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.

 

Forgetful Mullen's 'unintended consequences'

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RainCloud
 


yes, Israel is the main country that wants the war. The U.S is just going to assist and so will the British. I bet you will be surprised if Iran already had a nuke. From the sources I have they claim they have nukes. They never build it themselves but currently trying to manufacture it themselves. China and Russia helps with this process. The war or attack is more of Israel vs Iran. Thats the only reason I think this way.

I personally don't want to see a war with Iran. I don't fell like paying more taxes to the U.S.
I already know there is a huge tax hike for 2011.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
[

Response to Quote from...was it Pavil?

"No, Russia and China will not jepordize their relationship with the U.S. and the West over Iran. As I have stated, the U.S. will make behind the door deals with them. "



Sir, from whence does your self-assured position of China and Russia's trepidation vis-a-vis the 'mighty US' derive?

Are you blissfully unaware that an all out war with US (taken to and beyond our domestic shore) is the main basis of all that thier war colleges have taught for 30 years? This, is the scenario for which they conduct their massive military exercises.

If you think that Russia's 'broken-down' military is incapable of a devastating delivery of a nuclear first-strike then you hopelessly, yet successfully well-conditioned by your culture and its so-called 'news' machine.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by AntiShyster]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by computerwiz32
 


Computerwiz your post back on page 9 represents, in my opinion, the correct appliction of a solid, analytical mind..

Your bully / schoolyard analogies are adroitly used and spot on.

good on ya mate

A.S.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventytwo
reply to post by gator1177
 


1. When will Americans become ashamed of being American?

War pigs!!

2. The day you become ashamed the better the world will be.

3. The Global society are mislead, they are deprived of history because of those who create it.

Why are you ashamed of yourself when you should be ashamed of what your country stands for?

All the people of the Earth have been "Mugged" Humanity robbed of it's identity...




Of all the people to tell us we should be ashamed of ourselves - a member of the British Empire, one the the greatest oppressors in the history of mankind.

Think India and South Africa as just 2 examples of the British Empires inhumanity to man. Your the one that should look in the mirror and feel ashamed. The British Empire pillaged everything from its colonies that wasn't nailed down, murdering tens, if not hundreds of thousands in the process, and brutal treatment of the rest.

Oh, and of course, the Brits had no involvement in the creation and the continued survival of Israel. None whatsoever, right?

As a additional comment, your great army couldn't whip the butt of a ragtag outfit under an old guy by the name of George Washington. You tried it again in 1812, again running home with your tail between your legs. Twice we had to go to Europe to protect your country's arse from Germany. I lost 2 uncles in WWII in the European Theater so I take offense at your @#$wipe comments about Americans. They were not there to save Europe, they fought to save what was left of the British Empire. Our Brothers!!!

The only thing I'm ashamed of is your attitude towards our country and its people.

And yes I know, a world without the United States, would be Nirvana. A planet at total peace, love and kindness amongst all mankind.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Oldnslo]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Burgo
Maybe some country should declare war on USA considering they are the only scum to actually have used nuclear weapons ... Choose your side ...

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Burgo]


You don't think your gonna get away with this comment do you. SCUM huh?

Learn what you can absorb about Operation Olympic and why we dropped the bombs on Japan.

The Japanese military and the civilian government had received numerous warnings prior to the bombing but to no avail. They wanted a fight to the death, taking as many American with them as possible.

It was estimated that in excess of 1 million American troops would be killed or wounded in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. After the war ended, we found what was waiting for our troops. Every Japanese citizen had some form of weapon and was prepared to the last person, to die defending their homeland and our estimated 1 million casualties was greatly under estimated.

Thousands of aircraft were hidden and ready for kamakazi attacks for our fleet that would be just offshore and huge defensive areas were set up all over the Japanese mainland to kill as many Americans as possible. The possibility of losing a million or more Americans and 10's of millions of Japanese civilians was more than Truman and the military could tolerate.

