It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ослабленный и уязвимый < > Weakened and Vulnerable

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by purple girl
Why are Our rights being systematically eliminated.

If new wars begin civil unrest, domestic and foreign terrorism would be major homeland security issues, we must be prepared for that, therefore sacrifice of some civil liberties could be required.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO

And yet 19 men were able to hijack 4 American planes with box cutters and fly them into 2 skyscrapers, the Pentagon and kill over 3000 Americans.

The 9-11 attack on the US was not the result of a military failure. The military takes its marching orders from the civilian leadership. The failure was on the part of the US civilian leadership going back at least 5 Administrations. The military knows who our enemies are and is perfectly capable of destroying them quickly. The tragedy is when our fine soldiers are killed trying to follow idiotic orders like "guard this building but don't offend anyone by carrying a loaded weapon."

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by UM_Gazz

Do you really need clarification on the above point?

At this point I would really appreciate clarification of your position on such matters. In order to find common ground, I’ll state my position perfectly clear.

Here is one that may be an interesting read for you:

UM_Gazz, considering your news sources I have to ask, do you consider your self to be a right wing neo-conservative?

The article you listed “In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:” is a poster child for disinformation, and is proven so by the fallacy tools I have previously provided.

A good starting point to finding out the “mystery” behind the “secret” convoy would be looking into the evacuation of the Russian Embassy in Baghdad.

Why is it that the word “embassy” is not mentioned even once on that “damning” article I wonder?

Here some info on the Managing Editor and Publisher of “The New Media Journal”, Frank Salvato.

Here’s just a taste of the REALITY which took place;

Asian Political News, April 7, 2003

MOSCOW, April 6 Kyodo

A convoy of Russian Embassy diplomats was attacked while evacuating Baghdad on Sunday, Russia's Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The report quoted the Russian Foreign Ministry as saying that some diplomats were wounded in the attack.

Russian Ambassador Vladimir Titorenko was in the convoy, which was heading for Syria, Interfax news agency said.

Attacked by American forces, which is naturally not mentioned at all in the article you have provided. Why is that?

An archived news report:

I’m sorry, but you keep referencing clearly right wing, neo-conservative, agenda driven propagandist media, why is that?

At one point I worked for FOX, and I personally know that it is an agenda driven network.

Another link if you are interested in more reading material:

I beg your pardon, by that issue has to do with UKRANIAN black market arms dealers, you know, like the one in the movie “Lord Of War”.

Not a SINGLE shred of evidence, not a SINGLE document page so far has been produced by ANY US official or agency which shows direct Russian involvement in illegal arms trade.

On the contrary, there are plenty of FACTS surrounding American exports of CHEMICAL WMDs to Iraq to be used against Iran.

It’s a matter of FACT and RECORD.

Shall we continue or will you adjust your strategy?

By keep referencing clearly biased and agenda driven information, you by default relinquish your pledge “to deny ignorance.”

Of course the level of support the Russians provided Iraq prior to and during the invasion cannot fully be known however there is enough evidence available to conclude that it happened. You can find more on your own if you wish.

Please provide such evidence as I’m not able to locate it.

In Iran, Russian defense and weaponry contracts with the Iranians are much more extensive than were in Iraq.

All of which are legal under international law and arms treaties, unlike the ILLIGAL gun runners employed by Pentagon to supply arms to Iraq.

Incidentally, the very same “merchant of death” from the “Lord of War” is currently shipping arms to Iraq, and no wonder that 160 thousand firearms just “disappeared” in Iraq.

Again, all of this is FACTUAL, REAL, right now, at this moment. However I’m unable to locate ANY of the evidence you keep referring to. I’m looking forward to you enlightening me.

Also Russia is building the nuclear reactors for Iran under contact with the Iranians.

Is there anything illegal about that? If not, why are you mentioning it?

The sophisticated high tech weaponry Russia has provided Iran remains a mystery, however many believe that Iran has the very best air defense system the Russians could offer them now in place.

Well until such “mysteries” are solved, stating them as fact is just plain un-ATS, isn’t it? You also mention air defense offered to Iran by Russia, what is it and what’s illegal about it?

I could go on, however these things are for the most part common knowledge.

I’m sorry but please fill me in, I’m not at all informed on such “mysteries”.

The question I believe we should be exploring: Is the Russian motive to sign contracts with nations considered enemies to the west strictly for financial gain, or is it something else?

That’s a loaded question. Are you attempting to equate Russia to an enemy on the bases of economic association? That’s called “leading”, it’s a fallacy, and why are you doing it?

I am sure the Russians would rather have its greatest adversary weakened by wars and conflicts, why wouldn't they?

You are suggesting that America is Russia’s greatest adversary, on what grounds? Are you suggesting that Russia is involved in creating the “wars and conflicts” that weaken America? How so?

