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.

 

"Its like watching a tennis match, and one side is suprised the ball is coming back"

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
If serial numbers that anyone can fabricate - or claim to be part of someone elses production line - is the best that you can come up with, I refer you to this gem of a claim


How did I know you would find some way of discrediting the articles I posted.

I guess you only commented on one of the articles on purpose. I guess to further your vain attempt to make sense of your flawed logic, you also like to 'pick & choose' which military commanders you listen to.




posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
How did I know you would find some way of discrediting the articles I posted.



Hey - they were your choice of flimsy "evidence", not mine.



I guess you only commented on one of the articles on purpose. I guess to further your vain attempt to make sense of your flawed logic, you also like to 'pick & choose' which military commanders you listen to.



Actually, my comment covered both. So far all I'm seeing is circumstantial. Give me substance.

As for "my vain attempt to make sense of my flawed logic", I guess you didn't pick and choose which articles to post huh? They must have fallen out of the sky at random?

And - as for your comment about the military commanders - Gen. Peter Pace is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think he knows what he's talking about. Heres what he said



“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”


Now I'd say that was a practical military man giving a practical military opinion. After all, I'd wager that alot of the "insurgents" in Iraq are using AK-47's - are you going to go after Russia as well?

New balls, please.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
New balls, please.

So basically you are just going to ignore the Iranian weapons and pretend they do not exist.

Ok, I got it. Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Well you do the same on a daily basis when it comes to USA weapons in other countries conflicts, so you know.... this is just that tennis match we were all talking about.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Well you do the same on a daily basis when it comes to USA weapons in other countries conflicts, so you know.... this is just that tennis match we were all talking about.

I realize you believe you are being clever, but HUH?

Please tell me what U.S. weapons have I ignored.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by neformore
New balls, please.

So basically you are just going to ignore the Iranian weapons and pretend they do not exist.

Ok, I got it. Thanks for clearing that up.


Which part of the quote by Gen. Pace is difficult for you to understand?

I have to say that you are the epitomy of what this thread is about. You aren't listening. You have picked your story and have resorted to some bull# parrot technique repitition of what you assume to be is correct when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America has publicly gone on record and said that although there may be weapons that came from Iran in Iraq, there is no evidence that the Iranian authorities sanctioned their supply.

There was recently a thread -

US cannot account for 190,000 guns in Iraq: report

Applying your logic you are going to use this as an excuse to bomb yourselves.

Start thinking instead of trying to be clever and grinding out stupid asinine points. You are trying to justify a war on an unproven issue. Thats been done once already and the death toll speaks for itself.

[edit on 4/1007/07 by neformore]

[edit on 4/1007/07 by neformore]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America has publicly gone on record and said that although there may be weapons that came from Iran in Iraq, there is no evidence that the Iranian authorities sanctioned their supply.


He is only saying this IMO in order to not ratchet up the rhetoric publically. Of course Iran knows what is going on because they endorse it.

At least you admit that there are Iranian weapons in Iraq. That is a good first step. So you believe that these Iranian weapons were stolen from Iranian military bases? Have the Iranians just lost count of their weapons? How are these new weapons finding there way out of Iran if the government there knows nothing about it?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
At least you admit that there are Iranian weapons in Iraq.


There are Iranian weapons in Iraq. There are English, French, German, Russian, American and Chinese weapons there too - of that I have no doubt.

So why are you singling out the Iranians?

Come on, answer a question instead of sticking with the same old point.

This is supposed to be a dialogue. You're stalling. Answer the question. You seem to be very good at ignoring them. Until you do, I'll just keep asking it, because otherwise, you're just wasting my time, and I have better things to do with it than mess about indulging your ignorance and inability to see past anything that isn't covered in the stars and stripes.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
There are Iranian weapons in Iraq.

Of course and thats how the Iranian government wants it.


There are English, French, German, Russian, American and Chinese weapons there too - of that I have no doubt.

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.


So why are you singling out the Iranians?

Because the Iranian government is sending in more advanced weapons along with money and men in order to kill allied forces.


Come on, answer a question instead of sticking with the same old point.

Sorry but I have been answering your questions but you just don't seem to like my answers. However I do notice that you just ignore my questions.


This is supposed to be a dialogue. You're stalling. Answer the question. You seem to be very good at ignoring them.

Again, I have been answering your questions but you don't like what I have to say however you do ignore my questions.



Until you do, I'll just keep asking it, because otherwise, you're just wasting my time, and I have better things to do with it than mess about indulging your ignorance and inability to see past anything that isn't covered in the stars and stripes.

Of course! Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is ignorant. Unfortunately, you have the inability to see past anything that isn't covered by extreme liberal talking points.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Unfortunately, you have the inability to see past anything that isn't covered by extreme liberal talking points.


Thanks



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Thanks

You're welcome!