If I was in Truman's position and I could save the lives of many millions of both American and Japanese, at the cost 300,000 civilians and military, I would not have like it, but I would have made the same decision as Truman.

It's quite obvious you would have preferred to lose the lives of millions of your countrymen during a long protracted invasion of the Japanese mainland as opposed to ending the war in the 3-5 days at no cost of your soldier's lives.

War is all out hell and I don't think you have a clue. Keep bangin' on that keyboard, big boy.

SCUM, huh?

Don't use that word towards Americans around me, pal. We Americans are the most generous people on the face of the Earth and do too many good things for the needy around this world to put up with a ignorant comment from the likes of you.




[edit on 6-8-2010 by Oldnslo]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by computerwiz32
reply to post by RainCloud
 


yes, Israel is the main country that wants the war. The U.S is just going to assist and so will the British. I bet you will be surprised if Iran already had a nuke. From the sources I have they claim they have nukes. They never build it themselves but currently trying to manufacture it themselves. China and Russia helps with this process. The war or attack is more of Israel vs Iran. Thats the only reason I think this way.

I personally don't want to see a war with Iran. I don't fell like paying more taxes to the U.S.
I already know there is a huge tax hike for 2011.


Having read your posts, you have a well thought out scenario, and it could be a possibility. Since I don't know what "our boys" have in mind, I'm with pavil on this situation.

If in fact Iran has a nuke, that is one thing. Being able to transport it, undetected, to a site where it would have significant impact upon detonation, is a whole different story.

With our satellite recon capabilities, if they tried to move it, we would know and be on it like white on rice.

I believe China to be in the same situation. Their inability to neutralize our Ohio and Los Angeles class subs will ultimately hold them at bay. Flight time to target is just minutes. Besides, they want our assets intact, not a vast unlivable wasteland.

With the Soviets, I believe there is so much mutual respect between the forces that neither has any desire to face off, toe to toe. I spoke with a Russian friend, just back from Moscow. He said it reminded him of how it was in America when he came here 20 some years ago. "Make money, not war" The Russian will take ANY advantage that comes their way.

Please don't get me wrong, what you propose, and with what your sources have provided, it surely is a possibility, but the big players have to much oil to move to let the Iranian Government cause an event to escalate to a point where the full wrath of the US Military comes into play.

I believe patience is growing short.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


As an englishman I understand what you have said and yes we as nation have as all nations have oppressed other people/countries if it is to our benefit. All nations of the world this century and all past centuries have.

You have to remember that we mainly built our empire on the fact we understood about hygiene and keep s**t away from food unlike for example the french(just used them to my advantage lol). We did have a large empire but really we were a sea power.

When threads start blaming whole countries for promlems arould the world it does put me off reading anymore of the thread.

Just had to say that, sorry for being off topic.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I don't see why not. obama said he'd pull the troops out of Iraq.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by computerwiz32
 


Who I'm I bashing? I'm stating my own opinion in regards to Iran & the lack of intelligence pertaining to nuclear weapons & there is no evidence and if there were the Americans & Israelis would be shouting it from from roof top, because then they would use the intel as justification for an attack, hence the reason why they are peddling nothing but lies & propaganda, which is the best they can do.



Just ignore kindred. He isn't interested in facts. I personally think he loves to push his opinions on others and try to make everyone believe his opinions 100% even if it's wrong.


As for facts, now whose contradicting themselves, what facts? You haven't produced any.
Sorry in your original post you clearly stated that Iran has a nuke, yet you provide no evidence to back it up.

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes
www.washingtontimes.com...

It's blatantly obvious that the CIA has no evidence, they are just fear mongering, not that the CIA has any credibility when it comes to the truth anyway, especially after all the lies they spun before attacking Iraq.

Iran scientist: CIA offered me $50m to lie about nuclear secrets
www.independent.co.uk...

