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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Hi Xtro.

I'd answer your points individually but I think a simple question might sort things out and give you a sense of my perspective.

Before I ask it, please understand that my perspective here comes from not being American. Maybe when you read the question, you'll see where I'm coming from.

OK - here goes

Has America ever meddled in the foreign affairs of another country?




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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.


Listen up and listen carefully. I abhor violence, in any way shape or form. The nationality of those being killed means nothing to me because they are ALL people. You may wish to differentiate, I don't. You may not care about people being killed for whatever political gain someone seeks but I do. If WMD had been found, I'd still be asking why the US, which has the largest stockpile of WMD in the world was so damn hypocritical to invade another country on the grounds of them possibly having them.



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.


The gassing of the Kurds happened in 1988. The first Gulf War was in 1991, following the invasion of Kuwait. The US led invasion of Iraq took place in 2003. So thats 3 years after the Kurds got gassed when the UN mandated action to remove Iraq from Kuwait (which had nothing to do with WMD) and then 15 years for the US led invasion regarding WMD's. I guess what you are saying is that it took 15 years for the US to develop some kind of social conscience about what happened in 1988? Is that right?

As for the premise of "moving them to Syria" the guy was a dictator wasn't he? What possible motive could he have for moving his best weapons out of the country when someone was coming to get him? That theory is, and always has been a total load of crap.



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?


I asked a question in my previous reply. The answer to it is obvious. If its ok for the US to do it to other countries why are you whining about Iran's potential, unproven involement in Iran? The US doing it to other nations is ok because.......why, exactly?



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.


Which part of the 9/11 commisions report, and the subsequent analysis and reports produced that clearly state that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no involvement in 9/11, and no links to Al-Queda can you not understand?

[edit on 5/1007/07 by neformore]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Xtrozero
Who has been talking about invading Iran?


The entire thread is about attacking Iran and as myself and many others have already pointed out. You have absolutely no reason or evidence of any sort to justify an attack on Iran. But don't let that stop you. It hasn't in the past. But what's new.




[edit on 5-10-2007 by kindred]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
The entire thread is about attacking Iran and as myself and many others have already pointed out.

Umm....Thats not true!
What has been talked about is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities using air and sea resources and NOT invading Iran using ground troops. Big differrence!


You have absolutely no reason or evidence of any sort to justify an attack on Iran.

There is plenty of evidence which as been supplied in numerous threads. You however just don't agree with the reasons.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by kindred
The entire thread is about attacking Iran and as myself and many others have already pointed out.

Umm....Thats not true!
What has been talked about is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities using air and sea resources and NOT invading Iran using ground troops. Big differrence!


You may see a difference between "bombing" and "invading" but to the average Iranian, both are attacks. Hell, to the average person they're both attacks.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   


What has been talked about is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities using air and sea resources and NOT invading Iran using ground troops. Big differrence!


Err... that's still an attack. Maybe not an invasion, but certainly an attack.

And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it's extremely unlikely that such an attack could be restricted to an air campaign only.

We might want to, but the Iranians are likely to have different ideas, especially after we've killed a few hundred/thousand of their civilian population.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
You may see a difference between "bombing" and "invading" but to the average Iranian, both are attacks. Hell, to the average person they're both attacks.

Of course they are both attacks. I must have quoted the wrong sentence because I was responding about someone complaining about "invading' Iran. My bad.....



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Ground troops are needed for an invasion, not for anttack. The general consensus is either a US and/or Israeli STRIKE on Iran...not a ground invasion. That is a BIG difference.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

You may wish to differentiate, I don't. You may not care about people being killed for whatever political gain someone seeks but I do. If WMD had been found, I'd still be asking why the US, which has the largest stockpile of WMD in the world was so damn hypocritical to invade another country on the grounds of them possibly having them.


I do not differentiate either and the vast majority of deaths in Iraq have not been at the hands of Americans. If America left Iraq while it is still in Chaos the deaths to follow would dwarf anything seen. I know you are not an American so we will not see eye to eye on this, but I see a difference in a country being run by a body of people who form a government than a crazed dictator. You can call it hypocritical and I really do not care, and whether the US has done wrongs in the past doesn’t make it hypocritical to prevent others from doing like wrongs now.




