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.

 

Ron Paul: U.S. May Try to Occupy Pakistan

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DaChronic
 



If they invade a developing country then they can award themselves reconstruction contracts, test thier new weapons or systems with little risk, put someone into government that they want etc, ultimatley shaping and building the country how they want. very smart if you ask me.


Obviously then you agree the US are not the good guys buy merely building an empire at the expense of lesser nations with resources to exploit..

I'm sure the US taxpayer wouldn't mind so much if they actually saw any benefits from the plunder,
but sadly the profits flow to a select few while the taxpayer picks up the war bill.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


yes that is essentially what I was saying. The main argument was with the dude calling the US p****es, he only sees whats on the surface, third world vs superpower, look deeper and there is more to it than the us just being afraid of china or russia.

Even if the taxpayer reaped the benefits of wars would they really be able to sleep knowing that thier life has improved at the expense of another
edit on 19-5-2011 by DaChronic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DaChronic
 



Even if the taxpayer reaped the benefits of wars would they really be able to sleep knowing that thier life has improved at the expense of another


No, but they wouldn't be broke and homeless which may ease the pain..
But heck, Cheney etc need their $billions just to live.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Lithium. Cadmium. Titanium. Precious metals. Precious stones. Uranium. Tons of minerals, metals, etc.

An ounce of gold is well over $1000 an ounce. Meanwhile a 55 gallon drum of crude oil is $90.


A lot of resources but not a one of them you are using to live. I didn't say there aren't other resources in the world that aren't valuable. So a 55 gallon drum of crude is $90 bucks? Take any of the resources you mentioned away and you still thrive today. Now take the oil away and watch how fast you dwindle. Look up the uses for the resources you mentioned then compare that to oil.

Oh you forgot the Opium from Afghanistan since you mentioned the Lithium.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DaChronic
 



Even if the taxpayer reaped the benefits of wars would they really be able to sleep knowing that thier life has improved at the expense of another


No, but they wouldn't be broke and homeless which may ease the pain..
But heck, Cheney etc need their $billions just to live.


I agree with what you are saying but as long as money continues to exist, and we continue to believe that it is something of value then there will always be broke people regardless of wars, becuase thos fat cats at the top cant get enough of their paper poison.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Actually quite a few of those are used in our refineries, drilling platforms, computers, pipelines, satellites, ships, planes, trucks and trains.

Take those away and it wouldn't matter how much oil we have. Without a logistics and refining network, crude oil on its own is about useless.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





Lithium. Cadmium. Titanium. Precious metals. Precious stones. Uranium. Tons of minerals, metals, etc.


Most which are in China.....can't get those!!! So we'll take the second best: oil.

By the way afghanistan had the largest untapped lithium fields as well, so maybe your argument does hold up, but not in the way you might think.............



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





Although I agree with you, it's also speculated that a nuclear war is what some are pushing for......


I would not be surprised. TPTB want to thin "the herd" and nukes would certainly do it.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'm sure the Pentagon would expect them to try to hit Kabul or elsewhere in Afghanistan.

They would pay dearly for it though, even if we intercepted the missiles or the warheads were duds.


NATO and the arab little league (Qatar) would never be able beat China and Russia. They'd even struggle to defeat Iran and Pakistan on their own. An attack on Pakistan would be one of the last failures of NATO offensives, and destroy it's ability to defend Europe from Russia - which was one of NATO original primary objectives when the Soviets were the primary bad guys.
edit on 19-5-2011 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





Besides if it turns out like Iraq, where China buys up the oil fields, or Afghanistan, where China bought up the mines, whats the point of resources.


WHO said that wasn't the whole point???

These days the USA provides cannon fodder for the elite. It does not mean the USA economy will benefit.

Our buddies Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the Goldman Sachs leadership were all over in China for the 2011 Global Urban Development Forum held in Beijing at the International Economic Club of China

The elite have decided to "build-up" China and India they do not give a Rat's behind about the economy of the USA. Actually they wish to destroy it. That was stated very bluntly on more than one occasion.