Iran War Propaganda Debunked in Under 7 Minutes
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-8-2010 by kindred]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by kindred]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by StealthKix
Iran and American tactics have always been like a game of chess. Information like this is rarely ever let out as tptb know that there is always someone listening. I think this was just a move to show Iran, America has a battle plan already implemented and they are just waiting for irans "move".


Do you know who invented Chess? Iran. And if there's one thing you don't do, is to play the inventor at the game they invented, expecting the inventor to lose or give in easily.


There are people here on ATS, and wider on the internet and in the media and in various walks of life who say a US Military attack on Iran would be a walk-over, easy, and over in a few days.

Well, you know what? That's what may be suggested on paper, or to you, but simulation of an Iran-US war scenario did not go to well for the US, and in real life, not on paper, not on statistics or how much one side spends in military spending, things don't always go to plan, and there are surprises and twists and turns and events. That's war. Iran knows they are up against a superior-armed opponent. They'll have studied US Military tactics, knowing that war could happen, at least since 1979.

Everybody used to brag about how the F-117 Stealth Fighter was invincible and invisible until the Serbians shot it out of the sky when nobody would have given them a chance of doing so beforehand.

Sorry, the Serbians said, and still say, we forgot your Stealth Fighter was invisable.

That's just a microcosm of what I'm talking about.

Not for nothing, are the Iranians known for inventing chess.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Maybe you should do some research before jumping to the conclusion that the EU commission is a credible source. Then you will see just how corrupt it is.




However I won't deny that violence has increased under New Labour, but then what do you expect from such a moronic and corrupt government. I'm glad to see the back of them.

So you acknowledge your mistake in your overall naive assessment that you live in a "safer" society. Glad to hear it!


I never said I live in a crime free, safe society and just because I admit that crime has soared under New Labour doesn't change my stance.

From the very beginning I have been talking about violent crimes, where as you are also including "trivial" offences instead of serious crimes like murder, rape, bank robbery etc. I wouldn't exactly call peeing on the sidewalk, being drunk and disorderly, or dropping litter violent crimes. When New Labour came to power, the police became obsessed with trivial offences, simply to meet government targets. That is the main reason why statistically the crime rate went up, but they are non violent crimes and therefore nothing to do with living in a violent society.

Police 'forced to target trivial offences'
www.telegraph.co.uk...

In its mania for jailing people, Britain has declared trivial offences crimes
www.guardian.co.uk...



Again, I am not talking about Homicides, but rather crime in general, and per every 100,000 residents, it is a fact that the UK has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

I have shown an EU study that supports this, yet you seem to base your beliefs on some irrational mistrust and disbelief. There is a word for this. Its called "denial."


Like I said, I am talking about violent crime and you are simply trying to twist my words in your favour. Trivial crimes are not violent in nature and therefore having nothing to do with living in a violent society. The majority of crimes in the UK, include peeing on the sidewalk, being drunk & disorderly (very common) dropping litter, & not wearing a seat belt. Sorry but what have these got to do with feeling safe or secure.


You claim the UK is more violent, and your using trivial offences to back up your argument, which doesn't make any sense, as they are mainly non violent crimes.





[edit on 7-8-2010 by kindred]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by computerwiz32

You want names: China,Russia,Venezuela,Lebenon,Syria,India,Pakistan ( not a strong ally and not dependable),Afghanistan,North Korea.



Again, Russia and China will not intervene, they have too much else at stake with the U.S. and the West to throw all that away to back Iran against the U.S. China's and the U.S. economic ties are now truly symbiotic, neither can live the same without each-other. A deal can be made with China over Oil. Russia has the natural resources, it doesn't need Iran for that. Russia will not give up it's relationship with the the U.S and Europe over Iran. Actually Russia would benefit greatly from the stoppage of Iranian Oil during a conflict.

Lebanon and Syria?? What makes you think they won't be worried about their own survival if the floodgates open up on Iran. You have to know Israel is just itching to take out Hezbollah in Lebanon and Assad's government in Syria once and for all. Self preservation will take precedence. Hezbollah will probably trigger it by launching tons of rockets at Israel....they are after all Iran's step child.