The gassing of the Kurds happened in 1988. The first Gulf War was in 1991, following the invasion of Kuwait. The US led invasion of Iraq took place in 2003. So thats 3 years after the Kurds got gassed when the UN mandated action to remove Iraq from Kuwait (which had nothing to do with WMD) and then 15 years for the US led invasion regarding WMD's. I guess what you are saying is that it took 15 years for the US to develop some kind of social conscience about what happened in 1988? Is that right?


I don't know, but protecting and feeding them from 1990 to the second GW I would say it didn't take 15 years to grow a social conscience.



The answer to it is obvious. If its ok for the US to do it to other countries why are you whining about Iran's potential, unproven involement in Iran? The US doing it to other nations is ok because.......why, exactly?


First I am not whining and second it is not a right or wrong thing here even though you keep insisting it is. Right or wrong is all how you look at it and from what side, so it just doesn’t work my friend. In both cases with both countries it is all about self interest of those countries. You will not find me ever suggesting the US wears the white hat and Iran wears the black hat in the style of an old western movie that blatantly shows who the good or bad guys are.

It is also proven that Iran is involved since bombs have clear signatures as to where they are manufactured, as do supplies etc., but the point to your question is Iran doesn’t get a “get out of jail free” card just because the US does it too, and I think that is my main point here. They must answer for their actions just as we have have/will for ours, but being an American I’m on America’s side in this…sorry…just as most Iranians are on their government side.




which part of the 9/11 commisions report, and the subsequent analysis and reports produced that clearly state that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no involvement in 9/11, and no links to Al-Queda can you not understand?



Hmm, I never said Saddam was involved in 9/11, so I'm not sure your point here is.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred

Xtrozero
Who has been talking about invading Iran?


The entire thread is about attacking Iran and as myself and many others have already pointed out. You have absolutely no reason or evidence of any sort to justify an attack on Iran. But don't let that stop you. It hasn't in the past. But what's new.




[edit on 5-10-2007 by kindred]


The only way that the US will invade Iran is if they actually used a WMD and then invading would still be iffy. Very limited surgical strikes might happen but they too are not in our best interest. It is funny that Iran will make a statement that they are very close to succeeding in having a nuke and the US will then state that they are eight years away still. A lot can happen in eight years without the use of force so I would not hold my breath anytime soon in anticipation.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluehaze
Has anyone read "Countdown to Terror" by Curt Weldon? It goes over all of this in very good detail. Weapons inspections, history of the region etc.


Is any of it true thought?



Well, the US and USSR were sworn enemies for years before this and they saw a way to cripple them by causing conflicts on as many fronts as possible. Iran is doing the same thing in their own region as has already been detailed on many threads. Like I have said in other threads, we all do it, right or wrong.


What is Iran doing in the ME that corresponds accurately with the many dozens of CIA coups and many US invasions of third world nations?


As to the fact we have Nukes for 30 years. Well, other than to end WW2 we haven't used them on anyone else, that is why we are trusted.


I suppose we should thank the US for not nuking anyone?


(Read up on why using the Bombs saved more lives for Japan and the US compared to a landing based attack on Japan's mainland).


The US never needed to invade Japan to end the war and the terms offered after the nuclear weapons were used were the same terms the Japanese asked for months earlier...


NK, Iran are like "The Mouse that Roared" but not as dumb.


How is Iran a bigger threat to the citizens of the US than North Korea clearly is?


If they have Nukes they will give them to someone else to use.


Based on what evidence and or twisted reasoning?


Just like people in your workplace that like to stir the sh*T just to entertain themselves but never get directly involved


And here i thought we were going to have a adult discussion.


We all do it; every nation worth its salt does it and will continue to as long as they are around.


When such actions are taken is never to 'stir' what you think and always directed to bring about a certain set of results. The people, and i use the term loosely, who run this planet don't waste their time by creating incidents that do not further their goals.


Picking on the biggest bully is fun, but to say the US is the only bully is bull!


It's the most significant one in known human history.


One last quote: "You can't blame Ronald McDonald when you get a bad hamburger? And you can't blame the US president for what our country does.