Ослабленный и уязвимый

I concur, and would also like to remind you that you neglected to address this very important question;

“Where is the fallacy in that question? Since fallacy is an error in rezoning, I think it’s important to establish what is what in order for ATS members to form their own opinions.”

Respectfully, iskander.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by iskander
UM_Gazz, considering your news sources I have to ask, do you consider your self to be a right wing neo-conservative?

NO, and if you review my posting history you'll find that I have been accused of being a radical left wing nut "exploiting my staff position to push a left wing agenda"

Why does a person have to be either when expressing an opinion?

I am usually a liberal, or liberal in my thinking, but I tend to think of myself as a centrist. I will not be defined by any party line.

As for the sources there is evidence that could support these items, but why bother with a trivial debate when you are already assuming that I am a right wing neo-conservative?

Its funny actually, there was a time when a member all but called for my removal from the staff for posting "leftist propaganda" I suppose you think the same here, but from the opposite side right?

What does any of this have to do with the topic anyway?

I have theories, thoughts and opinions just like anyone else, and I will express them here within the boundaries of the terms and conditions of use, YOU are free to take from it what you wish, make of it what you will, question the material and even attack me for it.

Ultimately only time will prove it right or wrong.

Thank you for the interesting contributions to the conversation.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by UM_Gazz

NO, and if you review my posting history you'll find that I have been accused of being a radical left wing nut "exploiting my staff position to push a left wing agenda"

I had to ask do to the sources you provided, and sentence composition you used.

Why does a person have to be either when expressing an opinion?

A person does not have to have any affiliation to express an opinion, but that opinion has to be based on something.

I am usually a liberal, or liberal in my thinking, but I tend to think of myself as a centrist. I will not be defined by any party line.

We have something in common.

As for the sources there is evidence that could support these items, but why bother with a trivial debate when you are already assuming that I am a right wing neo-conservative?

I don’t believe that I’ve assumed anything about your person, I did form a question based on you news sources.

Its funny actually, there was a time when a member all but called for my removal from the staff for posting "leftist propaganda" I suppose you think the same here, but from the opposite side right?

Please don’t suppose, feel free to ask, I’ll always be more then happy to answer directly.

What does any of this have to do with the topic anyway?

I’ve simply questioned validity of the news sources you have provided, based on the statistically poor credibility record of neo-con media outlets, and their obvious agenda driven bios. FOX media for example.

I have theories, thoughts and opinions just like anyone else, and I will express them here within the boundaries of the terms and conditions of use, YOU are free to take from it what you wish, make of it what you will, question the material and even attack me for it.

Thank you for including me in free discussion of your opinions, and please know that you don’t have to feel like you’re being attacked, rest assured it’s simply not so. If by any chance you do feel like you’re being attacked, please believe me that you’re only misinterpreting my intentions, and if that’s the case, please let me know and I will clarify it immediately.

Ultimately only time will prove it right or wrong.

Oh there’s plenty of CyberTime to go around, that’s what we all here for, would you agree?

Thank you for the interesting contributions to the conversation.

It’s my pleasure UM-Gazz!

I certainly hope that this conversation will continue to develop, and I would appreciate if such contribution could be mutual… I did notice that you answer my question with questions, or evade them entirely.

Would you care to give questions another try?

I’m very curios to your opinions on the questions I’ve raised!

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by iskander

My opinions and theories are based on my own interpretation of historical events and collective thoughts, not necessarily what I can gather on the web. Reading of and watching events of major importance and forming my own thoughts, opinions and theories. I am not evading you, I have already said everything I feel necessary in this thread.

You can read all of my thread posts together here:

If one wants to look at what is available in the public through either government or media sources as a means of substantiating a hypothesis it can be done that way, however I do not do it that way.

I have made my case in every post in this thread, and again anyone is free to take from that what they wish. The danger in using sources to support a theory was exposed very well by you. I should thank you for that. If you question the source, and the source is indeed questionable then everything a person has said must be the same.

However it is more questions than facts that I have expressed here. Mainly what is the true motive behind the Russian involvement with enemies of the west.

That said, somewhere there is a final truth in all of this. No matter what course our nation takes in the future, be it more war or a much more sensible path to peace, the American people should be more involved.

We are a great nation and have always been, can we remain that way?

Again, thank you for an interesting conversation and very astute observations.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by UM_Gazz

Well done UM_Gazz, good show!

I’m glad we understand each other, and I see that we understand each other perfectly.

It was indeed a truly engaging discussion. I’m glad you found my questions to be challenging and stimulating.

The power of technology is truly amazing!

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:25 AM

Originally posted by hinky
Насладил вашим русским

Russia has so many of it's internal problems. The USSR fell apart for a reason.

They felt it was long past time to change the system that were simply not working and given their total strategic superiority at the time they could do so without great risk to themselves.

