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.


The Coming War With Iran

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:28 PM
Seriously, all you pro-war, are you government agents? Because you can't be serious. The US economy is great? Are you kidding?
Not even Bush thinks so!

Iran is a threat? ARE YOU KIDDING????????????????????????????? Was Iraq a threat? NO, it was a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY LIKE IRAN IS. The stuff they use to enrich uranium is from the 70s!!!! Hello!

Their most advanced weapons are old russians and old chinese weapons... except for the S-300 but they don't have much of those. Hell they have F-4 Phantom, used in the VIETNAM ERA!!! Even if they upgraded it, it's NOTHING compared to the F-22 and F-15i... And their tanks will do nothing in front of air supremacy... it will be Iraq 2: The slaughter.

And for their missiles, i'm sure they are as useless as the North Korean's or the Scuds that Saddam launched. WORTHLESS.

If you want a peaceful Iran, stop making threat against them, ignore them and give their people a sign that if they rebel, you'll talk and industrialize them. That's how you build democracies, you talk with the people, not with scum like Musharraf. But eh, american presidents can't bring democracy, because they all hated democracy since JFK was killed.

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:30 PM
Some more about the Army, "breaking"

WASHINGTON, D.C. — One year ago, as President Bush decided to send more troops to Iraq, the conventional wisdom in Washington among opponents of the war was that the U.S. Army was on the verge of breaking.

In December 2006 former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell warned, "The active Army is about broken."

Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in a much-cited memo to West Point colleagues, wrote: "My bottom line is that the Army is unraveling, and if we don’t expend significant national energy to reverse that trend, sometime in the next two years we will break the Army just like we did during Vietnam."

Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales, the former head of the Army War College, agreed. He wrote in an editorial in the Washington Times on March 30:

"If you haven't heard the news, I'm afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. ... Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around."

But now, one year later, Scales has done an about-face. He says that he was wrong. Despite all the predictions of imminent collapse, the U.S. Army and the combat brigades have proven to be surprisingly resilient.

What? How can this be?

According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal.

Scales, a FOX News contributor, said he based his assessment last year "on the statistics that showed a high attrition among enlisted soldiers, officers who were leaving the service early, and a decline in the quality of enlistments," a reference to the rising number of waivers given for "moral defects" such as drug use and lowered educational requirements.

"In fact, what we've seen over the last year is that the Army retention rates are pretty high, that re-enlistments, for instance, particularly re-enlistments in Iraq and Afghanistan, remain very high," Scales said. He noted that re-enlistments were high even among troops who have served multiple tours.

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:18 PM
Another write-up exposing TPTBs current lies and propeganda to get us into "M.E.-Mess II"...I hope these kinds of articles are written daily for the rest of this nightmare admin's days in office, and well into the NEXT pre-selected nightmare regime's tenure...As long as their lies and propeganda have constant focus on them, and as long as people are aware of what's going on, it will makes things more difficult for them to bamboozle americans like last time...

Setting the Propeganda Stage For Iraq: American Hegemony Is Not Guaranteed

Just as the Bush regime lied to Americans and the UN about why Iraq was attacked, hiding the real agenda behind false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda, the Bush regime is now lying about why it needs to attack Iran. Could anyone possibly believe that Iran is so desirous of having its beautiful country bombed and its nuclear energy program destroyed that Iran would invite an attack by fighting a "proxy war" against the US in Iraq?

That the Bush regime would tell such a blatant lie shows that the regime has no respect for the intelligence of the American public and no respect for the integrity of the US media.

And why should it? The public and media have fallen for every lie the Bush regime has told.

Full Article:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by US Monitor

Ok, I am going to admit ignorance here: 1 troop = how many personel?

Next, if we have such an abundance of troops... what's the deal with stop-loss and extended tours, especially if so many are re-enlisting?

As far as the draft goes (if I am getting confused with another thread, forgive me), I think that would best left to a last resort IF someone declared war against us, and I am not talking any kind of false flag... something blatant.

Regardless of how many troops we have and where we have them, the idea of war with Iran is ludicrious in my opinion.

BTW, did anyone notice the shortfall of troops in Afgahnistan??? I mean come on, isn't that where our "real" enemy is? No wonder they "haven't" found him yet.

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by enigma77

A troop is used to describe a single Solider, Marine, Airman, or Sailor.

And yes we should have all of the troops that are stuck in Iraq in Afghanistan doing what they should be, going after those who really were behind 9/11. AQ.

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:08 PM
Gotta just love that nutjob in iran:

Iran: '9/11 an excuse for U.S. invasions'
# Iran's president casts doubt over United States' version of September 11 attacks
# Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says attacks a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq
# He questions the death toll, culprits and motives for the third time in a week
# U.S. State Department rejects comments as "misinformed, misguided rhetoric"

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in the holy city of Qom.

Under this pretext, the U.S. "attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and since then a million people have been killed only in Iraq," Ahmadinejad said in the speech broadcast live on state-run television.

On the last anniversary of the attacks, the names of 2,750 victims killed in New York were read

Gee, he denies that the Holocaust happened despite irrefutable proof that it did indeed happen, and now he wants to deny 9/11 was done by AQ. Next he will say the Earth is flat, Elvis ain't dead, we never walked on the moon, and soccer will become the number 1 sport in the USA.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:37 PM
trying to remove this one post, but I don't know how to delete it! any suggestions!

[edit on 17-4-2008 by freighttrain]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Here's a video I came across on Youtube: (April 15, 2008 C-SPAN Congress Coverage). I really hope this war won't happen, it will start WW3! We're not even playing with guns anymore, we're playing gods by using NUKES! This is a world wide concern, not just Iran!

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by freighttrain

Ms. Waters endorses Mrs. Clinton. Therefore she is a total loser in my book. She is completely and totally unreliable regardless of the show she puts on.

This is how she rose to power to put her power behind Hillary Clinton:

Prior to her election to the House of Representatives in 1990, Congresswoman Waters had already attracted national attention for her no-nonsense, no-holds-barred style of politics. During 14 years in the California State Assembly, she rose to the powerful position of Democratic Caucus Chair. She was responsible for some of the boldest legislation California has ever seen: the largest divestment of state pension funds from South Africa; landmark affirmative action legislation; the nation's first statewide Child Abuse Prevention Training Program; the prohibition of police strip searches for nonviolent misdemeanors; and the introduction of the nation's first plant closure law.

They always do some good stuff to get to the microphone. Yes, she still supports Hillary.

It is for this reason I take her with a huge grain of salt.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by dk3000

I didn't know that! Thanks for the info. I only support Ron Paul and yes, still do! Only man that speaks the truth and stands for our true freedom!

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in