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.


Iran 'unhappy' with conflict in Yemen

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by Sean48

Are you trying to say that Obama is the first president to attack each of these?

1 Iraq

2 Afganistan

3 Yemen

4 Pakistan

My Freind ,


How many wars do you want to be in ??

I asked the question because the way you are stating it above it looks as though you believe that Obama was in charge of all the attacks on those countries and no other presidents were.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin

Originally posted by whoshotJR
I love how this gets turned on Obama, like this is the first time in our history ( or even when bush or Clinton where in office) that we have done such acts.

People have become so partisan that they can no longer even see the issues. The story line is being moved forward with a new main character but the plot and the author have remained the same since the start.

You seem to have a little bit of tunnel vision so I will try to broaden the scope for you. A lot of people voted Obama in with the hope that we could stop doing the things that other Presidents have done; ie: attack other countries. Wasn't he standing on the peace platform during his campaign?

I don't have tunnel vision at all. People are implying that Obama is the cause of these attacks and acting like all the years with bush or clinton or almost any other presidents we had we didnt act like this. It's BS, our history is filled with us acting like this exactly. Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs are some great examples of that .

I don't even really like Obama but I didn't get the vibe that his platform was peace. I remember in a debate he talked about how Al Quaida was our real enemy and he wanted to get out of Iraq. I also recall him stating the War was not off the table for Iran but would exhaust all options before he pushed for a military option. So far it seems like he has stuck to what he said on that ( one of the few things).

Like it or not, the rich countries in the world are rich because they have the military to back them up and are bullies. War = profits. It's doesn't matter what side of the political landscape you pick, you will see people getting rich on either side from war.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jam321

Backing up the Saidis. And sending a message to iran. And also pissing off or "allies" in Iraq... Remember? The other predominantly Shia state in the region?

That was covered in an article I posted in a related thread last month. Yemen hails military cooperation deal with US

Yemen says war with rebels not about Shi'ism

DUBAI, Nov 11 (Reuters) - The Yemeni government said on Wednesday it had no conflict with minority Shi'ite Muslims, as its war with Shi'ite rebels in the north increasingly draws Sunni Muslim neighbour Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite power Iran.

"The state has no dispute with the Shi'ite confession which it respects like any other Islamic confession. The conflict with terrorist elements is not sectarian but stems from them being a rebel group outside the law...," a foreign minister official said in a statement to Yemeni media.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in