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.

 

'Bush gave Israel amber light to attack'

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


there are so many things wrong with that. Isreal is trying to "drag" the US into a war. They dont want to die as much as we dont, however given the circumstances I can see why they act with such aggression. I mean think about it, Isreal is what? a primarily Jewish state, and they are surrounded by Islamic nations. Isreal is also just sitting on the holy land of three major religions. Christianity, Judiesim, and Islam. The Judeo-Christian faith obviously is one the US primarily engages in, Iran is Islam. So we are doing nothing but continuing the fight in the holy land just like the bible said we would. The fight for the holy land has been going on since before the crusades. Now there is that take into affect also that Isreal is the only nation in that cluster with a democratic regime. If Isreal were to be annihilated the middle east would be the biggest harbor for anti-us regimes to collaborate with no balance system ultimately ending a very large war, as opposed to several small wars. ill take the two small wars over WWIII any day of the week, twice on sundays.




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


respect has gone to the wayside honey. Well see how respectful your being with a nuclear missile pointed at your face.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Gosh ya know I just cant wait until the US has an effective alternative fuel source, then all the conspiracy junkies wont have anything to throw at us. Believe or not its not all about oil.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
So I didn't know the US had the authority to just tell a country to start a war, this is news to me.... The problem being is Israel will start the battle but the US will be involved with the war... Lets watch Israel have our economy go down the drain while we're still sending Israel billions of dollars without them having to lift a finger, isn't this how it's always been? I wish Israel could get the green light to be involved with a war with no US backing, and just see exactly what happens when they have to do something for themselves...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


It is not. Please provide evidence that the ALL or even a majority of the oil is "locked up" by US oil interests. Such statements require backup.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


oh please the majority of the poilitica and oil "evidence" provided by several reoccuring postings are bulls--t. People hear or read something they consider news on the internet (first major problem) only hear a portion of a story (second major problem) then make assumptions on the subject without proper research to back up thier claims. I guarentee if you called out the some of these "postings" they wouldnt be able to defend thier case to a 12yr old. Get your own ethics in line first before attacking others...thank you.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The International Terrorists, the US and Israel think they can do what they like, they dont need to go to the UN or anyone else, they are acting like they own the World when they do not. America is all but finished, Israel with a population of about 7 million cannot afford a protracted war with anyone because they would simply run out of manpower.

But maybe this is just the grand plan, take out bankrupt America and the parasite living off it Israel and the door opens for a stable ME and the new Chines Empire, yes that sounds about right.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zero lift
 


wrong the US cant take a self defece position and bring NATO into this
it only works if the US is attacked directly,

occypying forces and foreign bases dont count as an attack on the US.

correct me if i am wrong

[edit on 13-7-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


Actually, it does.

US bases are still US property. If Iran attacks US bases (as they have promised to do) then the US will go to war, and it will be self-defense, because no one told Iran to target US bases. Now it's very possible for Iran to not attack US interests and bases and only target Israel.

Should the US enter the conflict without provocation from Iran, then that means the US was wrong with the strike. But what this really is, is the biggest bully on the block interfering between two warring kids and telling one of them "you can punch my friend, but should I feel any sort of pain from you as I stand between your punches, I will be relentless on how much destruction I rain down on you".

This is diplomacy at its finest!

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggy', while reaching for a stone."

Amber light? Pfft, yeah like that really means anything. We sure do have a lot of lawyers here doing a lot of political mud slinging. Over-reacting a bit?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The United States is Israel, a satellite nation whose only way to launch a strike to wipe out iran would be thanks to Billions of dollars pumped into their military by America. If Israel does indeed attack first, then Iran's true intention's ill never be known, would Iran really have attacked? OR were they just protecting themselves by saying what they were capable of? Once Again it all works out for the US government smearing a country, with propaganda, so the rest of the world agree's with them, then launching the first strike, no one saying # in opposition. Millions killed clean and free with little debate. I know from the intelligence on this board that lots of people are smart enough to see this type of garbage, but majority of the people won't . It must be hard to be sitting on billions of dollars of military equipment , and not getting a chance to use it at there disposal, as much as they'd like to . The NWO and Bush, are not suprised at all , how easy it is to get away with all this,little to no intervention . Basically mocking and provoking the whole world reminding us of our stupidity , and the fact that we can't do anything about it.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by aLinkToThePast]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

By the US standing back and out of the way, you may get rid of 2 birds with one (nuclear) stone, that is to say it may become a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Iran gets obliterated and off the map, getting rid of this middle eatern thorn in Bushes side, at the same time Irans response (before their obliteration off the map) could be to wipe Israel off the map at the same time, thus removing the evil little twin that US has thats always looking for a reason to drag the US into war.

It all seems bad but in the end and with a long term outlook, it may even eventuate as a good thing.

I know its hard to imagine it all ending good, but you never know.


What did all these people in Iran and Israel do to you that "just wiping them off the map" is a suitable outcome for innocent people?
 



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by usaf60ces
 



Soo.......... I take it that you also don't have any proof to back up that assertion either. Nice try at deflection, that doesn't work here too often. I almost always can cite my proof for my claims, why can't I ask the other side to do likewise?..........



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
But maybe this is just the grand plan, take out bankrupt America and the parasite living off it Israel and the door opens for a stable ME and the new Chines Empire, yes that sounds about right.


