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.

 

Pentagon planning base near Iraq-Iran border

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Pentagon planning base near Iraq-Iran border


news.yahoo.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon is preparing to build a military base near the Iraq-Iran border to try to curtail the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday in its online edition.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I wonder how this story is going to develop in the near future.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Of course if any other country except the United States did this it would be unanimously considered a highly provocative act. The Iranians will rightly protest this latest act in the whole litany of US provocations.

It goes without saying that the United States would resent this type of action on its own borders. For example, Cuba. It seems hypocrisy knows no bounds in the international relations of national interest.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Definitely provocative...

If the US really wants to attack Iran, dispense with the mucking around and actually do it already...

Don't espouse diplomacy on one hand whilst embracing unilateral action with the other...

It stinks, personally...


EDIT - minor typo

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
Definitely provocative...

If the US really wants to attack Iran, dispense with the mucking around and actually do it already...



Nothing provocative about it. As long as its on Iraqi territory you can do anything.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I love this part.


"I think what it demonstrates is the importance of border security," Whitman told reporters.

And it gets better.


"We've said all along that border security is important in making sure that along these long and somewhat porous borders, that you're able to provide the type of integrity that you need to as a nation-state," he said.


So it took them five years to figure out that when you invade a country you need to secure the borders.


Well even at this point, I hope it helps because I think our troops are going to be there a while longer.

Now if we can only do the same here at home...



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Soo, my question goes too . . . what the Iraqi people that happens to be the rightful owners of the Iraqi lands thinks about their nation been disputed, worked out and manipulated by the invaders think about one more US base built in their lands?

Ahhhh, that is why they have in Iraq Insurgents they occurs opposed anything western in their lands, but we all know they do not count, they are nothing but terrorist.


Is lovely to see what our government does with the sovereignty of another nation.


Their lands will be covered with oil fields and American bases.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
if the base and all its check-points are constructed,
then the no-bid contractors have another cash cow to feast upon...

there is a conclusion to be made out of this announcement...

think about it;
what good would a newly created 'base' with surveillance & interdiction powers be -
with all of Iran being earlier "bombed-into-the-stone-age"
because the main north-south Iran/Iraq traffic corridor (where the 'base' is to be located)
has already been completely demolished as the conspiracy speculators imagine, the bombing solution which is broadly accepted as already planned... for the reason of wiping out the fledgling Iranian nuclear industry/infrastructure developmentes...?

so the notion that there is a scret 'shock-&-Awe' operation on the books for Iran in the near future, with 1,200 targets in 72 hours, is False

or the closed door, neocon thinkers/planners, have trashcanned the 72hr
unilateral attack deal, in favor of this continued occupation exercise...
which will necessarily call for more troops as border agents & security
for an unlimited time frame


yo... we're all getting 'played' every which way but loose.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Errrr but shouldn't this be a Iraqi border post, it seems the USA is after putting another star on its flag and make Iraq another US state.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Americans, but when someone draws a line in the sand they have to move it back several miles just to make sure it is between them and the US government.

Come on America, tend to your own beautiful country and your people before your people stop tending to you.

Wolfie



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie_UK
Errrr but shouldn't this be a Iraqi border post, it seems the USA is after putting another star on its flag and make Iraq another US state.



Well if you want to go that far, we should have about 200 stars or more on our flag already by now.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Ok deltaboy, care to give the other 140 plus new states you reckon you should have.

Imperialism just doesn't work, it took the UK a while to figure that one out, I guess America needs a few more hundred years to catch up.

Wolfie



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Hey marg, speaking of westerns, isn't this war starting to look more and more like the Wild West? Think about it. We send in our troops to an area with hostile natives and try to pacify them so we can exploit the land and take over.

There are people going over there to work as contractors and making a fortune just like they did during the gold rush. Before we said we were helping the Native Americans by bringing them civilization and now in Iraq we call it spreading democracy.

Amazing, isn't it?

As far as building bases over there, we already know they have permanent bases. The first thing the military did after invading Iraq was move all military assets from Saudi Arabia into Iraq. This just goes to show that the government has no intention of bringing our troops home anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie_UK
Ok deltaboy, care to give the other 140 plus new states you reckon you should have.

Imperialism just doesn't work, it took the UK a while to figure that one out, I guess America needs a few more hundred years to catch up.

Wolfie


We are not interested in adding another star on the flag. You can always talk about adding another star because of troops in Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc. This does not count as adding another star.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Nothing provocative about it.

As long as its on Iraqi territory you can do anything.




That about says it all !

Secular pluralistic democracy delivered via bombs and maintained by force of arms.

However... after reading about the fall of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14....
if I were Bush, I wouldn't want to be the King of Babylon.. er.. Iraq.





[edit on 10-9-2007 by Ivanova]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivanova


However... after reading about the fall of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14....
if I were Bush, I wouldn't want to be the King of Babylon.. er.. Iraq.



Can't imagine King Bush destroying his own Babylon er Iraq.

news.bbc.co.uk...

A senior US marine officer says he is willing to apologise for the damage caused by his troops to the ancient Iraqi site of Babylon.

US forces built a helicopter pad on the ancient ruins and filled their sandbags with archaeological material in the months following the 2003 invasion.

Colonel Coleman was chief of staff at Babylon when it was occupied by the First Marine Expeditionary Force.

Babylon's Hanging Gardens were among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Ivanova


However... after reading about the fall of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14....
if I were Bush, I wouldn't want to be the King of Babylon.. er.. Iraq.



Can't imagine King Bush destroying his own Babylon er Iraq.




Isaiah 14 tells us about the destruction of the King of Babylon....
and by the way, ancient Babylon was conquered by Persia [ Iran ]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivanova

Isaiah 14 tells us about the destruction of the King of Babylon....
and by the way, ancient Babylon was conquered by Persia [ Iran ]


And uh what happened to Persia's control of Babylon?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Ivanova

Isaiah 14 tells us about the destruction of the King of Babylon....
and by the way, ancient Babylon was conquered by Persia [ Iran ]


And uh what happened to Persia's control of Babylon?





God anointed Cyrus, King of Perisa, to conquer Babylon. [Isaiah 45]

Cyrus said God made him King of the earth. [ Ezra 1]

Babylon had already conquered most of the known world,
so when Cyrus conquered Babylon he became King of the earth.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivanova


Babylon had already conquered most of the known world,
so when Cyrus conquered Babylon he became King of the earth.


Where later on Alexander conquered the Persian Empire and later on the Arabs conquered and spread their faith the end, ending the Persian Empire.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Oooooookay. And what has this to do with the topic?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join