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.

 

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

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha
How about ALL of us attempt to aspire


Obama never stated US military intervention if Iran is to attain a nuclear missile. He said Iran is headed to military conflict, maybe the US isnt the only country a trigger happy military. I'd agree to the possibility that maybe he and others have the idea in mind, and maybe they are smart enough not to say it up front.


But to state that he and the Dems are not "hawkish"


Lie. I never stated any such thing.


Last time I checked we still have 2 wars raging away


Two very different wars with two different circumstances. Iraq is already within a withdrawal process over a two year period, as promised by Obama in his campaign. If you think instant careless withdrawal from the mess we got ourselves into is the only reason to claim ending a war you are greatly mistaken.

We are there in Afganistant to hunt Osama, which is a matter of defense considering the 9/11 attacks. If you want to bring out the 9/11 truther by all means but we are not all truthers. The nation was attacked by Osama and as a defense we are the hunting him down.

Talk about partisanship? It appears your personally bent on discrediting the dems (well trying to keep face ofcourse).




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Tell Lindsey Graham to take millitary action against USA then, because apparently it was well established that US and other Western countries helped setup Iran nuclear plants and infrastructure. What a moron!
Here are some news articles from that year when US and Iran agreed on nuclear cooperation of sort for people who still have any doubt US did not provide any nuclear assistance to Iran or that West was never aware that Iran had nuclear plans.












[edit on 5-10-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Iran has the THIRD largest documented OIL RESERVES in the World.
After #1, Saudi Arabia, and #2, Canada.

I can definitely believe this same old rhetoric from another political blowhard due to the fact that Iran has been in our gunsights ever since they ousted our puppet government , Shah Reva Palavi, aka the Shah of Iran way back in the late 1970's.

During the Shah's rule, The UK and USA were reaping 85% of the oil profits of Iran. That is some major coin that TPTB have lost.

Remember Saddam Hussein ? Well, he, if you recall, upon the US directives he had initiated an extended war against Iran ..... and failed to overtake the Iranians and that lost OIL revenue back.
Thats exactly why he is Dead and Gone.


THE REAL reason as to why we're hearing this same old noise about sanctions and military action is twofold.

1.) Oh-Bama actually wants to negotiate with the Iranians. Which the Neocons want no part of because it would circumvent their plans to own all of that OIL again !
(If you recall Dubyah's stance as far as Negotiating with the Iranians was concerned.)

2.)The Iranian OIL Bourse ! The Iranians pulled their money out of the major banks in London and New York and opened their own OIL exchange trading their oil for EURO and Russian Rubles instead of the US Dollar thereby cutting TPTB of LONDON and NYC out.


Check out Doctor Ron Paul's take on all of this ...

www.youtube.com...

BTW, I haven't heard of many of you talking about Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty .... I got my letter in the mail a 2 weeks ago.

LIVE FREE OR DIE



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Obama never stated US military intervention if Iran is to attain a nuclear missile.



Please point out to me where I made any reference whatsoever in my previous post to President Obama initiating a US military intervention if Iran obtains a "nuclear missile".

What I did point out(and back up with a Verifiable Legitimate Source) is that our president has clearly stated that: "Tehran must quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection."
www.msnbc.msn.com...



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

He said Iran is headed to military conflict, maybe the US isnt the only country a trigger happy military. I'd agree to the possibility that maybe he and others have the idea in mind, and maybe they are smart enough not to say it up front.



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.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Uhhhhhh...... actually he DID say "up front" that he would not rule out military action if Iran fails to comply. Did you actually read the msnbc quote that I provided or is that particular act far too repugnant for your delicate sensibilities?

Perhaps by removing the "rose colored glasses" you can discern that President Obama clearly stated that he would not rule out "military action" by the United States.

When he says that "he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse" are you implying that he intends to wield the military reins of a country other than the United States???



Originally posted by Snisha
But to state that he and the Dems are not "hawkish"



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Lie. I never stated any such thing.


For this misrepresentation of your words I offer a gracious and heartfelt apology. I cast damnation upon my wicked eyes and poisonous forked tongue...




Originally posted by Southern Guardian

If you think instant careless withdrawal from the mess we got ourselves into is the only reason to claim ending a war you are greatly mistaken.


That's real sweet of you to presume to indicate that I am a advocate of "immediate withdrawal" from the various "theaters of engagement" our military is currently embroiled within but you are sorely deficient in your assessment of my opinion as to how/when we should bring these conflicts to resolution.




