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.


'Take Military Action' Before They Get Nukes' Sen. Lindsey Graham

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:34 AM
oh little possums, you need to read 'rule by secrecy' by jim marrs. because he puts forward a lot of evidence that wars are just created by those in control ...i.e. coroporations/bankers etc; in order to make money and 'divide' the population so they can control it. i think this is true; so the war in iran is being manufactured for you. the threat that exists isnt coming from iran per se; its coming from the corporations and bankers etc who control countries and will make sure iran is armed so that they can have a war between the us/israel and iran:

have a look at the denver internat airport artwork to see depictions of various countries at war: children holding swords draped in the flags of fighting countries: e.g. uk/ireland; israel/palestine i think etc:

they have set all the wars up; i reckon.

have a listen to leo zagami on youtube; an apparant arms dealer and high up freemason/illuminati who gives his take on how things work: obviously he probably has some agenda for talking and some stuff may be false/propaganda; but its still interesting.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:50 AM

Originally posted by brainwreck
Do you think there is ever a justification for war?

In defense of the nation and to an extent in defense of our allies. I say "to an extent" because the reasoning of the war could be against US involvement. Why should the US defend Israel if she provoked the attacks by bombing or unlawfully entering over the border? Why should the english be defended if hypothetically their government launched weapons of mass distruction on Russia? (Hypothetically ofcourse). If our allies are attacted and they are merely defending themselves, we have the obligation to their defense and for the sake of our defense. We need them for our defense as well.

The case of iran is different. Just because I oppose a warkhawk war with a talking mouthpieced regime that we decided single out among other warhawkish regimes doesnt mean I oppose any kind of war, and I never made any such statement.

Sometimes war is necessary.

I agree. Never said it was never necessary.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:55 AM

Originally posted by DataWraith
One man can 'speak his mind'

and one man can be 'critical'. Im not concerned about him "speaking his mind" or "exercising his freedom of speech". This isnt what my OP is about, this isnt the topic of discussion.

get called racists

The topic of racism never came up once in this thread. People complain about the race card when they continue to bring it up themselves. If you dont want this discussion to be derailed about racism, dont bring it up. Regarding your war mongering comment, anybody who advocates the possibility of an invasion over the basis of assumption in my view will rightfully be marked as a warhawk (or what not). You are more than welcome to argue otherwise.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:50 AM
911 - 3 days latter US is going to war
now, since no one is doing anything, you guys start with this bull

really? u guys are PATHETIC ... the only thing I can say is ... when we all die, at least I will know I am not an killer ... sickest thing ever

hitler stunts ware not even CLOSE to america's ...

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:14 AM
Regarding the war/military option...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I agree. Never said it was never necessary. sure seems like you like half your posts;

Heres my solution, anything but military intervention. Why? Because its not our business to police the world any longer. We dont have the military resources and the justification for invading is absolutly BS given the fact North Korea has already developed a WMD capable of reaching Alaska and yet we some how single out Iran based on an assumption that they will develop a nuclear missile? How does that work? Do we pick out which nations to invade and which they dont based on the media attention?

This is what I dont get. Aside from the fact we have no business policing the world since when was it acceptable for us to pick and choose which countries to "liberate" and which countries not to? When have you heard the suggestion here of invading and liberating North Korea due to their nuclear threat? I have not heard any such suggestion. Given the fact North Korea is so close to Alaska why on earth are folks like Lindsay Graham going on about Iran, a country yet to even develop the nuclear missile half way around the world? It just baffles me.

So you supposedly trust the Chinese considering they and Russia have been to an extent supported North Korea and Iran? What makes you think the European Union dont have them in check? Pakistan and India have over 200 nuclear missile between them, what about them? Why dont we liberate them as well? Since when did it become our right to pick and choose which parts of the world to police? Has Iran developed this capability even?

Its not vague, you just choose not to listen. I will repeat myself again, any solution excluding military intervention. I am for any solution that doest include the involvement of the US military. I am for sanctions, I am for agreements. I am not for any direct military involvement period. The same as I was in the case of Iraq. We had no business in that nation, we have no business in Iran. Just like we have no "business liberating Israel" with their 200 nuclear missile they refuse to officially recognize.