Who am i supposed to blame for the actions of the USN if not at least the American president and his national security advisers? I mean what the hell kind of argument is this? Did Florida launch of the pay of pigs invasion and did planes from there bomb Cuba without the knowledge the Florida Governor or the US president? I know those claims have been made but that does not mean we should believe it!


Neither of them runs the company!!" Comedian Bobcat Goldwaith talking about Ronald Reagan and the ATC firings. I would say the same thing applies to Bush.


The blame has to go somewhere and frankly Bush is quite a bit more responsible than the average ignorant person such as yourself. I am not going to blame the ignorant and generally vapid for those actions taken by people who do know what's going on and do their best to keep people such as yourself completely misdirected.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I know you are not an American so we will not see eye to eye on this, but I see a difference in a country being run by a body of people who form a government than a crazed dictator.


Which of the two has been involved in more military action in the past 50 years? Wheres your evidence that the guy running Iran is "crazed"?



I don't know, but protecting and feeding them from 1990 to the second GW I would say it didn't take 15 years to grow a social conscience.


The "protection" you talk of was, in fact, bombing surface to air missile sites and softening targets for the 2003 attack, whilst imposing a food for oil programme.



Right or wrong is all how you look at it and from what side, so it just doesn’t work my friend. In both cases with both countries it is all about self interest of those countries.


So why can't you step out and look at it from the other side? And why, in the process, can't you count the human cost?



It is also proven that Iran is involved since bombs have clear signatures as to where they are manufactured, as do supplies etc.,


Please read the thread. You'll find a few posts above this one a clear and rather precise statement from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff on that issue. I had thought you'd been reading already, but maybe not.



Iran doesn’t get a “get out of jail free” card just because the US does it too, and I think that is my main point here. They must answer for their actions just as we have have/will for ours, but being an American I’m on America’s side in this…sorry…just as most Iranians are on their government side.


Like I said, its a case of reaping what you sow.



Hmm, I never said Saddam was involved in 9/11, so I'm not sure your point here is.


You didn't write this then?


Originally posted by Xtrozero
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.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Going back to the premis of this thread, i dont think the US is surprised at all to see the volley of rhetoric from Iran. In fact its only super predictable if anything. Saddam used to do the exact type of stuff and its mainly for domestic consumption.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

4thDoctorWhoFan
There is plenty of evidence which as been supplied in numerous threads. You however just don't agree with the reasons.


I dont see any evidence, just hypocrisy, propaganda and lies. Like someone else pointed out, you have no evidence linking weapons used and found in Iraq to the Iranian government. There are many countries involved in supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, such as Malta, Italy and the UK etc and even blackwater is now under investigation. Therefore there is no valid reason for attacking Iran. The Bush admin currently doesn't have one.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
I dont see any evidence, just hypocrisy, propaganda and lies. Like someone else pointed out, you have no evidence linking weapons used and found in Iraq to the Iranian government.

Why am I NOT suprised.

Again, you just choose NOT to believe all the stories linking Iran with sending arms, men and money into Iraq.


There are many countries involved in supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, such as Malta, Italy and the UK etc

Link please???



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There are many countries involved in supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, such as Malta, Italy and the UK etc.

www.guardian.co.uk...
observer.guardian.co.uk...
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.independent.com.mt...
www.cbsnews.com...
muse.jhu.edu...
www.news24.com...
ap.google.com...
edition.cnn.com...
www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

The arms trade
observer.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/04/16/ublview16c.xml


4thDoctorWhoFan wrote
Why am I NOT suprised.
Again, you just choose NOT to believe all the stories linking Iran with sending arms, men and money into Iraq.


What link? there isn't one, just speculation, propaganda and lies. Where's the proof. Like I said, the Bush admin doesn't have a valid reason for attacking Iran unless of course you can provide concrete evidence to back up your claims.

Some American's on ATS are always bragging about how good your technology is. It's just a shame you can't put it good use and come up with some real concrete proof or evidence.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
It's just a shame you can't put it good use and come up with some real concrete proof or evidence.

Whats a shame is that you don't see the 'real' evidence or just choose to ignore it.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
You keep talking about evidence. What evidence? I've yet to see any. Instead of just continuously saying I'm ignoring it. Please provide some.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Which of the two has been involved in more military action in the past 50 years? Wheres your evidence that the guy running Iran is "crazed"?