Originally posted by Southern Guardian

We are there in Afganistant[SIC] to hunt Osama, which is a matter of defense considering the 9/11 attacks. If you want to bring out the 9/11 truther by all means but we are not all truthers. The nation was attacked by Osama and as a defense we are the hunting him down.


What in God's name are you talking about????

If I want to bring out "the 9/11 truther"?????

I suspect that you are attempting to "pigeon hole" me in a feeble attempt to assist in shoring up the shaky foundation that this "house of cards" argument of yours has been built upon.



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Talk about partisanship? It appears your personally bent on discrediting the dems (well trying to keep face ofcourse).


Cast your net a bit WIDER cupcake.......

I am personally bent on discrediting EVERY PARTISAN HACK WHO IS HELL-BENT ON PERPETUATING THE BULLSCAT FALSE DICHOTOMY OF A TWO PARTY SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE WITHIN THIS COUNTRY

OUTLAW LOBBYISTS

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC


By the way, I don't give a scat about "keeping face", that is a pastime for lilly-livered dilettantes in my humble opinion~



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha
Uhhhhhh...... actually he DID say "up front" that he would not rule out military action if Iran fails to comply.


He didnt rule it out, thats true, but neither did he state it as a any resort. Obama will and won't say alot of things to keep face, I'll tell ya that.



For this misrepresentation of your words I offer a gracious and heartfelt apology.


Again I made no such statement you accused me of. Thankyou for admitting that you lied.



That's real sweet of you to presume to indicate that I am a advocate of "immediate withdrawal"


Again accusing me of false statements. Where did I say "immediate withdrawal" of anything? My OP was regarding the comments from Mr Graham. Not withdrawal from anything. That has nothing to do with my OP. Why are you lying again?



I suspect that you are attempting to "pigeon hole" me


You accused this current administration of continuing two wars in comparison to my opposition of war against Iran. One of those wars was afghanistan. In your previous comment you tied the circumstances of afghanistan to the plausable war with Iran to which I stated clearly stated that the circumstances were different. The troops in Afghanistan were there for defensive reasons to hunt down Osama and the Taleban after the attacks of 9/11 on US soil. I distinguished the war in Afghanistan as defensive, and Iran and pure warkhawkishness.

My comments regarding "9/11" truthers was because one of the only reasons for opposition against the afghanistan war is based on the conspiracy that Osama did not attack the US, making our troops there for non-defensive purposes. Since you attempted to make a comparable measurement between between the circumstances of Afghanistan and possible war with Iran to which I clearly distinguished, I assumed you didnt buy the original defensive reasoning for having troops there based on the attacks.



I am personally bent on discrediting EVERY PARTISAN HACK WHO IS


Calm yourself down.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Iran has the THIRD largest documented OIL RESERVES in the World.
After #1, Saudi Arabia, and #2, Canada.

I can definitely believe this same old rhetoric from another political blowhard due to the fact that Iran has been in our gunsights ever since they ousted our puppet government , Shah Reva Palavi, aka the Shah of Iran way back in the late 1970's.


Thats true. Actually alot of individuals, mostly on the rightwing, labelled the Carter administration as faliure based on the fact "he didnt intervene" during the Iranian revolution. By intervene, he didnt pull of an "iraqi mission accomplished".

Mind you though there are a fair amount of liberals who are acting war hawkish aswell. And as said before, Obama will not deny military intevention to keep face in front of Iranians and a number of those in the politicals sphere (if he outright opposes any military intervention it opens up more criticism from both sides of the politicalshere.) But this is where my frustrations show, the man should really get some b*lls an outright come an say we are no longer the police of the world. I dont agree with Ron Paul over many things but atleast he has the b*lls to come out and say it. Its some Obama should really do insteady catering to everybody.

I agree that Iran has been eyed up for a while, but I doubt any real intervention will happen. They Iranians have been preparing and I think they secretly do have the Chinese and Russians in assistance (Russia doesnt want an overflow of US troops in their backyard across the Caucus sea). But this warhawkish mentality still exists in DC, after all the crap and lies. Mr Graham is just an example of that... or shall I say his the "tip".



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Gee, SG, you really are . . . emotional.

And mighty particular about how you think folks SHOULD respond.

Trust me, you're not all that.

There is a nation that wants nukes.

We have plenty.

Maybe we should give them some?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by soldiermom
So he spoke his mind, and? He's allowed to have an opinion and say what he wants, within reason, much the same as you.

