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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


As other posters brought up, you seem like a troll. No he is not in grade school as another poster said, he has a "degree in physics" as he claims, he met people in DARPA and claims they are not intelligent. Take notice how I used and will use the word "claim" alot.

You keep bringing up Afghanistan as your prime example, how are we as Americans (so you claim) bullys? We went into Afghanistan because of the terror inflicted on the United States by the plaguing terrorists that have a sanctuary in that country.

Russia attempted to invade Afghanistan in the past with no successful outcome, bullies for attacking a weaker nation? A weak nation pussy bully so to say? Chechnya?

As I say again, your getting "pussies" and strategically sound confused. Please be more rational in your responses and think out your thoughts before you post them.

Good day.


yes i have a degree in physics.

OBL was found in pakistan not afghanistan. Either he was there the whole time or hid. US intelligence is seriously lacking. The reason for USA being in afghan is not because of terrorists it is because of natural resources. Meaning picking on a weaker country.

Yes russia got chechyna and still havent won, just like the USA, yes they are pussies as well. USA is a bigger pussy because we have a track record of fighting more countries that are much smaller.
edit on 19-5-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

yes i have a degree in physics.

OBL was found in pakistan not afghanistan. Either he was there the whole time or hid. US intelligence is seriously lacking. The reason for USA being in afghan is not because of terrorists it is because of natural resources. Meaning picking on a weaker country.

Yes russia got chechyna and still havent won, just like the USA, yes they are pussies as well. USA is a bigger pussy because we have a track record of fighting more countries that are much smaller.
edit on 19-5-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


OBL was found in Pakistan, your point is? He and most of the terrorists were in Afganistan, that was there territory. He fled to Pakistan as reports indicate.

Show me proof that is the MAIN reason why we are in Afganistan?... Sound familiar? asking for proof. hehe

Iraq was a pretty freaking good military in Gulf War I, with our stealth fighers being introduced it was just a walk though they didn't have the ability to counter them.

This is why I don't like responding to you, little sense and running in circles. Every country is a giant pussy. You can't take on a bigger country when you are the biggest, remember that.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


again we have invaded china we kicked there buts but it was back in the day en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org... and those are the people that either came along with us or we brought depending on how you wanna look at it ohh and read the atrocities part while every one else was going all rapey and pillagy the Marines tried to stop it (see below) "Atrocities

German, Russian and French army had engaged in indiscriminate killing, raping, robbing and burning Chinese people and belongings.[11]

Allied troops eagerly raped women, the Germans and Russians were reported to have behaved savagely, they bayoneted their rape victims. Disgusted American marines attempted to restrain the Germans with violence, one was wounded as a result. The Allies covered up their atrocities by labeling all Chinese dead as Boxers. Other troops raped any more or less attractive women they could find. One U.S. Marine wrote that the Germans and Russians, in particular, bayoneted these women after raping them.[12] However, the Japanese did not engage in atrocities, a Japanese officer was shocked by the looting and they behaved courteously to Chinese civilians.[13]

In Beijing, Bishop Pierre-Marie-Alphonse Favier posted a bulletin: in the first 8 days after August 18, Catholic Christians may steal life necessities, and declared that robbing within 50 taels of silver need neither reporting nor compensation.[14] On December 14, 1900, a French newspaper quoted a soldier's statement: "We are open to the Church from the North palace, the priests go with us, ... they encourage us murder, robbery, robbing ... we are doing for the priests. We were ordered to do whatever we want in the city for three days, kill if want to kill, take if want to take, and the actual looting of the eight days."[15]" from above source so at least that might paint a clearer picture of why china dosent realy like any one of the old european powers they have long memories and im sure they havent forgotten the sheniganas of the russians from back then



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


and quit trying to under score the afghans,my mom was in the peace corp b4 the russians invaded and at that time it was no 3rd world country from how she describes it was the jewlel of the area then the russians came in screwed it up with our help now were in there screwing it up with russia(problay) arming the taliban so tis come full circle if we just left them alone they would be thrveing and problay doing pretty good with out any ones help and take a look in a history book the last people to fully occupy and subjucgate the afgani's was gengis Khan its a pretty good historical rule come to afganistan you will leave defeated may take years or centurys but they will kick them out

and on topic i dont think any ones gonna get nuked any time soon because we all know the consequences of the next power or group to think its a good idea to use them



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


Show me proof that we are in Afghanistan because of terrorists. That is after all the supposed reason we are there. Where is the proof of that.

