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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


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.




No kingdom lasts forever... except the Kingdom of God.

By the way, Alexander died in Babylon.





[edit on 10-9-2007 by Ivanova]




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Well I will tell you something that our government is planning for some of the more lucky Iraqis, they are planning to given certain amount of refugee visas so they can come to the US.

(The information I just posted is just hear say by very knowledgeable sources).

I will try to find more of this in the net.


In addition, US need all those bases and our soldiers to serve as escorts for the profiteers elite that are doing business in Iraq. Right now they are limited to the green zone but they need to be able to move around with all the safety that taxpayer money can buy.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Well I will tell you something that our government is planning for some of the more lucky Iraqis, they are planning to given certain amount of refugee visas so they can come to the US.


That`s very nice of them.

Has it ever been pointed out in the US media that Syria and Jordan have taken in roughly a million Iraqi refugees each - and that Iran has been left to deal with roughly a million Afghan refugees - as well as Iraqis - since this debacle started?

www.alertnet.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


I have no problem with Iraqi refugees coming to the US after all our nation broke their nation.

But the thing behind this lucky refugees is that they will be bringing capital, that means money they are not the needy poor Iraqi but Iraqis with holdings.

That money will be an asset in the American economy, See the source I got is an Arab american business man he knows about how much money each of these refugees will be bringing with them.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Oooooookay. And what has this to do with the topic?




Just history repeating itself... excusez-moi for the thread drift.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Wow.

How incredibly altruistic.

Destroy the country, and then offer incentives to the people with money to relocate to further benefit your economy - while stalemating funding to help the people who need it, because your supposed enemies are looking after them. Then build a base which will block an exit point for people looking to get out with their lives.

Remember: The doctrine of the Taliban, and al Quaeda, was born in the refugee camps during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where they were nicely ignored by the western world, unless it suited their needs.

Help them now or face them later. It`s that simple.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


I believe that US have some type of policy that allows some people from other countries to get into the US as long as they invest certain amount of money into the economy, through opening businesses or something like that.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
Destroy the country, and then offer incentives to the people with money to relocate to further benefit your economy - while stalemating funding to help the people who need it, because your supposed enemies are looking after them.

Which funds are you referring to that are being stalemated? Do you mean aid for the refugees?


Originally posted by vox2442
Then build a base which will block an exit point for people looking to get out with their lives.

The base and border security is to keep out shipments of weapons and explosives as well as foreign fighters that are the cause of the problems. If the military had secured the borders earlier the country would have been safer and there wouldn't be a need for people to leave. The base is not there to keep them in, but to keep others out. Without border security the country will never be any safer and people will continue to be forced to leave. Which would you prefer?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
marg...

I've read somewhere (and then confirmed this with a Korean neighbor of mine) that immigrant Korean family's pitch money into a community pot where every few years there's a drawing where the family that wins the drawing is granted a business that's connected to all of the other Korean businesses in any given geographic area in the States i.e. beauty supply businesses, chinese restaurants, dry cleaners...
I don't know anything more about this 'system' but it certainly does explain how, in this case Koreans, can get the money to own and operate their own businesses here when most American's don't have the connections or money to do that.



[edit on 10-9-2007 by Palasheea]

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


To the first question, yes, I mean aid to the refugees. A small amount has been forthcoming very recently, but both the USA and the UK have shirked their responsibility on this front throughout - leaving it in the hands of Syria, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan to sort out with the Red Crescent.

On the second point, securing the borders would have created a far worse situation - and doing so now will create further complications. People are fleeing the country, and the numbers of internally displaced is estimated around the 3 million mark - some estimates I`ve seen recently have been close to 4.5 million. No one really knows to be sure, except that there are a hell of a lot of people who are currently refugees within their own country.

At this point, the damage is done. At this point, there are millions of Iraqis, displaced by an american war, who have been shown that the ones that want to lend a hand are.... not american. And in the refugee camps, that translates into America = the enemy. Stemming the flow of foreign fighters quite likely means stemming the flow of Iraqi teenagers looking to return to the fight, having spent a bit of time in the refugee camps. That`s exactly what it meant in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there - and that ended badly all around.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Of course they have the right to build a base in Iraqi territory, but if they wanted to make the base more secure, it would make sense to make it a little further back from the border to avoid mortar attacks from Iran. It's bound to happen. And then what? The green light?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
HA! Isn't ironic? We are going to send more money to secure others peoples borders? What happen to our own?