Not that I'm advocating an invasion, but please spare me the same old tired crap about sanctions. They've worked so well in the past huh?




You're right. We better just sacrifice another $3 trillion, a few thousand American lives, and a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians to protect Israel. Let's be honest about it. Fox News says we should hate Arabs, that Islam is evil, so let's prove we are better by wiping a whole lot of innocent women and children off the face of the Earth. After Iran is down and we have installed a pro-western leader, who's next? North Korea? Venezuela? Then what? What happens after we kill all the communists and the Muslims? Who will be our enemy then? If this is the path we want to go down, let me know how it ends? Give me a sneak preview.

Wait - I'll tell you. We go absolutely bankrupt. We destroy the US in the process of wiping out anyone who could ever be a threat to it. Exactly how many countries do we invade without provocation and how many governments do we topple before we become the bad guys? Is there anything in your eyes that the US could ever do to become the bad guys or are we simply special?

Israel needs to do its own dirty work - they want to burn the world to the ground around them, let them do it on their own without our soldiers or our bombs.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Iran has the THIRD largest documented OIL RESERVES in the World.
After #1, Saudi Arabia, and #2, Canada.

I can definitely believe this same old rhetoric from another political blowhard due to the fact that Iran has been in our gunsights ever since they ousted our puppet government , Shah Reva Palavi, aka the Shah of Iran way back in the late 1970's.


All the countries currently under our thumb are allies. Should they brush us off we'll label them for what they always were - dictators. We funded Iraq and Saddam because they served a purpose for us. We did the same in Iran. We did the same in Afghanistan when the USSR was there. We prop up evil men all the time as long as they don't see us as the enemy. One day, however, they always do. Then, they use the money and the training we gave them to kill us. Then we use that as another excuse to go in and kick butt to install another puppet. There will never be an end to all this.

The moment that wars became profitable, that a man would be killed cleanly from the sky without having to look him in the face, the human race was doomed. The bombs will continue to get bigger - bioweapons, nukes, chemicals, etc. The bombs will always fall again and again.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Gee, SG, you really are . . . emotional


Where is all this concern coming from? Why dont you focus on the topic of discussion instead of derailing the thread. Are you capable of sticking to topic?


And mighty particular about how you think folks SHOULD respond.


Getting personal again. I dont know what personal issues you have with me and I dont understand why I should care. All Im concerned about is the topic of discussion so please pull yourself together and respond to the topic.


Trust me, you're not all that.


You dont think Im all that, others think Im too liberal, people dont like what I have to say. Thats your personal issue, thats their personal issue, its an internet forum, Im here to post my views (and I wont be leaving anytime soon sorry).

Get over your personal issues and keep on topic.


There is a nation that wants nukes. We have plenty.


So your solution is to respond to the nation with our own weapons of mass distruction? Why did you have to be deceptive in your wording before? Is it that hard to say it straight? Your solution is to "nuke" em, simple as ABC, and yet you cannot find yourself to say it straight?

I must say I find it amusing. You want the United states to respond to a nuclear Iran with weapons of mass distruction because Iran is a threat and capable of using... weapons of mass distruction? How do you put those pieces together to make a solution? There are so many flaws in your solution but then again individuals with your method of problem solving are rare indeed so I'll leave it at that.

SG



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Andrew might I add that we are partly to blame. The american populous has bought this "patriotic liberation" BS for decades and sure there were a significant population who saw through the imperialist-warhawk talking machine.... but nevertheless there were always just enough of the populous to support these wars. They will echoe the times if world war three and use it to justify resource and geographic wars and you know what? Enough of us supported it.

We can argue the power of the government, we can argue the power of those wealthy elite who pull many of the strings of republicans, of dems, but we cannot deny that these wars needed the approval of majority.... and you know what? For decades the warhawk machine has gotten just as much support. I think enough people have woken up, and doubt there are enough politicians to pull of the same cr*p as they did 7 years ago... but lets not forget the support in the past, and how the american citizen had a part in it....



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I have to question the motives of some of you responders to Southern Guardian. You sound like nothing more than talking-head pundits of the MSM.

I've seen nothing but personal attacks against SG and others who question Lindsey Graham.

The huge point you're missing, that SG was trying to make, was that there is seemingly no other authorities criticizing Graham whatsoever, at least none that I have seen. Every network is talking about how Iran is dangerous, shadowy this, sneaky that. No input from the other side of the coin at all.