Gulf war I still required the help of 30 additional countries to take on a third world country. Yet we are still there 20 years later and still have not succeeded in maintaining control.

Yes the US is the biggest, but it ought to fight at least someone who might be able to put up a fight not some opium farmers in a third world country and try to act like they are tough.
edit on 19-5-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Ugh this is what I mean, everything I say is factual and has credibility.

www.law.fsu.edu...

Operation Enduring Freedom, look it up I'm not doing your homework for you like every other time. Afghanistan was run by terrorists.

Now your proof? I'm still waiting.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


They are terrorists according to YOUR and the USA definition. They are freedom fighters to everyone else.

Showing me a document that supposedly links afghanistan with 9/11 without evidence, meaning forensic evidence, not circumstantial, witness provided evidence is laughable.

9/11 hijackers were from saudi arabia.

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD



U.S. military officials and geologists have determined that the mineral deposits in Afghanistan are worth nearly $1 trillion, the Pentagon said Monday.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Sir/mam, read that article. Please, I'm NOT going to do your homework again and spoon feed you everything like the past other threads.

Now show me YOUR proof. I'm still waiting. I said MAIN reason


Good day
edit on 19-5-2011 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I agree it would be a very stupid move, however I do not believe countries with nukes are off limits anymore with our technology, we have Patriot Missels and even Laser which are capable of taking out a nuclear threat if there should be one, not saying we should go ahead, but if push came to shove i think we would act.

(desperation move only, not a first choice lol)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I would have never thought in a million year someone could come along that could ALMOST rival the quotes of Nancey Pelosi. I have of late been voting Republican because they support our right to own firearms. To me that is the most important right that we still have. This Ron Paul is what I call a Political Terrorist. like the other I mentioned. They don't care what effect it has on our policies across the world if there is a political gain. Everyone knows including him that there isn't a chance in hell that we would try to occupy Pakistan.

This man is an embarrassment to every American in this country. He should be called out and forced to resign.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Yeah. And pigs MAY fly.

What an idiot. Fear mongering knows no Party, no ideology. Gotta keep the plebes scared, we do.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Firstly to comment on the subject of the thread I think it is highly unlikely that we would see an official invasion of pakistan, I think it would be very controversial to do so as well as to a degree dangerous - it would escalate 'terrorist' (I dislike such a sensationalist term) recruitment as well as costing millions to an already rather dubious population -as we have seen in the short time of Libya it has cost over 100 million pounds for the UK (I am british), and is rising everyday.

I can however see unofficial intervention, special ops and the like, perhaps the incitement of riot/revolution and the call for a 'new' democracy that is heavily funded by US (corporatetocracy, for lack of a better definition)- the only certainty is the future holds more War (this is always a certainty), but Pakistan I'm not so sure, perhaps a weaker country that isn't considered 'unstable'; attacking pakistan would be like hitting the first domino in a long line.

Onto what the_professional has raised as it is quite prevalent in the thread, I agree with your line of argument to a degree however it's not because the US are 'pussies' and using this as your dominant argument is obviously going to cause an adverse reaction to this predominately US membership. Its no secret by any means that the US deliberately attacks 'weaker' targets as they are easier for the pickings - to put it in perspective if you were a thief you wouldnt try rob the guy with a shotgun (china) you'd rob the weak 'scrawny' looking guy.