Obama's science czar John Holdren, recommended De-developing the USA in the book he co-authored in 1973. He repeated it saying He Would Use 'Free Market' to 'De-Develop the United States' in 2010.

In 1969 Dr. Richard Day mentioned a similar plan

Unfortunately there is a lot of information showing the "Plan" is real.

"Wildlands" bills: www.discerningtoday.org...

Predicted Wildlands Map: www.mtmultipleuse.org...

Rewilding Institute: rewilding.org...

Pleistoscene Rewilding: (Reintroducing camels, elephants, cheetahs, lions, horses, and other large species.)
www.rewilding.org...

Case study: Pleistocene re-wilding of North America

Scientific American:Restoring America's Big, Wild Animals


I get the truly nasty feeling the elite want to turn the USA into a giant hunting preserve.


Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be regenerated for as little as $10 million.

The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for DNA...

A scientific team headed by Stephan C. Schuster and Webb Miller at Pennsylvania State University reports in Thursday’s issue of Nature that it has recovered a large fraction of the mammoth genome from clumps of mammoth hair..... www.nytimes.com...


I am sure some of them would love to be able to hunt a mammoth. What a trophy to show your friends!



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I really hope not, I live in a town with a large proportion of pakistanis and a large proportion of mindless racists so I suspect it would get pretty #ing heated



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


You realize the US Air Force and Navy is larger than Russia's and China's combined. Throw NATO in the mix and the two would be so outmatched they wouldn't have a chance.

Their best bet would be to try to get NATO to try to occupy them, let nature and a war of attrition bog down and defeat NATO.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


One thing many people on here never think about is what would be the benefits of "de-developing" the US?

One of the first things that would happen, would be a revival of US industry. If its cheaper to manufacture in the US than China, the factories and plants open up, unemployment drops.

Another aspect is what have US companies done to countries overseas, they outsourced to? They have devastated their environments in many cases.

When they return to the US, there will be places in Asia so polluted, the people will suffer from long term illnesses, birth defects, infertility, etc. Meanwhile the new US plants will be "Green" technology plants.

There is a huge chess game going on and many are missing all the angles.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





....There is a huge chess game going on and many are missing all the angles.


Oh there is definately a chess game going on. I am sure TPTB would like to keep the USA "clean" but as their playground not as a nation.

Our Manufacturing dropped from 24% of the labor force (1970) to 9% (2009) mean while our education also dropped until we are at the bottom of the heap but think we are at the top.

Michigan State University: College students lack scientific literacy, study finds

Another college professor said college students can not even explain why we have seasons!


"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
Source



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


we have been invited in once(russia) and invaded china (boxer rebellion there's a thread on it somewhere) in russia it was the polar bear expidition that fought on the side of the czar of Russia(white Russians) vs the comunists(red russians).the russians still like to give us crap for invading there country when they have never invaded the usa,china from what i rember we went in told them no u can grow your own drugs so here buy our goods and btw open your closed society

on topic if ron paul is serious i realy hope he didnt just break operations level security but either way we better not be going boots on the ground in pakistan,if we do go in it will be with indian support and probaly troops...that might get interesting quick



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


When the public education system was introduced in the US, its purpose was to create better assembly line workers at the dawn of the US Industrial Revolution. We have since moved to a service based economy, where education is inconsequential. What assembly lines we do have are automated, with robots doing the work of once what required humans with minimial education.

Public education will become obsolete.

Even when the standard of living drops for the majority of the US and we shift from a consumer/service economy back to an industrial/agricluture one, there will no longer be the need for widespread public education. Its not difficult to push buttons, especially if they work from their smartphone or smarthome. Leetspeak will be the language of the masses. Legalized drugs and other sexual deviancies will keep them content. There will be plenty of bread and virtual circuses for the people. All of Maslow's needs will be fulfilled.