Sorry, I was referring to Saddam. Iran doesn’t have a crazed dictator, but they do have a very extremist religious agenda that is not in the interests of the US. Just as our western ways are not in their interest and also having the state of Israel is not either.



The "protection" you talk of was, in fact, bombing surface to air missile sites and softening targets for the 2003 attack, whilst imposing a food for oil programme.


Well no it was not what I was talking about...

Airdropping/delivering food and supplies (which I did for years) to the Kurds, and having No fly zones to protect them. Monitoring and taking expedient actions around the clock was a huge effort on the US part and we did it for almost a decade. No food for oil here just pure aid.




So why can't you step out and look at it from the other side? And why, in the process, can't you count the human cost?


I do look at it but we just have different views on it. As I said many times before we will not attack Iran, plain and simple. They would need to do something really stupid even for the US would think about it, so let’s remove them off the table of military action. We have two countries of Afghanistan and Iraq which had the Taliban and Saddam respectively. Removing both saved lives and freed a vast group of people under their rule. What these people do with that freedom is another thing entirely, but it gives them choices that they never had before, and that is what freedom is all about, choices.

This is where we see things differently. I see these two actions as saving many more lives than what it has cost in lives. I’m sure you will disagree, but that is just the way I feel and I have seen with my own two eyes the positive effects. On this I will not be able to change your position and you will not be able to change mine.

My question to you is why do you and others only count the human cost by Americans? The next place you might find the US is Africa, and once again it will be the Americans the cause for all deaths, but the million already dead and the millions more dyeing unless we get involved doesn’t seem to enter into your equation as to what is the right thing to do.



Like I said, its a case of reaping what you sow.


Why isn't Jordan, Saudi, Pakistan etc all acting like Iran too? Iran is the only ones yelling how the US is trying to get them …kind of funny. Some of my old posts in on other topics explain why a country would do this when there really is no need, and it has to do with maintaining an extremist view point within their populous, and Iran is in big trouble of losing it with their young people who do not want to be extremist, and so they need the big bad US to help maintain it.



Hmm, I never said Saddam was involved in 9/11, so I'm not sure your point here is.

You didn't write this then?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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.


Yes, but what does that statement has to do with 9/11?

Let me expand on my point for it might be my fault that you are confused by it. Saddam was not involved with 9/11 and he and Bin Laden did not see eye to eye since Saddam did not follow the extreme religious views that Bin Laden follows.

If you read my full quote it means that with our involvement in Iraq the terrorist are dumping their assets into there and not here. With Saddam still in power there would be a very large safely zone across much of the Middle East for many different terrorist groups. With these groups in a hassle free environment and huge funding from many orgs/countries they would have had all the time in the world to plan and carry out many large scale attacks around the world. With the US in their back yard it is much more difficult now for them to do this. I like the front lines of this battle to stay over there and not come to America.



[edit on 7-10-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
My question to you is why do you and others only count the human cost by Americans?


I don't, but what I will say is this, the problems in the ME right now are a direct result of American foreign policy, and attempts to manipulate the region to further US interests. Whether you like that or not its the case. You can point the finger to the allied powers at the end of WW2 initially if you like, but after that the US has consitently vetoed UN resolutions to censure Israel, has systematically deposed leaders in Iran and Iraq, invaded a nation that posed no threat to it and is now - despite your protestations and I'd love to know what media you are reading - sabre rattling about Iran.



The next place you might find the US is Africa, and once again it will be the Americans the cause for all deaths, but the million already dead and the millions more dyeing unless we get involved doesn’t seem to enter into your equation as to what is the right thing to do.


The US obviously has no interest in getting involved in Africa and African politics - that much is clear from the complete and utter inaction in dealing with issues in countries like Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe.



Why isn't Jordan, Saudi, Pakistan etc all acting like Iran too? Iran is the only ones yelling how the US is trying to get them …kind of funny.


Maybe its because none of those countries have the administration of the US pointing fingers at them, labelling them as part of the "Axis of Evil", and openly pondering nuclear first strikes on their military facilities? I mean...call me paranoid if you want but that would rattle just about anyone...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join