Russia is starting to do military actions it hasn't done in years, in part to bolster the morale of the Russian Military. Military equipment laying around, unused, also has a tendency to become defective or unusable due to lack of maintenance.

Which i suppose is what we must hope happened to their entire strategic arsenal to be able to call Russia weak or anything else.

They are in no position for a full war, a regional war, yes, but full war, no. They would have to resort to the nuke option far sooner than the USA.

And since they have more nukes and more ways to stop US nukes they have a large advantage if they must resort to such...

The cold war with Russia will not happen again. China is a far more powerful player and will not be Moscow's lap dog, again. This is great military gaming but the realities are wrong.

China is entirely beholden to Russia but they are still getting a far better deal out of the Russian policy makers than they ever could from Washington.

Do not believe everything you read or hear in the media about our military. The military leaders always cry "we need more" because it is money and power for them.

Sure the CIVILIAN leaders do that as they want contracts for their states but when the military commanders themselves start saying such things that's normally a bad sign given the prevailing dogma that the US war machine just can't do wrong. There are few career advancement positions for those who tell the media just how many problems they are experiencing in carrying out their assigned duties.

ry basis of military structure is to fight 2 full wars at one time. People forget this. If TSHTF in Korea, at this very moment, there is manpower to handle that regional conflict also.

That may have been possible in the 80's but after the first Gulf war that was never again a realistic claim.

America isn't weaken, the public is hearing the wrong information from the peacenicks and anti-Bush people of this generation.

From the conservative owned corporate media who do their best to SAY that they are liberal while spreading their Conservative reactionary propaganda?

People are being blasted everyday by 500 cable channels, the Internet, and printed media. Many of these organizations are really ran by just a few individuals who have their own agenda, not favoring America or the current President.

They are ALL conservatively owned and while they are occasionally forced to report on the truth/reality they do their best to avoid this while employing those moments of truth as evidence that 'the liberal' control the media. You must remember that you can't fool all the people all the time and especially not when you never give them anything truthful.

The economics of America swings from feast to famine, and we have been feasting for a long time.

Wages for those who finished high school or went to colleges have been stagnant or falling since the early 70's for the first group and the mid late 70's for later. The American economy has not gone anywhere for average American since the 70's but it has enriched the rich beyond their wildest dreams. Clinton's 'recovery' was more hype than anything else and while it contributed to a rise in wages it did not come close to reaching 1970's wages.

A recession is overdue. Millions of people who should not have received home loans did, now banks have to do something about bad loans.

The US economy has been in recession since the early 70's but as you show it's quite the well hidden secret.

There are still help wanted signs posted with many jobs being unfilled.

If you wish to work at MacDonald's or KFC which educated workers do not!

Employment and growth doesn't happen in bad times. This is how capitalism works.

There is no real job growth in the US and the manufacturing sector has not created a single job since the mid 70's. There has been 'job growth' but mostly in health care ( scrubbing toilets and basically taking care of the sick by sitting around) sector. These are not real jobs and is in fact a massive drain on the economy.


posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:00 AM
A three-in-one starting with the only post that is in my opinion deserving of a response...

Originally posted by purple girl
that would explain this over the top reaction to everyting that happens in the MiddleEast- Why we are still stuck in a lossing military action.
but it does not explain why we are being assualted by our own gov't.

That's what most government are doing their best to accomplish and it's no surprise given the interest they were selected to be elected to serve...

Why are Our rights being systematically eliminated. Unless Bushco works for or with the Russians. so regardless our biggest enemy lurks with in .

Admirable that your mind is willing to consider that and while doubt his working for the Russians i am of the opinion that whoever he is working for wants the US in about the same general strategic situation the Russians would like; call it a community of interest! If Bush and his gang are aware of this i am not sure but they may be too busy raiding the pantry, otherwise called the United States of America, to be aware of this....

Although those who despise or distrust the UN will ahte this- We are now at a point were we have lost so much control over our gov't we MUST ask for help.

I doubt the UN has much better in store for the US population than it's current regime so your probably best advised to help yourselves!

The public servants have taken contol and have denied US the right to Impeach a President and have worked in conjunction with this admin to subvert the rule of laws of this country. Treason.


Encourage the UN to levy charges of War Crimes against Bushco (public servants & profiteers alike). Once the head is off the beast we will be able to dispose of what remains of their reign. but until that happens we are caught in this web of deceite and conspiracy.

The UN war crimes tribunals makes a mockery of the national sovereignty and the laws various people fought for and i am dead set against a centralized authority that can judge the actions people took in their own countries or against those of other countries. If the people of a given country want revenge for the actions taken by some leaders let them organize tribunals of their own using the existing laws of their own country without appeals to the foreign interventions that may come in unexpected ways.