You mean the new Chinese Empire that is blocking any further UN Security Council actions on Zimbabwe? I bet all the Democracy forces in the Middle East can't wait for that!



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Some links that back up claims of a petro-political root for Afghanistan & Iraq:

Afghanistan:
1) from the Asian Times:

Since the early 1990s, three countries around the Caspian Sea - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - have yielded a vast reserve of oil and gas. Because all three are landlocked, however, control over their billions of dollars worth of oil and gas depends on the security and economic influence of the pipelines. For keen Washington energy analysts, the recent deployment of US special operations forces to the state of Georgia can only help enforce a Washington pipeline policy aimed at neutralizing Russian influence in oil-rich Central Asia.

www.atimes.com...

2) from the Centre for Research on Globalisation:

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book "The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" as "the center of world power." Capturing the region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

www.globalresearch.ca...

3) from the Energy Information Administration (2002):

Until recently, the pipeline was considered effectively dead, but with a fragile peace in Afghanistan established and the Taliban removed from power, the idea of a trans-Afghan pipeline has been revived. Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai have expressed their support for the pipeline, and Uzbek President Islam Karimov is also on record advocating the pipeline. In May 2002, Karzai, Niyazov, and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf held trilateral talks on the pipeline proposal.

www.eia.doe.gov...


Iraq:
1) from the BBC:

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

news.bbc.co.uk...

2) from the Global Policy Forum:

The draft Constitution states that oilfields will be developed according to “the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment.” This perhaps sounds innocuous enough, and indeed – like much of the Constitution – is open to considerable ambiguity in its interpretation. But placed in context, it can be seen as laying the ground for radical change in Iraq’s oil industry, which will be unique among the major oil producers of the Middle East.

www.globalpolicy.org...

3) from The Guardian newspaper in the UK:

The draft law, now before the Iraqi parliament, sets up "production sharing partnerships" to allow the US and British oil majors to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years. While Iraq would retain legal ownership of its oil, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP that invest in the infrastructure and refineries would get a large share of the profits.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It would take a real patriot to deny that oil has any bearing at all on the recent adventures in the Middle East, and most patriots don't even bother to deny it, rather claiming it to be some kind of right. But, to paraphrase something I heard, Patriotism tends to be either: "My country, right or wrong.", which is morally indefensible, or: "My country is always right.", which is intellectually indefensible.

And to those who cite the existence of oil fields in Sudan, coupled with a lack of US military posturings toward the Sudanese government, as evidence against oil being the main motives for Iraq and Afghanistan I say simply that Russia and China got there first.

We are close to seeing the completion of the third panel in the West's obscene tryptich. As far as the Neo-cons are concerned, 2009 will see either McCain reaping the rewards in poularity that will accompany the US getting OPEC over an oil-barrel, or Obama having to clean up the mess.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
NO ONE WINS FROM ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.. LOOK AT IRAQ... The U.S of A hasnt accomplished any thing but make a bad situation worse and made the rich richer.. The same will happen in Iran.. More cilivians will die and their blood will be spilt only for the money of the Bilderberg Group.All in the name of the New World Order. We are but pawns in this game and our existance does not matter to the Elite.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Ever think the US will use Israel to get rid of Israel itself by way of a conflict with Iran?

I highly doubt the box cut generals are liking the neocons. There will be an interesting twist to this whole story.


Lots of "We did all we could, sir!"(to save israel) etc. when the inquiry into the failure to defend Israel comes into play.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by Atlantican]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Why is it not good for the US to stop Iran from geting nukes? I would think people who are smart and can think logically would know that Iran has enough oil that they don't need nuclear power.
 



Only a fool doesn't belive that Iran doesn't already have Nukes.

Either their own or from Russia, China, N.Korea...........

They seem pretty confident in their sabre rattiling so either they have them or as we know their fully backed by Russia.

And to those who bash America and Bush........Our Gov't and Pres are only puppets in this game. The string pullers(IMF and others) are calling the shots. .02c



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinktip
 


I agree,

While I think Iran would be sabre rattling regardless, Im pretty sure they have some sort of weapon.

they have the technology and missile know how to build a delivery method, but dont have the RAW materials to make the nuclear part.

Where Nkorea does.

Now, Iran was present at Nkorea's nuclear test, how hard would it be for an Iranian to carry a specially modified briefcase containing a sphere back home?

One things for sure, Iran arent building power stations in the mountains.
But likewise, Iran have never attacked anyone, and deserve the best possible defense open to them.

When their neighbours are invaded, id be pretty damn focused on building the ultimate defense.

the US has no right to dictate who can do what, especially when they are no longer the superpower.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 



I've never stated that oil wasn't one of the reasons. Quite frankly, that region of the world wouldn't have much Geo-Political value/significance if it didn't have resources, especially one such as oil.

I just don't see only US companies making a play for a piece of Iraq's oil production. The Iraqi's will need outside help to get things running again and that kinda help isn't exactly charity work. Last I heard all the Big Oil Companies from around the world (UK, France, China, Dutch, US for starters) want a crack at "helping" Iraq get back on it's oil feet. I take offense when its only the US that is singled out for it.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
George Bush is a genius, best president of our lifetime..His cabinet and him are bad mofo's, they have accomplished everything they set out to do, and that is more than I can say about most people. Dont bad mouth my president.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join