This is true of modern foreign policy especially, and we shouldnt narrow this down to direct intervention - diplomatic intervention and unofficial support for dictatorial/military regimes in weak countries is also a good manageable tactic (see central america/africa). With the case of Afghanistan they were seen as a good foothold for what since post WW2 was established in the US as 'the most important region in the world' (paraphrasing) by Eisenhower, as well an economic goldmine with little effective defence after their rather turbulent history.

Now as for Iraq, they were indeed easy pickings and as we know the second invasion was over in little time at all and after that became an occupation as opposed to an actual 'war' in the strictest sense. If you look at the facts, post gulf war v.1 by daddy Bush the iraqis received heavy economic sanctions for 10 years which focused primarily on civilian sanctions which obliterated Iraq's infrastructure, turning it into a desperate third world country and making the population dependent on the despot that was Saddam for basic necessities thus allowing greater lenience for human rights abuses (by his own pop.) and less likelihood of a popular revolution - this and a combination of other factors (for instance US being the biggest military superpower by more than a mile, I mean seriously if anyone considers Iraq was any match for the US they are deluded) led to us literally rolling into iraq like it was an old friend (
).

However to hold on the US bashing this is not limited to them, Russia has its list and so does China and by no means am I a leftist bashing the US for marxist propagandist means (as I have been previously accused of on this site), and all nations should be held accountable for literally picking on the weaker ones and taking their lunch money. Let us not have this turn into a peeing contest about how badass we have been in the past, as there is nothing badass about ending the lives of the poor for the benefit of the rich (as lets face it, war = profit for a lot of influential groups).

I believe the only just war is in self defence, and thus on that basis non of the US wars of recent history (or the other superpowers at the risk of being called a commie) have been just, and thus exposed as economic under the guise of humanitarian intervention, as this is all that gets home nations to cry for blood these days. Also try to refrain from personal attacks, i dont see how they contribute in any way but weakening ones own argument. Sorry about the lengthy reply, understand if its ignored x
edit on 19-5-2011 by thefirstrasta because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by thefirstrasta because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Is it just me, or does Ron Paul seem more, well nutty this time? I've been watching his interviews and he is all over the place and has trouble answering questions in a coherent manner. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to watch. He is 75 I think?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Iraq/Poland

Pakistan/Slavic Nations

Fascism/"Obamacare"

American Soldier/Nazi

Synonyms of "hard times" that we would all rather ignore.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
ron paul is a moron. pakistan has nukes. LOL ron paul



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 





Afghanistan was run by terrorists.


So is the U.S.

bombing the hell out of the country just made the terrorists over there multiply and go into other countries.

Terrorism is a tactic, and you cannot have a war against a tactic

It's like Napoleon haveing a war against "flanking"
edit on 19-5-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


Actually Bahrain/Poland would be more accurate

Look at it



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
If Pakistan even came to the thought of using nukes, they would be the first all glass country.



Who is sitting in the Oval Office ??

Oh that's right...

Don't assume how it will turn out, especially when a navy officer had
to do an end around to deal with Somali pirates.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


You don't think the war on terror had any effect to make America in preventing another terrorist attack? Yet they multiplied you would guess there would be more attacks via terrorism.

Umm... kill the people who are about to flank? You can apply that logic to almost anything. How can you wage a war against carpet bombing, ummm shoot down the bombers? lol little sense there.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You do understand that when the Kuwait war was ongoing back in the early 90's, Iraq was considered by most a pretty significant military right?


Yes, this is what the MSM propaganda machine was piping out 24 x 7.

That fact is that all the 1st world nations sell them their "hand me downs".

The old retired weapons systems get resold to 3rd world nations, Russia,
China and Euro countries do this also.

They are lethal weapon systems, but they are not equal in all aspects and there
are some rumors that built in "achilles heels/weaknesses" of the old systems are
known to the 1st world nations.

Also consider that Iraq was under sanctions for quite awhile before the attack
and sustained aerial attack for quite awhile before the ground war even started.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join