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.

 

It's going to take a war allright!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Yes Siree Bob. It's going to take a war. It's going to take a war, because the people cannot contain it any longer. It's going to take the next brave country to stand up and say that's enough. And it's going to take the combined powers of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and more to do it.

Do what, you say? Do what even the incoming Democrats cannot do: stop this warmongering administration from:

1) Expanding the Middle East war into Iran and Syria
2) Allowing this administration to seize impunitive power from the American people
3) Allowing the NWO to continue to expand and challenge the world

I believe that most of the rest of world understands. I believe that most of the rest of the world still has faith in the American people. But I also believe that most of the rest of the world is fed up with American government, and its insistence on meddling in foreign affairs to project its power and seize vital resources. If the American military cannot be pursuaded to defend this country from domestic enemies, then maybe it is befitting that it be destroyed by the might of an enraged world.

The situation with Iran is more than just a bad movie on a late night TV show. There is much more at stake. Not only for the American military-industrial machine, but for China particularly. An American-controlled Iran is probably the last thing that China needs, and yet is the first thing, now, in this administration's gun sights.

The beachead established in Iraq was a move to divide and conquer. Going into Iraq made absolute sense to those privy, while it was total lunacy to the innocent bystander. The UN, while taking its usual time, would have eventually cranked the pressure up on Iraq to the breaking point on its own without the need for military intervention.

But hey, Iraq as a beachead will serve its useful purpose. Not only did it put Iraqi oil under American control, but it allows unfettered access to its surrounding countries, particularly from a conventional weapons standpoint. And what lies directly across Iraq's eastern border? About 90% of Iranian oil.

Which Bush and his plump military-industrial machine are eying as does a lion an antelope. All under the same BS reason that he claimed Iraq: WMD's. In this case, Iran's supposed intent to acquire the bomb. Maybe this time, the American people will demand the solid evidence first? And from more than just our "trustworthy" intelligence and Israeli pressure.

Taking Iraq was just the crucial second step to American dominance in the Middle East. Because cruise missiles, by themselves, are just not enough.
But dividing and conquering can have its disadvantages, the primary being that it puts the enemy on more than one front. And the warmongers got lucky.

Had China, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria flexed their muscles jointly the minute Bush decided to attack Iraq, this situation could have turned out completely differently. Had those countries used the UN as a legitimate international reason to intervene, they would have been arguably as correct as Bush claimed he was in attacking. And once it was determined that all the WMD's in Iraq turned out to be more hearsay than truth, all the more reason.

HAD those countries intervened, some might say that would constitute world war 3. But would it have? Faced against not only the insurgency on the ground, but against heaps of incoming missiles as well as air support, I believe the combined powers of those countries would have been more than enough to keep Bush out of Iraq. Even if Bush would have sent the entire US military. And all this in a conventional sense, of course, because if anyone was stupid enough to use a nuke- well, we all know what would happen then.

When faced with the reality that conventionally the US couldn't stand a chance against a force like that- even with the help of hesitant allies- there would be only one choice: retreat or break out the nukes.

So now the question is, would Bush have used nukes in a case like that? Was he so intent and sure that Iraq was going to blow up the world that he would engage in global thermonuclear war to make his point and quell this wretched supposed threat from Iraq?

I think not. And from that position, I honestly believe that there really ARE others motives at play here. And not that it really takes that argument to make the point. Manufactured and exagerrated evidence taylored to suit agenda is the central point upon which this case rests. And it is the central point at which the world should have made its move.

The world may have been unhappy, but tolerating, of Bush going into Afghanistan, but remember that the world as a whole was staunchly opposed, for many reasons, to the US attacking Iraq. Enough damage had been done and enough people had been killed in retribution for 9/11 with the obliteration of the Taliban.

It's going to take a war. Yes Siree Bob.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Good post TA and it saddens me that I cannot disagree.

This game of global poker yearns the American people to take a strong unfaultering stance. All too many people are willing to be bought too easily, blinded without question by falsified headlines.

It worries me even further with the 2008 elections now in the frame, will the US (admin) actually initiate its objectives prior to the elections, and if not, will the next president pander to the NWO or risk themselves for the greater good?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cocker
It worries me even further with the 2008 elections now in the frame, will the US (admin) actually initiate its objectives prior to the elections, and if not, will the next president pander to the NWO or risk themselves for the greater good?