Anytime my friend.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Nephertiti, if you are going to start speaking out about these things, you need to start paying attention, and know what the h--- you are talking about, not just buy the propaganda. First of all, this is not, never has been, about oil. The US has enough oil to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, without buy a drop of foreign oil. Anyway, people will forget all about this when Planet X shows up and puts us in darkness, and an ice age. And Iraq has been proven to have, but it was conveniently ignored by the propagandistas, WMD. You could easily have read about that here. And because of WMD, and ICBMs, we can no longer afford the luxury of avoiding 'foreign entanglements'. ICBMs and terrorists can strike anywhere, anytime. And thanx to Bent Billy, China now can strike the Lincoln Bedroom within, what, four feet? He was only indicted on the Lewinsky matter because they wouldn't or couldn't go after him for THIS major, MAJOR treason, or the murder of his lawyer Ron Brown, or a HOST of other crimes by the President and her Husband, and their Illuminati co-conspirators.
There is wide-spread speculation as to their reasons for invasion, and it is possible that it just may be what they said. Sometimes liars inadvertently tell the truth. But, it could be an old StarGate or something. We don't know. WE DON'T KNOW. I have no problem with you speculating, I have a problem with you speculating on misinformation when you rightfully should know better.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I guess im a little confused by the analogy of the thread topic. Exactly what is the US surprised about coming back?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
Nephertiti,


Neformore. Its not hard to get right, you know?



if you are going to start speaking out about these things, you need to start paying attention, and know what the h--- you are talking about, not just buy the propaganda. First of all, this is not, never has been, about oil. The US has enough oil to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, without buy a drop of foreign oil.


Would love to see you prove that, at current consumption and estimated expansion rates.



Anyway, people will forget all about this when Planet X shows up and puts us in darkness, and an ice age.


Credibilty.....decreasing.......



And Iraq has been proven to have, but it was conveniently ignored by the propagandistas, WMD.


You mean the shells that pre-dated the first gulf war that were Iran/Iraq war relics and were unusable?



You could easily have read about that here.


Where?



And because of WMD, and ICBMs, we can no longer afford the luxury of avoiding 'foreign entanglements'. ICBMs and terrorists can strike anywhere, anytime.


Wow....these terrorists have ICBMS? Stop the press.....



And thanx to Bent Billy, China now can strike the Lincoln Bedroom within, what, four feet? He was only indicted on the Lewinsky matter because they wouldn't or couldn't go after him for THIS major, MAJOR treason, or the murder of his lawyer Ron Brown, or a HOST of other crimes by the President and her Husband, and their Illuminati co-conspirators.


Whoa....its Clinton now? This trains going off the tracks....



There is wide-spread speculation as to their reasons for invasion, and it is possible that it just may be what they said. Sometimes liars inadvertently tell the truth. But, it could be an old StarGate or something. We don't know. WE DON'T KNOW.


Hmm. Well the given reason was WMD, and the imminent threat to the US from a country that Colin Powell said couldn't project power past its own borders. But hey, if you can seriously convince me its something to do with Amanda Tapping then I'll sign up and drink the Kool Aid.



I have no problem with you speculating, I have a problem with you speculating on misinformation when you rightfully should know better.


Ah. Right. You have no problem with me speculating, because its misinformation, but then the whole argument about the Iran issue is based on speculation. I have a problem with you speculating about the speculation behind my counter speculation of the original speculation.

As for knowing better.... I do. We all do.

Thank you for illuminating my life


[edit on 4/1007/07 by neformore]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I guess im a little confused by the analogy of the thread topic. Exactly what is the US surprised about coming back?


Its a simple premise.

The US says, "hey Iran, we think you are trying to build nukes and we're gonna bomb you"

Iran says "if you bomb us, that would be bad and we might have to retaliate in some way"

The US says "hey! you can't threaten us like that, thats outrageous! we're gonna bomb you!"

It was about the absurdly suprised reaction from right-wing US politicians to Iran saying it would have to defend itself if it was attacked, like they have a right to go and bomb whereever they choose and not expect any consequences.

It actually had nothing to do with the subsequent conversation I've had with my esteemed colleague 4th, who has graciously conceded defeat in our battle of wits


Sadly, it had nothing to do with Amanda Tapping either, although oddly I wish it could have somehow.....



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
It actually had nothing to do with the subsequent conversation I've had with my esteemed colleague 4th, who has graciously conceded defeat in our battle of wits

I did??

When did this happen? Since you are incorrect on something as mundane as this, I guess either you read what you want to see or you are purposefully being misleading. Either way, it does not put you in a good light.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Is it the act of a responsible person, or administration, to carry out an action that has such serious political and human repercussions without having the full facts of the matter? What can then be said of that administration when it becomes apparent that they have messed up so badly? Are the subsequent deaths of 4108 troops (3808 or which are American), the 650k (by some estimates) Iraqi casualties, massive political and economic costs of attacking a nation that posed no threat to the USA really the actions of people you want in charge of nuclear weapons - and people are calling Iran irresponsible? Think about it.


Personally I do not think you really care that 3808 troops have died for they represent just a tool for you to use towards your posistion on this. The situation we are in would not be any different if we did find WMD, and I also do not think your posistion would not be any different than it is now if we did.