This is what SG was saying, he never advocated for the "silence" of Graham. Did you all get your training from the FBI blogosphere provocateur handbook? Discredit the individual before confronting the problem? Hypocritical much?


What's funny is that Graham is a strong supporter of the "Cyber Security" crap seeping into Washington. Just do a search for Senator Rockefeller's stance on that, and you can get a clear picture on how Graham supports it. (Can you believe we actually have a "Rockefeller" senator? Unbelievable.)

So here we have this man beating the war drums for Iran, however subtly, all whilst no other journalists challenge him. I guess anyone with half a mind would see what's going on here. For those who don't, you probably have at least half a mind, but choose not to use it.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha

That's real sweet of you to presume to indicate that I am a advocate of "immediate withdrawal"



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Again accusing me of false statements. Where did I say "immediate withdrawal" of anything? My OP was regarding the comments from Mr Graham. Not withdrawal from anything. That has nothing to do with my OP. Why are you lying again?



Where did you say anything about "immediate withdrawal"???

How about right here:


Originally posted by Southern Guardian

If you think instant careless withdrawal from the mess we got ourselves into is the only reason to claim ending a war you are greatly mistaken.


Now please tell us all if you have the "stones" to admit to everyone here that now it is you that is LYING??? (I suspect not.....)



Originally posted by Snisha

I am personally bent on discrediting EVERY PARTISAN HACK WHO IS



Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Calm yourself down.



I will do nothing of the sort.



"So is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Sure. The Democrats say one thing ("Save the planet!") and then do another--quietly holding hands behind the scenes with the bastards who make this world a dirtier, meaner place. The Republicans just come right out and give the bastards a corner office in the West Wing. That's the difference." ~~~MICHAEL MOORE





*edited to remove coarse dialogue so as not to offend delicate sensibilities



[edit on 6-10-2009 by Snisha]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha
How about right here:


My responding question wasnt the actual words immediate withdrawal, I assumed you were accusing me of advocating for immediate withdrawal.

Hold on now let me get this straight . You accuse this administration of carrying on two major wars despite the fact one them are in a withdrawal fase. So essentially your blaming this current administration of inheriting to two wars for carrying them despite the two year withdrawal process.... and yet your telling me Im falsly accusing you of opposing immediate withdrawal?

So your saying your not advocating for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and yet you accuse this administration for still having troops in Iraq despite the two year fase? Do you understand what your saying here?


LYING


No I wasnt lying. I assumed you were accusing me of advocating instant withdrawal, not the words "withdrawal". You took my reply out of context.


Originally posted by Snisha

I am personally bent on discrediting EVERY PARTISAN HACK


You are personally discrediting every partisan and yet not once did I see you bring in and republicans or conservatives in your posts. All you did was come on here, attack me personally because the thread is based on a republican, despite the fact I made no statement exclusively blaming any party. You then attack Obama, blame him for carry on the Iraq war despite the two year withdrawal fase (and yet your not an advocate for immediate withdrawal) then you attack me personally.

So essentially you spent your time attack me personally, and ofcourse Obama, derailing from OP, and yet you claim your bi-partisan. I could swear you were a conservative attack dog right out of the books.

If your really bi-partisan, show it.


I will do nothing of the sort.


You mean your going to continue typing in bold capitals to get attention? Im not concerned about you getting excited privately mind you.

SG

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
I have to question the motives


Their motives? Most of them are personally offended I decided to post a thread about a republican. The "anti-partisan" revolutionaries are actually pro-rightwing conservatives who still find themselves having a soft spot for the republicans despite their talk of "not having anything to do with them". When its an attack on what one Dem said, its got nothing to do partisanship. When its an attackk on a republican, your being partisan!

The revolutionaries will march down hand in hand in their corporate sponsored protests and claim this is nothing of the sort regarding partisanship, then stand proudly watching republican speakers like newt gingrich come up, and then they'll cheer. Come 2012 it'll be another favourite republican buffoon of theirs.

What Mr Graham said came straight out of a neocon talking machine. For all the talk and blame regarding these two wars and how they have nothing to do with Bush and the neocons, they certainly are defensive of Grahams suggestion.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Though Iran's showing a little flexibility in allowing nuc chiefs into their previously hidden vault. It's just a matter of time where Iran succumbs to Israeli intervention.

Decoy



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Decoy
 


I dont know, I think Iran can hold their own. If Israel launches a nuclear attack against iran because "they developed a nuclear weapon" I doubt Israel will have an easy time getting out of that one.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join