The warhawks are obviously not concerned about the nuclear threat. Rather whats deep underground. I'd rather go hybrid than loose for more lives for another oil war.

My point is that military intervention should not be any resort due to this assumption that they are going to develop a WMD. Heck even if they develop one we should not police the world.

Dishonest in my argument against this warhawkish mentality? I made it clear, there shouldnt be any military resort period.


Also, you never gave a direct answer to "What would you do?"
You only gave reasons not to use a miltary action, besides that you only mentioned sanctions and agreements...

Which side of the fence were you on again?


I don't think a military campaign should be the first resort, nor do I think it should be the last resort.

Iran, as well as some of the other aformentioned nations could be likend to your typical "scuttle with a bully" if they pinch you once, no big deal, again it gets annoying, again, might draw blood, again...well...if you have the power to end it...

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by soldiermom
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Many thanks to you for the unsolicited advice. I'll be sure and keep it in mind.

I didn't send my son to war. He chose to join the military for his own reasons and his reasons alone. Am I proud of him for joining? You bet your sweet a$$ I am. It's so easy for those that have never been in the military to look down their noses at those who were brave enough to do so, and act like they're poor deluded schlubs who have no idea what they're doing. In that assumption, you'd be wrong.

I have two friends in the military, one Navy, one Airforce. Luckily neither of them is dumb enough to be proud about being a slave. Honestly I don't know why anyone would ever join when the people truly in charge of this country use the military as cannon fodder to fight imperialistic wars. Recruiters prey upon the poor and those easily brainwashed into believing any fight is a fight for honor. No, today's military may believe they are fighting for honor but really they're just lining someone's pockets. Many believe they are actually fighting to defend our freedoms and yet I have not heard of any soldier getting the Patriot Act repealed. The powers that be, the rich elites, they are the true threat, not some phantom terrorists huddling in caves dying to end their own lives in the name of a lost cause but those rich and powerful who hold real influence.

Both of my friends know this now, they know the truth, and readily admit to me how much they regret signing their lives away for even the short number of years they have to stay in.

Incidentally the Senator in the OP video doesn't mind the idea of sending more kids to die in the sand, he revels in the idea and probably gets a sick kick out of getting his MASTERS more money.

We need to stop being the bully on the playground or else the other smaller kids are going to get wise, team up, and teach us a lesson.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:29 AM
China gets 17% of their oil from Iran. Where would the US economy be without China continuing to buy our debt? Screwed, that's where. Yes, even worse than it is now.

I like Lindsey Graham for the sheer fact he speaks his mind. I can respect that, though they are all liars at some point.

I'll be interested to see how long Israel can go without launching something at them.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:34 AM
Southern Guardian, I agree with your main point that this guys a war mongering nut.

That said, I cant help but be disgusted by your extreme partisanship.

Please realize that neither the left or right is the answer, there both on the same team.

Its time for some sort of reform, and thinking your correct just because your blue or red is not the kind we need.

I defend and attack both republicans and democrats basied souly on there actions.

looking at your past threads SG its pretty apparent your half blind.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

This is a distortion of his words. During that same interview he stated that if Israel attacked Iran it would cause terrible consequences. What Graham was trying to say is that it might be the best option if all others run out-- but that we can only use it if necessary.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:45 AM
I think it was clear my comments regarding "anything but military intervention" specifically targeted towards action against Iran. The member asked me whats my solution towards Iran, I replied by saying "anything other than military intervention". My comments were not regarding broader circumstances beyond Iran, as you have willfully decided to ignore.

Originally posted by Solofront
Also, you never gave a direct answer to "What would you do?"

Yea I did. I said I'd do anything besides military intervention. I'd stick to the sanctions, I'd arrange agreements. There is alot of wording going on with you folks regarding what I said. Im not interested in this game of yours.

I don't think a military campaign should be the first resort, nor do I think it should be the last resort.

Right, then we are in agreement.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:49 AM
it's not as simple as (my Senate representative) Sen. Graham's
right to free speech... the man's a Legislator an Law Maker so even idle speech has more importance than conversation at my local dart throwing Pub.