Hey thanks. Well, considering John McCain looks like the best they got, we might just get lucky in one sense (sad in another), and have someone like Obama elected. But Hillary presents formidable clout, a widespread base, and most importantly (apparently)- MONEY. Lots of it.

Either way, with time running out on Bush's term, it appears a very good strategy for Iran right about now is to try and weather out the storm, stay cool, stop supporting the war effort in Iraq, and just lay low. Any further provocation and Bush will pull the trigger.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Good thread TrueAmerican. But what will it take to stop Bush invading Iran? A world war, causing millions of death, or a US revolution, helped by canadians and mexicans? Then when the people take power in Washington, we go to Ottawa and Mexico, and we go after those NWO guys, no trial, death penalty.

Then we arrange with Russia/China to disarm all countries of their nukes, each country who have them now keep 25 of them. After we go after the revolutionary patents like water-powered motors and anti-gravity stuff. Then maybe humanity could advance to a higher level?

And if you think Obama, (his wife is in CFR), or Hilary (Bilderberg) or McCain (trilateral comission) are for the people, you're wrong.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And if you think Obama, (his wife is in CFR), or Hilary (Bilderberg) or McCain (trilateral comission) are for the people, you're wrong.


Thanks Vitch.

Well at this point what can we do but accept the lesser of two (or three)evils? Any other party stands no chance NONE of getting elected. The people are just too afraid to really vote on principle. And maybe they should be for this particular election. I'd rather be swarmed with Mexican illegals than taking potassium iodide.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
believe that most of the rest of world understands. I believe that most of the rest of the world still has faith in the American people. But I also believe that most of the rest of the world is fed up with American government, and its insistence on meddling in foreign affairs to project its power and seize vital resources. If the American military cannot be pursuaded to defend this country from domestic enemies, then maybe it is befitting that it be destroyed by the might of an enraged world.


Well, Treason season must of started. To me, your post is absolutely disgusting. I cannot believe that anyone would advocate the destruction of their own country. You know, the difference between me and "true patriots" like you is that I dont pray to see the men in women in our military hurt. If you want to live somewhere else, go, Its that simple. You dont have to sit around and hope that your country gets destroyed. Where is your sense of loyalty,pride, and honor? You may not agree with the president, thats fine; That is your right as an AMERICAN. However, there is a line between disagreeing and treason and you crossed it.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
In all truth I do agree, However...... I fear things may get worse. In reality do you think a major world war with these world powers would make things any better? Unfortunately these all happen to be countries history has shown, which have done a worse job at running their own governments than we have. Worse of two evils? I think we can all agree that what we need is more enlightened individuals making a difference.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I cannot believe that anyone would advocate the destruction of their own country.


Never did so, nor would I ever advocate that. Read more carefully please, Xphiles. I am at this point, given all things considered, questioning the rationale of the military in continuing to follow the will of a minority President. The people don't support him, Congress does not support him, and neither does the majority of the rest of the world. Something is wrong.


However, there is a line between disagreeing and treason and you crossed it.


Treason? I think not. Treason could arguably apply to the military themselves for not defending this country against its enemies domestic first, and foreign second. There IS a time to review the Constitution (what's left of it) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I implore the military to do so. The whole point of my tirade here is, on the contrary, Xphiles, I am sick of seeing our soldiers die and would never wish harm on any one of them, God Bless their Hearts.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Is Bush that infatuated with this war that he would try to invade by all means necessary? I would hope not. At least we still have some kind of Congress that is awaiting results of this escapade and hopefully, and I mean hopefully, will opress this monster and his administration. It is interesting we elect certain people to adjust and demonstrate grit and assurance that we are still the country we have proven to be in the past. Yet they fall back and wait...and wait and fail to live up to capabilities (for now.)

And I am with you TrueAmerican if any other country would have spoken up or addressed this issue with concern we may not be there, but hell who knows? It is too late to interfere without the United States asking why now? I think China, Russia, etc, Believe this is our situation and we have well screwed ourseleves so they turn the other shoulder. Perhaps they should look again.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
What scares me the most about what is coming, is the ignorance of patriotically obsessed people.

THESE MEN
files.abovetopsecret.com...[/img]

ARE GOING TO HIT THIS MANS SOVERIEGN NATION


Looking at those photos,
Its obvious to see who's on the side of good/bad.

THe man on the side of the GOOD, is looking into deaths door prepared to fight for his cause, and die trying if he has too, he's committed.
The man on the side of EVIL, looks worried, looks unsure. He's constantly on edge, trying to keep the 'mascarade' on show in a 'believable' shape.