India?

U.S.-India bilateral merchandise trade in 2008 topped nearly $50 billion. Principal U.S. exports are diagnostic or lab reagents, aircraft and parts, advanced machinery, cotton, fertilizers, ferrous waste/scrap metal, and computer hardware. Major U.S. imports from India include textiles and ready-made garments, Internet-enabled services, agricultural and related products, gems and jewelry, leather products, and chemicals.

The United States is India's largest investment partner, with a 13% share. India's total inflow of U.S. direct investment was estimated at more than $16 billion through 2008. Proposals for direct foreign investment are considered by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board and generally receive government approval. Automatic approvals are available for investments involving up to 100% foreign equity, depending on the kind of industry. Foreign investment is particularly sought after in power generation, telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration/processing, and mining.


www.state.gov...

No, India will not back Iran vs the U.S. Please supply your reasons why they would.

Pakistan. Actually if Pakistan were to support Iran, they would be probably be the strongest ally they could have. Big Army, advanced Military Tech and Nuclear Weapons. But even you doubt them helping Iran. Pakistan would be Iran's best chance, but odds are very remote.

Venezuela and North Korea: Thats about it when you come down to who would support Iran.....but how? NK will not be able to ship arms to Iran during a battle. They could attack SK but now with the "Great Leader" almost dead the leaders of NK won't act as irrational hopefully.

Venezuela will say all the right things about supporting Iran, but almost 60% of Venezuela's export money comes from .......guess who, the United States. You tell me if push comes to shove, what they will do.

Iran will fight this fight almost solely by themselves.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by pavil]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiShyster

Sir, from whence does your self-assured position of China and Russia's trepidation vis-a-vis the 'mighty US' derive?

Are you blissfully unaware that an all out war with US (taken to and beyond our domestic shore) is the main basis of all that thier war colleges have taught for 30 years? This, is the scenario for which they conduct their massive military exercises.

If you think that Russia's 'broken-down' military is incapable of a devastating delivery of a nuclear first-strike then you hopelessly, yet successfully well-conditioned by your culture and its so-called 'news' machine.



Russia and China are for lack of a better word "land locked". Yes I know they aren't truly landlocked. They can't get their military shifted around the world like the U.S. can. That makes all the difference in any "WWIII" scenario.

Do you honestly think Russia will attempt a nuclear "first strike" against the U.S. over IRAN?!?!?!?!?. Any first strike by any major nuclear armed nation, will result in the destruction of both nations, MAD still works.

I have no doubt that China will eventually be a major world player Economically, Politically and Militarily. Right now they are only the first one, it will take decades for China to get the other two, not that they won't achieve them just that they aren't there right now. China still need to grow its Political and Military alliances to rival the Web that the U.S. has built up since WWII.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Let me repeat for those who missed my last post. By international law the US is at an undeclared war with Iran. The seizure of our embassy was a deliberate act of war. We have simply decided for our own reasons not to pursue military action.

The construction and possession by Iran of nuclear weapons will be in direct conflict with our national interests as well as Russia's and China's. The Iranians are aware and know this.

The situation is similar to North Korea (NK) and we have operational weapons on standby alert to neutralize any attempt by NK to deliver a first strike with nukes. It may or may not work but any attempt by NK to restart the Korean War will draw an immediate response from the PRC and Russia to neutralize NK. War on the Korean Peninsula is not in anyones best interests.

Iran will most likely not build nukes knowing it will automatically draw a military response from both the US and Israel. If they do we will be ready to have Congress declare war and then if necessary take out both their nuclear capacity and their military forces with either conventional or nuclear weapons.

The Iranians may or may be stupid. As Ron White ofter says, "You can't fix stupid" and any nation which would directly challenge American military power over what we view as our national interests is stupid. Japan did and they got nuked, Hussein did and he got hung and the Taliban did and involved themselves in a decimating war that still drags on. Many others have and are jailed or dead.

