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.

 

Report: U.S. to order limited raid on Iran

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Agreed. Bashing GWB is one thing, but to wish that his policies result in casualties amongst US soldiers just doing their jobs is awful.





posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


and to neo-cons like your self anything said against the US is Anti-US right?

sending soilders into a war for the profit of others isnt dieing needlessly.


people are suppose to hope the US forces do well in bombing that country?

pathetic, same rubbish from you in every topic that concerns the US.
everyone is Anti-US for not supporting its actions and speaking out against it



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Yeah, the establishment is doing that so that you just don't care about it and you ``accept it when it happens``. It's better for them to do a 5 years propaganda run and being blamed for 1 month than go to war without any propaganda before and then be impeached and go to jail under nuremberg laws.

With internet, the US government can't do the things they did in WW1 with the USS Maine, during Vietnam with the Tonkin incident and during the 67 war, the USS Liberty because it would be political suicide.

Now, they just have to put so much info from so many sources that they can claim that they made a mistake on the intelligence, that they didn't know who to believe and that the mainstream viewer will never see that all the ``iranian arms in Iraq`` and ``Iran's president remarks about Israel`` were fake, they will NEVER report that in the MSM, if they do, it will be AFTER the war and they will be forced to do so, otherwise, they are government propaganda puppets.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


No, you're post when above and beyond criticism of US foreign policy, which deserves its fair share. You flat out stated that you were hoping for heavy US losses in its offensive against Iran.





posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


Some people have trouble grasping that anti-war and anti-shrub is NOT anti-US.

Then again, some people are as bloodthirsty as shrub and actually WANT war.

In a few years time when the US is no longer the dominant force it is today, they'll be singing a different tune.

Freedom - riiiight - that'll be why shrub hates the saudi's so much then (sarc)



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



true. does sound bad if your american.
but from some prospectives if a country launches a pre-emtive strike on another country.

some would say they deserve what they get.
even if they didnt sign up for the Job they are about to do,
but as stated on ATS by so many neo-cons when they posted on soliders refusing to fight in wars they know arent legit.

they signed up to the armed forces and have to do as their commander and chief says.

i will retract my first statement but not the rest after that.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Why do you think so? Because it would have backslash on Bush's foreign policy. He cares about US lives, that's why he doesn't want a war against Iran. The only way to stop the madness of Iraq and Iran full-scale war is a lot of casualties in the first offensive. Otherwise, it will be an occupation of Iran because you can't destroy a nuclear program with underground bases without invading it. So that's why.

He hopes that a lot dies at the beginning so it can be stopped so that less people die overall. You understand?

(is that what Bodrul think?)

Anyway, I agree Bodrul, the scum who want a war with Iran just have to sign in. Those who don't want to fight, get out of the army, ask them. All those 30% brainless morans who still support Bush, DRAFT THEM.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


thank you.
the more casulaties the larger the uproar would be back in his homeyard. and the faster people would want to stop this blood bath



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I understand completely what the poster was saying, but its still extremely offensive.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Just playing devils advocate here - I wonder what the reaction would be to an iranian coming on and saying he found the calls to bomb his country because of bush's lies offensive?

Or to hear his PM and spiritual leader described as nut jobs.

Or to hear that iranians are terrorists (yes, I've seen that one posted) and all muslims are islamofascists (seen that one too)?

Do you think that insted of being horrified, people would villify them anyway?

Because I'm pretty sure there are many here who would...



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


If you're asking whether or not there are people with extremist views toward Iran, of course there are. But do two wrongs make a right? Of course not.

That's unfortunately part of the problem with political discourse in the current environment. There seems to be this belief that when someone uses an unfair or offensive debating tactic against you, it automatically gives you a green light to return the favor. Again, do two wrongs make a right? There are some people who say some stupid things about Iran and the Iranian people, no question. But does that give the other side the right to do the same? In the end, all it does is create more animosity.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Yet again, bush has ignored his own intelligence reports, insisting that iran is building nuclear weapons or has ambitions to when there is no evidence to suggest it's true.

It's iraq and WMDs all over again as bush ignores everything except the voice in his head which tells him to attack and destroy.

First of all, the NIE report in question did say that Iran prior to 2003 did indeed have a nuclear weapons program. So if you are going to believe that it was halted, then you must also believe that they did actually have a nuclear weapons program. So everyone saying that Iran only wanted nuclear power plants instead of nuclear weapons is totally bogus right?

Also, before this latest NIE report the same group said they were developing nuclear weapons. And now after the report, they are changing their tune again. Basically, the NIE and those who wrote it don't know what they are talking about and cannot be trusted.

Reshaping the NIE report

If Iran is not currently attempting to build nuclear weapons (and we know they did in the past) then why did the UN just slap Iran with a third round of sanctions.

3rd Round of Sanctions



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Good God the Iranians are just freaking STUPID! I mean is there a dumber regime anywhere on the planet? Listen to the utter crap that Ahkmajohad spouts. he makes the foks in the White House look like Einstein clones. Im really starting to wonder if there is just something genetically wrong with some of the people in that part of the world.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Have you read the NIE?
I suggest that you do and then post something concrete to back up shrubs claim that it's not valid, rather than (as usual) your own opinion.
www.dni.gov...

I've linked it for you AGAIN just to help out.

I have never said anything about prior to 2003 - you need to get your facts straight.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
If hes going to do it,i would rather see airstrikes and tomahawks then a ground war again.Only on the nuclear reactor facilities.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Have you read the NIE?

Yes, have you.


I suggest that you do and then post something concrete to back up shrubs claim that it's not valid, rather than (as usual) your own opinion.

Umm.....I suggest that you go back and read my previous post and links which says why the NIE is useless instead (as usual) of jumping to conclusions.



I have never said anything about prior to 2003 - you need to get your facts straight.

That is part of the NIE report. Please try and stay focused and go back and read my previous post with provided links.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I've read it - but I didn't think this was a thread for comedy.

They belong in BTS.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I've read it - but I didn't think this was a thread for comedy.

They belong in BTS.


Ah, I see....use some parts and ignore others. Got it.

Basically, you slice and dice reports and evidence in a lame attempt to help your point while ignoring obvious flaws in your reasoning.
Hey, that's fine but be upfront about it.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Whatever.

Stop trying to fudge the issue - shrub doesn't believe his own intel agencies based on nothing more than his own opinion - that is what he said, that is fact.

I no more trust sources that are sponsored by bush than I trust shrub himself.

Now please stop with the veiled insults - they are becoming tiresome.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Stop trying to fudge the issue

What?

I am not fudging anything.
I guess providing fuel which refutes your claims you call fudge.


I no more trust sources that are sponsored by bush than I trust shrub himself.

Again, what?
You mentioned the NIE report by claiming it said Iran stopped nuclear weapons production. I therefore provided evidence to the contrary from the director who wrote the report you sited.
So I guess you don't believe yourself then since that is what you are claiming to be your evidence. Or more likely you did not actually read the links I provided or you did not understand what you were reading.


Now please stop with the veiled insults - they are becoming tiresome.

Huh? What are you talking about? I have not written any insults because if I did you would know it because they would not be veiled.
Anyway, I find your statement funny since you insult almost everyone who disagrees with you.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by WhatTheory]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join