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.

 

And It Begins...Iran !!!!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
lets see bush call's for more troops to "sustain demorcracy" in IRAQ, and says in retrospect he should have done this even sooner. he has said that bringing in more troops will help them get home sonner, yet he contradicts himself saying he wants these troops prepared for a long struggle

89% of the american public are against increasing troops in the region and he will do so anyway, he said last year that adding more troops "would underminde our strategy of encouragin iraqi's to take the lead" unless of course his commanders on the ground need more troops. well american general AZabid says he met with every general commander including commander leaders casey and dempsey and they said it would not be beneficial to bring in more troops, and on top of that it was said that it would stretch our reserve so thin, that it would compromise our national security. funny thing this is what these sick f$%%s want. they want to see UN troops marching down our streets and then taking away more of our liberties, and then they'll blame it on "terrorists". the NWO can only come to fruition if the u s falls.

we need to impeach bush now , but all of his cronies like cheney and even the shmuch mccain need to go, they ae compromising national security at home, and going against the commander leaders who are in position to give the best advice on wether more troops would be beneficial. THIS IS A JOKE


and now we are going into iran and syria

[edit on 11-1-2007 by cpdaman]




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
IMO, this build-up is certainly being implemented to quash Al-Sadr and his followers. I expect one hell of an urban battle in Sadr City that will overshadow anything that happened in Somalia. And yes, if we kill or detain Muqtada, there will be an uprising that I feel will escalate the burgeoning civil war. Look for this to coincide with a bombing of Iranian "nuclear " sites by Israeli or American forces. I've seen over the months some forums here that mention ( with much controversy ) the fact that we already have Special Ops in Iran, and I'm sure the same goes for Syria. The religious and social fabric of the region is so complicated that it's hard to imagine that any military action will result in peace. The situation will not be resolved by taking out Al-Sadr- it will make him a martyr. Let's face it, it's far too late in the game to fix our strategic mis-step. Someone at the Pentagon should have taken the Powell Doctrine more seriously. This is about to escalate and get very ugly. The Iraqis are completely unable to meet Bush's November deadline- that was just an " out " for us so that Bush can save face when it's time to pull out without a peaceful resolution...In My Opinion, that is...

[edit on 1/11/07 by cosmo dag]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
They must be, this is dumb.

Its a stupid thing to do. There are 20,000 more troops about to come on station and a carrier group to reach the Gulf and yet before any of that manpower becomes available they go and "raid" an Iranian consulate?

I seriously think someone in the US chain of command is either losing it or has lost it, especially after they pulled resources away to do whatever dirty work is afoot in Somalia.


not all of the 20,000 troops are yet to deploy. Some will be redeployed from Kuwait, according to ABC radio news reports yesterday. Incidentally, raiding a consulate is no more provocative an act (considering the hostility Iran shows towards the west) than Iranian military boarding and taking control of oil rigs, platforms and tankers in the gulf. Moreover, it's clear to most rational folks that Iran has been trying to sew the seeds of our defeat in the region (along side many inwitting democrats in this country, sadly) for quite some time...and I've frankly wondered why we failed to act sooner against threats from Syria.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Even if bush would be taken out of office they would replace him with another puppet and the result wouldn't be any different....

What we need to do is overtrow the government completely. As long as that system concept is inplace there will always be a higher power controling the peoples desitions making it look like a democracy but in reality a dictatorship behind the mask...

we need to unite as humanity and not rely on the government anymore.

And most important, we need to work towards peace and peace is not acheived with wars.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
lets see bush call's for more troops to "sustain demorcracy" in IRAQ, and says in retrospect he should have done this even sooner. he has said that bringing in more troops will help them get home sonner, yet he contradicts himself saying he wants these troops prepared for a long struggle

89% of the american public are against increasing troops in the region and he will do so anyway, he said last year that adding more troops "would underminde our strategy of encouragin iraqi's to take the lead" unless of course his commanders on the ground need more troops. well american general AZabid says he met with every general commander including commander leaders casey and dempsey and they said it would not be beneficial to bring in more troops, and on top of that it was said that it would stretch our reserve so thin, that it would compromise our national security. funny thing this is what these sick f$%%s want. they want to see UN troops marching down our streets and then taking away more of our liberties, and then they'll blame it on "terrorists". the NWO can only come to fruition if the u s falls.

we need to impeach bush now , but all of his cronies like cheney and even the shmuch mccain need to go, they ae compromising national security at home, and going against the commander leaders who are in position to give the best advice on wether more troops would be beneficial. THIS IS A JOKE


and now we are going into iran and syria

[edit on 11-1-2007 by cpdaman]


89%? Where did you get your number? Polls reported this morning indicate that only 60% of the population are against increasing troop levels in Iraq. But..let's be honest. If the media portrayed the war in a more balanced fashion, rather than using the "vietnam model", that number would be much different. The American public are gullible. They believe the world as told in 10 second soundbites.

In the end, there are many who say no to Bush's plan. But no one has yet offered a viable solution.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Posted as News before reading this thread but it appears to be getting good coverage here. Certainly what could be euphemistically called a 'boner' by US or so I believe.

english.aljazeera.net...