Right or wrong that will be the legacy of America and it's up to future historians to judge. I was part of it and at the time it seems justified but now perhaps not. However we were responding to a perceived real and dangerous threat. My best,



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cambion
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


As an englishman I understand what you have said and yes we as nation have as all nations have oppressed other people/countries if it is to our benefit. All nations of the world this century and all past centuries have.

You have to remember that we mainly built our empire on the fact we understood about hygiene and keep s**t away from food unlike for example the french(just used them to my advantage lol). We did have a large empire but really we were a sea power.

When threads start blaming whole countries for problems around the world it does put me off reading anymore of the thread.

Just had to say that, sorry for being off topic.


Hey, sorry if I was in any way hard on the Brits. I'm Scotch/Irish/English and my ancestors in the 1600-1700's were sea captains for the East India Company.

I have noticed in the past, your ground forces after its victory at Waterloo has not been your best suit. But every country has its weaknesses. Every country also has skeletons in the closet. That's the reason for my earlier post to your countryman.

I believe the relationship between the US and the Brits is the strongest of any 2 countries on this planet. Even though we fought you off twice, and then had your banking empire (Rothchilds) finally accomplishing what you could not do militarily, we still fought in your defense on two occaisions.

I believe the US and Britain we will be forever "Brothers", joined at the hip, always ready to come to the defense of the other when necessary. You attack one of us, you still have to deal with the other. And rightly so.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


I just get a bit annoyed when everyone jumps on the 'we are better' reponse, sorry.

Agreed even though our countries are separated by the Atlantic, we are generally there for each other, for the good and bad things alike.

Maybe we should rise as the UBAAS (the United British and American States) lol



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bestideayet

So we're actually planning a war on Iran. There is a plan of attack already in the talks within our government. So much for transparency, huh?

Not only would this be considered a start to WW3, but it basically sets off what has been written in various prediction threads. Did this guy just slip up? You decide!

www.atimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)




Mullen's admission is the bluntest statement yet on Iran by an official of the Obama administration. The usual White House line is that "all options remain on the table," according to The Guardian.


[edit on 8/5/2010 by bestideayet]


Not saying I agree with this or anything, but isn't this kinda the definition of transparency? I mean we are saying out in the open what are plans are, and telling our enemy even. What is being kept a secret from you that upsets you? What are you missing out on that leads you to believe they are not being transparent?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred

Maybe you should do some research before jumping to the conclusion that the EU commission is a credible source. Then you will see just how corrupt it is.


lulz u mad? lulz west coast verbally negged you! YEA U MAD!


From the very beginning I have been talking about violent crimes, where as you are also including "trivial" offences instead of serious crimes like murder, rape, bank robbery etc. I wouldn't exactly call peeing on the sidewalk, being drunk and disorderly, or dropping litter violent crimes. When New Labour came to power, the police became obsessed with trivial offences, simply to meet government targets. That is the main reason why statistically the crime rate went up, but they are non violent crimes and therefore nothing to do with living in a violent society.


Listen up, there are SEVERAL places in the US that are much MUCH safer than the UK. Places like Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis drag down the overall US crime rate. Without these metropolitan crime areas (usually in the ghettos) the US overall crime rate is much much better. So lulz on you again!


Police 'forced to target trivial offences'
www.telegraph.co.uk...


Read it, US cops are just as bad, if not worse.


In its mania for jailing people, Britain has declared trivial offences crimes
www.guardian.co.uk...


Dude, look at the US, 40% of all the worlds jailed population is in the US. The US cops and justice system will throw you the slammer for the most basic reasons.




You claim the UK is more violent, and your using trivial offences to back up your argument, which doesn't make any sense, as they are mainly non violent crimes.



lol i srsly doubt that you know everything that has to do with crime in that cesspool you call a country!


Jakes on you brah.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Yagerbombs]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join