There will still be private education for those who can afford it or earn it.

Meanwhile those at the very top will be changed, the kind of change that involves immortality and transhumanism.

I don't know if thats a bright future. For some it will be pure bliss. I'm not an advocate of it, but due to human nature I don't think there is an alternative. Its where we are headed unless some cataclysm interupts it.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Remember folks, our ties with Pakistan have been under strain for many decades now. Is it any wonder that both Pakistan and the US have been playing both sides of the fence?

Whether or not we occupy Pakistan, is yet to be seen. But considering the current state of events over there, and the comments made between both parties, would come as no surprise if things intensify.

Bare in mind, he's not specifically saying that's what's gonna happen ( to my understanding ), I think he was trying to suggest that there are those who have suggested the idea. Thankfully, he admitted that it is ridiculous to even par take in such actions.

For some reason, there are those in office who still believe that " War " is the saving grace of ones economy. But them, as well as many people don't realize we don't take the losses we once did. We currently don't have the war machine up and running like we did during WW2.

But who knows, at the rate we are going, the war machine might be up and running here very shortly. Considering we tend to pick fights with everyone!

Regardless though, I think the threat of letting China come over and inspect our Helicopter, ( though I think it was turned down with that idea ), could be used as a catalyst to start something bigger and more sinister in Pakistan.

All it takes is the US to use any fabricated idea to use as grounds to invade....interesting times we live in...interesting times indeed.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Pakistan's weapons would be unable to reach the US. They might nuke India though and then Pakistan would cease to exist. I honestly would not be surprised to see Kabul or other places in Afghanistan go up too. It would still end the same way, with Pakistan being made an example.

I'm sure we have plans to deploy systems to protect India though. They may not stop all of the warheads, but they will stop most.

If we go into Pakistan it will be a joint operation with India. Something they tried to do in November 2001. We were too stupid at the time to realize India was right all along.
edit on 18/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: m


There is a simple cargo container launch system that is in use and easy to replicate.

Club K cargo container missile system

All Pakistan would have to do is fake a cargo ship on its way to a US west coast port,
or east coast port and launch just outside the 12 mile zone.

The ship could have a small crew that leaves by mini sub right at launch.

We'd sink the ship most likely, but that would be about it.

As for the US not being stupid enough to start ww3, well that is a matter of opinion.

We are dumb enough to put BPA in baby bottles.

We are dumb enough to splice viruses into plants then eat the food even
when lab tests shows it causes organ failure and cancer in lab animals.

We are dumb enough to allow advocates for genocide to be appointed science
czar of the United States.

We are dumb enough to allow a plastic trash island in the pacific to grow
to twice the size of Texas and pollute the entire pacific food chain with BPA.

We are dumb enough to let our country be run by the CFR, Bilderberg, and
the Trilateral Commission even when hillary gets on camera and says it...



We are dumb enough to investigate 911 and then see the obvious lies,
watch half a dozen films showing the lies, watch israelis on TV tell us
they were sent to document the event and dance while doing so.

We here in the USA have no shortage of stupidity, its in fact abundant.

So if all we need is stupid for ww3 to start, then its a sure thing.


edit on 19-5-2011 by Ex_MislTech because: content

edit on 19-5-2011 by Ex_MislTech because: typo



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What a bunch of crap. I used to like Ron Paul. Now i think he's starting to go senile. I just can't see any sort of occupation of Pakistan.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


So you equate bravery with fighting a country that is a nuclear power.
Good lord!
Nukes are a political weapon Scooter, not a battlefield tool.


Yes, even the big ole USA still needed help invading rag-tag third world Afghan:


Seriously bunch of opium farmers and the USA still needs help? Why don't the USA invade china, gimme a real war, not some baby war.


Just so I'm clear Scooter (thanks to the other poster for tagging you this name), you think because the US had help that means that the US needed help? Surely you're not that dumb.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join