It does appear to be calling out Iran, of course, it could make us forget all about our problems in Iraq.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by polanksi]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well done ! Keep up the RAIDS !!



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
We were never at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran. War is Peace.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by reaganero
We were never at war with Iraq. We've always been at war with Iran. War is Peace.


Or more aptly..they've always been at war with us. I think it's about time we handed them their asses. But we'll see if our political system will let our military achieve victory.


JSR

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
What we need to do is overtrow the government completely.

we need to unite as humanity and not rely on the government anymore.


what would you say we replace democracy with?

------

we had no choice but to engage iran and syria in iraq.
they have been engaging us by proxy sense we got there.

it's all the rage these days....war by proxy...

now an invasion of iran and syria would be dumb.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
you're kidding right? why are we there. what's the purpose of this? it's like we're throwing we're fuling the fire and we just don't need to. oh, wait we love oil so much more than our troops. support the oil!


Ex

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I was watching Condelessa Rice on a news show this morning
and this is exactly what she is talking about.

Her version....in order to secure the borders of Iraq..
we must take all the necessary steps with Iran & Syria!

In other words.....

They have already made up their minds to take on these countries
and we will be footing the bill.
This is the reason for the NEW SURGE
.more troops there when it jumps off.
Congress can't do a thing, by the time the legislation even goes
to a vote
we will already be head on in!!

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by cosmo dag
IMO, this build-up is certainly being implemented to quash Al-Sadr and his followers. . The situation will not be resolved by taking out Al-Sadr- it will make him a martyr. Let's face it, it's far too late in the game to fix our strategic mis-step. Someone at the Pentagon should have taken the Powell Doctrine more seriously. This is about to escalate and get very ugly.


In total agreement the death of muqtada will make him a martyr as saddam, and we all know the shia faction thrieve on martyrdom.

Oh and civil war i believe is already happening only that allied troops obscure that reality.

good post cosmo



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Looks like bush is really trying to get that armageddon thing going. yay nwo via chaos and in steps the peace maker.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
lol, 20,000 more troops is supposed to be enough to take on Iran and Syria? What I wonder is when are Iran and Syria going to say "enough?". If they decided to turn things on the offensive, and Syria attacked from the west and Iran attacked from the east, I'd be curious as to what the American military would do then. Start dropping nuclear weapons, realizing they are surrounded?

:shk:

Calls for filibustering any Dem attempt in Congress to withhold funding are already coming from the Reps:

www.breitbart.com...


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats, but the Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan.

"Obviously, it will ... require 60 votes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as senior administration officials made the case for Bush's new policy in Congress, at news briefings and the morning television programs.

"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


JSR

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!


you want to know what civil war looks like?
bring the troops home.

iran would move in in earnest to protect the shia...
saudi arabia would move in to protect the sunni..

oh wait, the is still war by proxy...



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
[

[edit on 1/11/07 by cosmo dag]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol, 20,000 more troops is supposed to be enough to take on Iran and Syria? What I wonder is when are Iran and Syria going to say "enough?". If they decided to turn things on the offensive, and Syria attacked from the west and Iran attacked from the east, I'd be curious as to what the American military would do then. Start dropping nuclear weapons, realizing they are surrounded?

:shk:

Calls for filibustering any Dem attempt in Congress to withhold funding are already coming from the Reps:

www.breitbart.com...


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats, but the Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan.

"Obviously, it will ... require 60 votes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as senior administration officials made the case for Bush's new policy in Congress, at news briefings and the morning television programs.

"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.



it all sounds like a plan for chaos. i'm surprised it hasn't come to a head yet. but really if you wanted to make everybody over there lose their minds and really start fighting, the bush plan is that in full. it's not meant to be won. we can't win this or even make it better but we sure as hell can make it worse. and as long as we have some part in it then there will always be a need for us.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by Ex

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!


you want to know what civil war looks like?
bring the troops home.

iran would move in in earnest to protect the shia...
saudi arabia would move in to protect the sunni..

oh wait, the is still war by proxy...



I couldn't agree more. And for those who keep quipping about Bush ushering in Armageddon, let's not forget Ahmedinejad believes that it is his destiny to A) usher in the 12th Immam (whose appearance is eerily similiar to antichrist) and B) wipe Israel off the map. Moreover, as much as I hate this scenario....can anyone explain why any mention of something resembling the US is absent from the biblical account of Armageddon? ......because we're not there.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphicsman1977
I couldn't agree more. And for those who keep quipping about Bush ushering in Armageddon, let's not forget Ahmedinejad believes that it is his destiny to A) usher in the 12th Immam (whose appearance is eerily similiar to antichrist) and B) wipe Israel off the map. Moreover, as much as I hate this scenario....can anyone explain why any mention of something resembling the US is absent from the biblical account of Armageddon? ......because we're not there.


in daniel it mentions eagles wings on a lion but later in revelations the wings are gone. most/some people interpret this as meaning the united states power gets removed/destroyed. much like the fall of rome (face it, america is the second "rome")

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join