As for removing Saddam ...well the US propped him up for so long in the 80's, and only got antsy with him when he made a play for the oil fields. No one gave a monkeys about what happened to the Kurds at the time in 1988, so its never been about his human rights record, has it?


That 1988 WMD on the Kurds showed the world that Saddam when able would not hesitate to use them. This is the second part to removing him as we did. Having them is one thing, using them is another. Each one is half of a very bad situation. The lack of WMDs after the US took him out only tells us he either had everything sent to Syria or he actually didn’t have them at that time, but given time and he would easily have them once again, and more importantly use them again.



Hey - I have no problems with someone returning fire if they are attacked on a battlefield. If people are daft enough to want to get into a shootout with each other thats their problem.


How about making ever more dangerous IEDs, supplying guns, ammo and anything else insurgents and Iraqis aligned with Iran can use against the US. How about training these fighters and performing spec ops missions in Iraq. Do you see any of this as attacking too?

Honestly Iran could be helping Iraq to become stabilized for they know we are not there to attack them, but they pick their own path against us and we will still not attack them for removal of Saddam and his regime, and helping Iraq regain their feet has been our mission all along, and it has been this part that has really cost the US so much in lives and money with thanks to countries like Syria and Iran, insurgents and the Iraqi people who seem to just want to kill each other instead of building a new world for themselves.



Its a matter of opinion isn't it? As I keep saying, had the US got its lies/facts, straight, the US forces wouldn't be in Iraq. Which of the two evils involved in the scenario is the right one? You reap what you sow.


I agree it is a matter of opinion, and if they feel they have the right then I guess they should also understand that will give us the right to attack back. We have not attacked Iran at all, and we did them a favor by removing someone that they been trying to get rid of for decades. We would have been out of Iraq years ago if the Iraqi government and people worked together to make it happen instead of putting all their energy into sectarian violence.



Do you believe that Iran would be involved in anything to do with US forces if they were at home in their bases? Can you not understand that one has led to the other?


First you need to answer why are they involved now? I do believe that if Saddam was still in power we would be seeing more attacks here at home with some on the scale of 9/11 or larger. This is not justifying the war as much as just stating that terrorist would not be pouring their assets into Iraq and so it would have given them the freedom and time to build as much they would like and attack us when they feel like it. I do not like being there either, hell I already spent a year of my life in the god forsaken country, but we are there and I cannot do a thing about it. We can blame it on Bush, the military, the Iraqi people, Iran/Syria, the insurgents it doesn’t matter for we are still there.

Now we need to get ourselves out the best way we can. I do not want to go to war with Iran for I’ll be one of those guys over there fighting it, but the problem is Iran and insurgents/Iraqis that back Iran do not want us to leave. They would love to see us there another 10 years dumping trillions of dollars into it. That is the war they are fighting, and the one we do not want them to win. Their war is to keep us there until we finally leave with huge deficits and public opinion at such a low that they then can do whatever they want without the fear that America would be coming back anytime soon. Then they can do their own expansion of taking Iraq without a fight and going head to head with Israel with the US nicely out of the way.







[edit on 4-10-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It's a bit hypocritical to talk about invading Iran just because they supposedly happened to find evidence of Iraqi insurgents using Iranian made weapons. That's if you believe the so called flimsy evidence produced by the Bush admin. It's not like they have much credibility to begin with. There are companies in many countries selling and supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Just recently a company in the UK was caught red handed and also companies in Austria, Malta and Italy. Considering America is the biggest exporter of weapons, it wouldn't surprise me if they were also supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.


British firm under scrutiny for export of Bosnian guns to Iraq

observer.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/01/14/wiran214.xml
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.independent.com.mt...
www.cbsnews.com...
muse.jhu.edu...
fanonite.org...

Italy Probe Unearths Huge Iraq Arms Deal

apnews.myway.com...



[edit on 4-10-2007 by kindred]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
It's a bit hypocritical to talk about invading Iran just because they supposedly happened to find evidence of Iraqi insurgents using Iranian made weapons.


Who has been talking about invading Iran?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   


Its a simple premise.

The US says, "hey Iran, we think you are trying to build nukes and we're gonna bomb you"

Iran says "if you bomb us, that would be bad and we might have to retaliate in some way"

The US says "hey! you can't threaten us like that, thats outrageous! we're gonna bomb you!"

It was about the absurdly suprised reaction from right-wing US politicians to Iran saying it would have to defend itself if it was attacked, like they have a right to go and bomb whereever they choose and not expect any consequences.

It actually had nothing to do with the subsequent conversation I've had with my esteemed colleague 4th, who has graciously conceded defeat in our battle of wits


Sadly, it had nothing to do with Amanda Tapping either, although oddly I wish it could have somehow.....



So that is the volley? Thast what Iran is lobbing back LOL? Ummmm...okay. I dont really see anything of substance going on but mere rhetoric. Anyone can talk the talk......hell the game hasnt even begun!

[edit on 4-10-2007 by princeofpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join