This is in all ways a provocative act. The question is, what happen if US troops are shot at by Iranian Quds forces? What happen if we kill some of their people. This sends all the wrong signals. I think we might be hearing the drums already for the next campaign.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
To the first question, yes, I mean aid to the refugees. A small amount has been forthcoming very recently, but both the USA and the UK have shirked their responsibility on this front throughout - leaving it in the hands of Syria, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan to sort out with the Red Crescent.

I have read about the refugees and it is a humanitarian crisis, but I don’t know about any delay in aid. I would expect for countries like Iran and Seria, our leaders would have a problem with sending aid to those countries. I will have to look into this when I have time, but if you have information on this I would be interested.


Originally posted by vox2442
On the second point, securing the borders would have created a far worse situation - and doing so now will create further complications. People are fleeing the country, and the numbers of internally displaced is estimated around the 3 million mark - some estimates I`ve seen recently have been close to 4.5 million. No one really knows to be sure, except that there are a hell of a lot of people who are currently refugees within their own country.

I agree the refugee crisis is unacceptable, but how would securing the borders earlier create a worse situation?


Originally posted by vox2442
At this point, the damage is done. At this point, there are millions of Iraqis, displaced by an american war, who have been shown that the ones that want to lend a hand are.... not american. And in the refugee camps, that translates into America = the enemy. Stemming the flow of foreign fighters quite likely means stemming the flow of Iraqi teenagers looking to return to the fight, having spent a bit of time in the refugee camps. That`s exactly what it meant in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there - and that ended badly all around.

I agree that it is probably too late and even though we should not have invaded Iraq, and everything has been a disaster, I would be the first to say pull our troops out. If you check my profile, you will see that I have long supported pulling our troops out. Unfortunately, I know our government has no intention in leaving. They want to keep permanent bases there for strategic reasons as well as monetary ones. I just think that anything they can do to improve the security and therefore the quality of life for the Iraqis is a good thing.

On a side note, one thing that struck me about this article is that it seems like a strange time to bring it up. This is something that could have been reported anytime. It’s not like its breaking news or anything. I have a feeling it is a planted story and may have something to do with the Surge Assessment testimony that Gen. P is giving. I don’t know. It may be nothing.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

I agree the refugee crisis is unacceptable, but how would securing the borders earlier create a worse situation?


Simply put: the refugees would still be in Iraq.

It may sound a little simplistic, but consider the current situation, with the addition of roughly 5 million homeless men, women and children added to the mix.

This just in: Syria has started to close the door, ever so slightly. I guess after taking in 1,400,000+ refugees, they`re starting to reach their limit. It`s still early days - the new reg came into effect yesterday - so no one seems to know if humanitarian grounds will still be admissable to get in. My guess is that new refugees heading for Syria on humanitarian grounds will wind up being shunted to Jordan - or Iran.

afp.google.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
mistake putting it there now if they do go war the iranians can just bomb that base to the stone age and its been more than 4 years and they decide to put it there now for boarder security they dont even protect museums ect only oil oil oil.


[edit on 11-9-2007 by manzoor]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

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


Says who ?

Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation with a democratically elected goverment...

What gives an occupying nation the right to establish a "permanent" millitary base within its borders ?

Hmmmmm..... ???

Or is the US just going to throw to the wind every single internationally accepted protocol in order to further its own agenda ?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by Hal9000

I agree the refugee crisis is unacceptable, but how would securing the borders earlier create a worse situation?


Simply put: the refugees would still be in Iraq.

It may sound a little simplistic, but consider the current situation, with the addition of roughly 5 million homeless men, women and children added to the mix.

But if the borders were secured earlier, there probably would have been less violence due to fewer weapons , explosives and foreign fighters coming into Iraq and therefore less people leaving due to violence, in other words there would be less refugees. This is a better situation than leaving the borders open and having more refugees regardless of where they are.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
What gives an occupying nation the right to establish a "permanent" millitary base within its borders ?


That's what occupying forces do. I'm not saying it's right but it is how it's traditionally done. Read up on military history. Some concepts never change.

Now, the fact that it's being built near the border to Iran whom the US has had in it's cross-hairs with all that macho talk is what makes it interesting.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join