If America/Israel hit Iran, there will never be peace in my lifetime, because the Middle east will explode, sucking in the world into a long bloody war.

Obviously, the side your on will be a given,
But you have the chance, today, now.. to understand that FACTS behind how the world got there.

History is written by the victors, so if the USA triumphs... will the future world never know the identity of todays REAL Criminals?

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I consider it Treason to trade the lives of American Soldiers for the lies we were fed up to the beginning of the Iraqui war.

All of the Neo-cons and their supporters should be held accountable - as Traitors to the United States of America. Hang em high!



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Treason season....I Love it! Very catchy. I am very positive that this subject is going to cause a lot of people to get angry. You have a great point. However I believe the writer of the thread wasn't trying to take it quite there. I think we are all patriots here, just to varying degrees of opinion. Let's admit it we've got a great country here. We just need to make it better.
I don't believe any of us want to see this wonderful country go down! Way to keep people honest y'all



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter
In reality do you think a major world war with these world powers would make things any better?


Well, as I tried to put my perspective on this in the OP, I believe a "major world war with these world powers" was never necessary, and on the contrary really- had those powers taken conventional action it would have presented Bush with the choice to either escalate to nuclear weapons- or retreat. And I believe retreating at that point would have BEEN his choice. It would have HAD to have been- or else- see ya world. To fight conventionally against all those powers would be just madness, imo, although there are certainly those who would argue that we can take on the whole world conventionally.


And thanks for your input, theutah.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Indeed the U.S. could only defend itself against the world is by Nuclear Warfare otherwise a battle of atrition and fronts would deplete the nation and wound us for ages. Bush would run like a sheeps wool on fire if he was faced with the situation of the World v U.S. He isn't an idiot Bush is like an evil genius, very smart, yet close to insanity.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Well Agit8dChop, I don't know who the evil one of those two really is, and I'm not so sure I'd go that far. But maybe that's because it is more a case to me of right and wrong than of good and evil. Good and evil are more subjective than right and wrong, imo. That's why to me the "Axis of Evil" was a very bad, risky, politically incorrect, and religiously controversial term to pick in the first place. So much for separation of church and state. But not necessarily unexpected from someone who claims to act on voices from God.

The problem is we need somebody up there willing to act on not only the voices of the people, but with some consideration, at least, for the will of the world. Especially when it comes to wars. And oil. And really- everything.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I too am afraid that the most evil administration in history is planning to invade Iran* But I have a question, if the New World Order exist, then the two party system is meaningless and they will do so reguardless of the upcoming elections* IF, however the NWO is either a fantasy or not as powerful as we think then to engage this country in another Bush war would do irreparable harm to the image of the Republican Party and surely cost them elections for the next 8 years* What does everyone think?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wish I had more to add TrueAmerican, but I'll say this...you are damn right about everything you've said IMO.

People believe that GWB IS AMERICA and he is not. This isn't a monarchy or dictatorship. I disagree with this presidents approach to almost everything but I love the freedom and liberty that this country is supposed to represent.

The other day a delivery man came to my office and I signed for a package...he went on about the weather and how hard it was to reach me. He said: " Oh well...can't save the world. Thank God we have George to do it for us. With him in power things are going to change." Some how GWB has people convinced he's "just folks" like the average man.

What happened and why haven't more people noticed it?


[edit on 21-1-2007 by lee anoma]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
You guys have to see this:www.markfiore.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
heres a link for Wizard_1988s post

link

TrueAmerican, your statement really rang a bell in my head, I had entertained the possibility the US was prepared to attack Iran before, your theory that Iraq would be ground zero for the invasion is something that I feel has been set in motion, problem is they didnt expect Iraq to be so volatile this many years on, why are they sending a further 20,000 troops in when in reality that many should be going home?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
What happened and why haven't more people noticed it?


Thanks lee.

Well, people are taking notice. Slowly but surely. All one can do to help is merely keep spewing forth the truths we feel conviction about. It's spewing to some, and truth to others.

I'd be the first to jump in a battleship by God if we got attacked by a military force on our soil. I'd support retribution in that case to all ends, and by all means. But honestly it's time we peeled away this mask over the American face and let the sunshine tan our hides. On the beaches, and on the sand. In Florida or California. Not in the deserts of the middle east.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join