.

[Edited on 11-15-2002 by ~iluv2act~]



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Ilu2act,Do you think that the EU,Russia and China are going to stand back and watch the US take over the worlds major fossile fuel reserves?



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I don't really care. The EU and China already don't like us, and Bush hasn't been doing anything to get in good with the Russians. If we can't work with them through diplomacy and by being friendly, we must make them fear us.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ok, it's time somebody explains to me just exactly how they expect we will take over the oil fields of the world. Explain this in context with not only our documented form of government which does not allow for empire-building, the fact that the citizenry have no desire to be empire-builders and would not tolerate it and the fact that international pressure would ensure that we did not do such a thing. Unlike rogue nations led by tyrants, our position in the world community does mean something to us.

I've heard this enough that now I feel I am owed some kind of explanation or blueprint of how this would occur.

O-S, enough with your "Americans hate Muslims" crap, alright? As I've not only stated in the past but also explained how this is not true and provided evidence of this.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 01:22 PM
link   
OK TC,natually I can not give proof but you wish a blueprint.I will give you a possible blueprint within 24 hours on this thread(My hands are full right now)But why wait for me or St Tom to tell you how it could be done you know perfectly well how it could be done.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Ok, it's time somebody explains to me just exactly how they expect we will take over the oil fields of the world. Explain this in context with not only our documented form of government which does not allow for empire-building, the fact that the citizenry have no desire to be empire-builders and would not tolerate it and the fact that international pressure would ensure that we did not do such a thing.


We are already at war with Iraq, we're just talking about a smoke & mirrors argument on the next form ( ground forces) of prosecuting that war will take. America has been actively engaged in war by proxy for decades; the proxies of choice these days are Corporations. Corp.s don't suffer the same moral pangs of guilt that nations do. Most Americans don't want this war, most Americans don't want the imperialism taking place to continue, but in our form of government we have MINORITY RULE. A minority ( five) of Supreme Court judges put Bush in office. All branches of our Federal government were put in complete Republican control by a minority: we had a 40% turn out of registered voters for the most recent elections, of which about 52% voted Republican......so about 21% of registered voters in this country set the course we're on now.....21%
That, Thomas, is how you say the eventualities that can never happen....happen.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I appreciate the assistance, John. Take longer than 24 hours if need be; between work and a newborn you'll probably need it!

Please, BT, give up the political James Carville-like nonsense. Bush is the president because he is the properly elected president - by law. I know that the law is only something to be circumvented when it is in the way of the democrats, but let's move on. Right now in my state, I have a democrat governor that is trying the same political moves to remain governor even though he lost. Up until now I had some respect for him but now I can't say I do. I'm tired of ungracious losers.

The fact the house and the senate as well as the oval office is controlled by the republicans does not make us a tyrannical state, nor does it mean we are an empire-building nation, now. The fact that we are at war does not mean that we are empire building, either.

John, I'm relying on you to give me a reasonable scenario.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact the house and the senate as well as the oval office is controlled by the republicans does not make us a tyrannical state, nor does it mean we are an empire-building nation, now. The fact that we are at war does not mean that we are empire building, either.John, I'm relying on you to give me a reasonable scenario.


Thomas, thank goodness that what passes muster for you as reasonable isn't what reality is predicated on. If it was, all things that we're 'lawful' or done within the bending of the laws would stand the test of time as being 'just', and we know that's not the case.
I'll allow the far reaching statement that we're 'at war', though it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not demonizing Republicans, only making point that the results of the Afgan 'war' were corporate benefit, namely Unocal. We have not freed the country, but hold only Kabul. A resulting Westernized government enforced by our military and it's economy driven by US friendly corporate conglomerates, is Empire Building. Not in the Roman or British Empire context, but the results are the same. We're set to embark along the same road on a larger scale, with controll of vaster resources in Iraq. It's against the popular mandate in this country. It's a convolution of the mandate given to prosecute Al Qeda. Those who scream for it as immediately necessary are in the minority.
And yet, the governmental mandate to all that will follow was given by 21% of those that could. It will go straight down party lines to follow everything that the oval office puts out.
I don't give a damn about the Republican or Democrat argument. It's the US as a world citizen that concerns me. It's the market economy country alienating it's markets that concern me. It's the no foreseeable end to the back & forth of terror and response that frightens me.

P.S. It's far better to be James Carville than Jerry Farwell, my friend!



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I disagree with the Carville - v - opinion of yours, but I'll not go therenow.

I see where you are coming from, now. Is this conjecture on your part, or have you seen the Unocal flag being hoisted over the Afghanistan landscape? William has covered this topic a few times and I have learned to trust his objectivity and acute observations. He, unlike both you and I, seems to be much more impartial when it comes to politics and is more likely to see potential threats from within our nation, both against our own citizenry and to others in the world.

What say ye, William; has there been any change in the "Unocal assumes ownership of Afghanistan" conspiracy?



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I can't see anything.....there's been a media blackout since it started! Remember Rumsfield saying that if they 'go somewhere that they don't belong and it gets troublesome, we're not obligated to help them' - refering to field journalist in Afganistan.
Conjecture is believing Clinton was installed by the Illuminati; Unocal having ex consultants as the US President, Afgan president, US Rep to Afganistan AND being award the pipeline is a tad moe concrete, no?



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 04:40 PM
link   
No. Considering the amount of money Clinton was given by energy companies, I'm surprised he didn't take over the entire mid-east for Chevron then.

Time will tell whether or not Bush is leading us down the path of empirilism. It'll also show how much he is really involved in the Agenda. I hope you don't have to tel me "I told you so!" while we rot in some prison camp.



posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 05:08 PM
link   
You know a little bit about me, but rest assured about one thing: I'm the type that they'll put my head on a pointy stick for all to see as an example!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join