I see his vocal blurbs as mostly solidifying Obamas' position (as crazy as his visions for America are) because of the continuing backlash of the Grahamish neoconism that we are all trying to wash away from our collective memory...after 8 years of their foolhardyness. Sheeze !

he won't get my vote again

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I remember all the talk about being "proud" that our men and women were being sent their to "fight for freedom" in Iraq back in 03'. This would be used often whenever your average fox-news mouthpiece would argue the reasoning for Iraq. As much as it was a noble thing for those to serve the military in defense of these United states, the reality of Iraq and the lies concerning the war, how can you proud of sending troops and risking their lives to a war based on lies and greed?

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
Southern Guardian, I agree with your main point that this guys a war mongering nut.

That said, I cant help but be disgusted by your extreme partisanship.

Firstly I would like to make it clear theres no secret to where I stand ideologically here. That being said, in this entire thread I fail to see where exactly I partisan. As far as I can see it I was addressing what the man said, not what party he was part of. If you could find me a warmongering Dem who said the same thing recently regarding Iran, I would be more than happy to agree.

looking at your past threads SG its pretty apparent your half blind.

Like I said, I never have made my ideological stance a secret. Although my prior threads does not prove where this particular thread is partisan. I was addressing Mr Grahams comments, and if it was a Dem, I'd certainly be doing the same. Although Im not going to keep face for anybody.


posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by orfannkyl

Im made comments ealier to similar replies from yours.

Iran is yet to develop nuclear missiles. Mr Graham was refering to if Iran even successfully developed a nuclear weapon, he would advise "the US and her allies to take action". Something I state is the same warhawkish rhetoric because to be frank its not our business and its a matter of singling out one regime for an agenda.

Mr Graham claims military intervention should be necessary if Iran develops the nuclear missile.

-What about North Korea? They developed one capable of reaching Alaska, why doesnt he say anything about military intervention there?

-What about Israel? They developed 200 nuclear missiles? Why he keeping shut about taking action there?

-What about the fact our resources are drained and the fact Pakistan, India and the EU are more than capable of assisting themselves?

Are we going to call for military intervention everytime a nation goes down the path to nuclear as Mr Graham advised? Are we going to really police every nation? Why single out Iran? Same warhawkish rhetoric singling out yet another oil rich regime among other regimes. Its BS, as
if we were deep enough in the mess we call the middle east.

I know what Mr Graham said, its rather clear.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:09 PM
If History serves as a sticking point, then if we were to go into Iran, it would be a diseaster in the making. I remember the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the hostages that were taken. The Iranian people were upset at the US for putting a dictator in charge of their government and they waited. In fact the Shah of Iran, was the second person the US put in charge of Iran. In the 1950's the Iranians had an election and elected an official of their choosing, but because US Government did not like him, they not only had him assisnated, but also put the shah back on the throne, and thus began the years of oppression for their people. When the Shah had to be evacuated/came to America with his family, the revolution, backed by the religious leaders of that country, took hold and they decided the course of their nation. The US froze the assettes of Iran, backed their enemies, sold weapons to the enemies of Iran and thus started a mess that we are now in. There have been sanctions against the country of Iran since the late 1970's. Every time there is a change in the adminstration, the government of Iran does hope that it will sit down with them and talk, though they want to be the ones in charge, cause everytime the US is in charge of said talks, or even makes gestures, they are empty so the Iranian government has absolutely no reason to trust the US government or listen to what the US government has to say. They have taken the time and effort to cultivate and make alliances with other countries, namely Russia and China. They seek for greater influence in the Middle East and over the oil producing countries of the region, and defying the United States Government at all turns. Senator Graham, for all of his good intentions, does not understand, that to take military action against Iran would be the worst mistake that could be made. The moment we do, or any ally does, and Iran can simply turn off the pumps, but also turn around and look at their allies and claim we are the agressors in this case. They will not throw the first punch. They may do alot of sabre rattling, show up at the borders with weapons, but won't cross it officially. I will support the right of Senator Graham to state what he does, but will disaggree with it.
If you want to know what I would do in this case, back off and let things cool down, start with low level dipolmatic talks in a neutral location, working on common issues and avoiding the hot topics. If I had to make a veiled threat it would be things like how a missile fired from the middle of the Atlantic can nail a spot in that area with pin point accuracy, but mistakes and accidents have been known to happen so areas around may not be safe.
Any conflict with Iran is not going to be won by force, but by words in the hearts and minds of the people. By staying out of it, letting the people of Iran know that we are aware, but will not move in to assist is one of the greatest assets we have, as it shows that we are aware, but at the same time respecting their right to change their government as they desire.
Anything else just plays into the hands of the government of Iran and puts doubts into the hearts of its people.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Hi SG, sry to pick one line out of one of your posts but i feel i had to add my opinion to the line....