I think there are more than enough ways to make Bush and his people 'pay' and they are not paying currently because most Americans are too busy struggling to survive to the end of the month. It may or may not be revealing that American citizens works on average the longest of any citizens in the industrialized world including incidentally JAPAN and Taiwan! Is it surprising that Americans are do distracted when they are working harder than ever but still watching their buying power declining month by passing month? Who has time to impeach Bush when the bank will Impeach them ( to say nothing of impounding the car and the house) while their busy organizing and not working for that extra few hundred dollars? Why bother at all when they never even voted for the guy that in the end still had to resort to stealing the election?

I am not surprised that Bush is still getting away with murder and i think he will get away with it until he is forced to start treating American protesters as they are treating the Iraqi resistance.

Originally posted by West Coast
That would be very unlikely. The world economy is to interdependent for another world war to happen.

That's what they said back in 1939 and even more so back in 1914! Why do you still buy into that interdependency racket when you know just how fast the people with all the money can make it flow from one country to another? Do you really believe those who stand to lose money wont be able to move it out of danger soon enough?

Even then, no nation, or handful of them, are going to be very successful in attacking the richest most powerful nation on earth. The US has advantages over everyone else.

It will in my opinion take only one nation and i have presented you with the evidence that supports that.

Oceans, an extremely advanced war fighting machine, a massively armed populous that is very patriotic, and let us not forget the American allies.

If you believe guns and oceans can prevent modern nuclear and direct energy weapons from destroying US civil society your not in my opinion reflecting on the state of modern weaponry.

Originally posted by deltaboy
O I'm sorry it seems that many of those countries got themselves being on America's bogeyman list in the first place.

By doing things the US national security did not find suitably profitable for their class and general corporate interest?

After all who started the Korean War for example...surely wasn't the U.S.

Indirectly the US , by backing a fascist dictator who had no support in South or North Korea, but more directly the assault that South Korean dictator launched on North Korea to invite their attack and thus an American intervention to keep him in power...

And still the war is not even over yet as of right now. What about North Vietnam's invasion of the South?

Once again the US backed a very unpopular leader in the South preventing the people from practicing their freedom and electing the then leader of the North to unite their country in their best interest.

But then U.S.-Vietnam relations has been good since post-Vietnam war aka America's war by the Vietnamese, so you can take that off the list. Chuc ma may.

You might be surprised how long people's memories are and just how interest in freedom and self sufficiency most people are.


posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Interesting article, but once again I do not believe we need to fear a direct military confrontation with Russia, their hand in our downfall will be not much more than what they have been doing, and that is aiding our 'enemies' with technologies and weaponry,

But you do at least understand that Russia operates sufficient strategic weaponry to quite possible destroy the United States while not suffering proportionate damage in return?

also Russia and China have successfully delayed new UN sanctions to be imposed on Iran over the nuclear issue and you should expect them to continue to take actions like this aimed at stalling the Iranian nuclear issue ultimately raising the urgency and possibility of war.

I think they are acting within UN guidelines and unless the US national security state wish to give up their pretense of supporting UN ideals they better US the UN system to arrive at a settlement. I still do not understand what the Iranians are going to do with a few nuclear weapons if they ever got them? Who are they going to attack without destroying their credibility as the victim in this instance? There are still no evidence that Iran are making or trying to make nuclear weapons so why all the lies?

They are helping us into a conflict with Iran. If we go to war with Iran, will China use this as an opportunity to invade and reclaim Taiwan?

I don't see how one can argue that China and Russia are so strategically powerless yet able to maneuver the US into a war with Iran! It's got to be one or the other but they can't be both weak and not weak! China will not in my opinion invade Taiwan before the Olympic games unless the US supports the Taiwanese in attempting to politically break away from China which is pretty much up to the US as the Taiwanese people don't want it and wont support it if their leaders are manipulated into trying to do so.

Could Russia and/or China be helping terrorists who wish to attack the USA with weapons of mass destruction, or materials that could be used to build them?

The Russian people are very uninterested in fighting wars of aggression ( Chechnya, etc) so if Putin wants to try anything remotely expansionist he will have to allow attacks on his country to move the ever paranoid ( They are not nearly as easy to propagandize as the American public given their experience with bad propaganda) Russian population in the direction he wants. I doubt the Russian public at large will buy into anything short of a American attack on Russia itself and i believe Bush and his gang knows that attacking Russia openly would result strategic suicide for the US and it's people.

They could be simply taking advantage of the current US administration's lust for war and control over the Middle Eastern oil rich territories. What will a war with Iran cost the USA on all levels while sustaining its military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as naval commitments to the defense of Taiwan if there are escalations in all of these regions?

Far more than it can in my opinion afford...

Sour ce

The following shows the strain the men are under and what sort of effect this is having on homeland security and the capacity of the US to fight another war this decade.


So basically the US can not financially afford to start another ground war and if it does any year soon i am not convinced that even a draft will mean much given the lack of equipment...


top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in