How does that work? Do we pick out which nations to invade and which they dont based on the media attention?

No we pick them out due to the resources they have.... and no matter what the media says ... the decision has already been made .. they are just testing the waters with there attempts at justifying the situation

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
.......Anything else just plays into the hands of the government of Iran and puts doubts into the hearts of its people.

I agree very much so. I like the bit of history you posted there. Ironically we started the fire during the 80's, now we want to call for intervention "should Iran go that way". Pure BS, and at the same time we single out this regime from others.

Do you hear the deafening silence from both Republicans and Dems over this comment? I thought we past war-hawkish rhetoric but it appears not. We'll make the same mistakes again and again until we find ourselves in a hot pickle.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

It is due to the resources, yes you in part you are correct. I am more willing to believe this goes further than resources... possibly for control over the middle east.

There are a fair amount of republicans and Dems who would not opt for military intervention, even if Iran is assumed to be heading that way. Thats what i believe personally .... however there are a group in DC of elected politicians, republicans and I suspect some Dems, who are secretly pushing for a claim to further resources in Iran as they did for Iraq. These individuals will use the same old excuses, "they are a threat, we need to take advantage of installing a new government there to benefit from resources".

Irans being sanctioned and much of its resources have been restricted, so they have been in many ways conserved. I'd believe this push is to take advantage of this fact. I dont think any such proposal will get through even if they develop the nuclear missile and I may find differences in this case with you and others, but rhetoric from Mr Graham originates from the same backroom group who have an invested interest and benefit from such a military intervention.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

President Obama and cohorts are not the ones suggesting military action. Lets focus on Graham and his zionist clowns and what they see as a blessing.

Sept . 26, 2009

PITTSBURGH - Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse.

How about ALL of us attempt to aspire to presenting points of view that are not so damn narrow and skewed in a "partisan" slant???

You know the WHOLE TRUTH kinda thing, right????

I think it is more than obvious that Pres. Obama would like to resolve this nuclear issue with Iran in a diplomatic fashion and I would applaud him if he did so.

But to state that he and the Dems are not "hawkish" is a bit of a stretch.

Last time I checked we still have 2 wars raging away and correct me if I'm wrong but is it not true that the Dems currently hold the power to end both of these wars today if they wanted to.

Sure these wars were started by Pres. Bush but THEY CONTINUE ON WITH PRES. OBAMA

Warmongering indeed eh...............

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
It's simple, Iran already has NUKES, Where do you think hundreds of nuclear weapon going missing from Russian after the cold war end up? So if they were to attack Israel or any other country, they would have by now. So I personally do think they want it to create power as the population of Iran is 2x the size of Canada (70 million) and with a smaller mass size land, it requires LOT of electricity. I grew up in Iran and I'm telling you the power goes out couple of times a month, just not enough electricity is being produced.

Israel has the most nuclear weapons in the "middle east", in fact they are in the top 5 in the number of nukes they have in the world, yet no one sees this little military land, taking over palatines for the last 30 years (showing them as a war country) as a threat? If there is a REAL threat in the middle east it's Israel and not Iran. Attacking Iran will trigger WW3 with all it's rouge partnership, and money invested in Iran, this will piss a lot of other countries and US being at it's weak point (dollar dropping, military spreading too thin around the world, civil issues, etc...)

War does make the richer, richer but if WW3 happens with the kinda weapons available to us today there won't be many people left to gain the financial benefit, so it would be the worst decision to attack Iran by all means.

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in