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.
The Iranian leadership knows that if they want to threaten international markets, the vulnerability is not by sea but rather on land. On Dec. 22, Iraq’s deputy prime minister claimed that Iraq’s oil exports had surpassed 3 million barrels per day. If Iranian-backed militias or saboteurs destroyed pipelines or Iraq’s single Persian Gulf oil terminal, oil prices would skyrocket. Iraq’s South Oil Company has taken no obvious contingencies to ward off the threat, and with the American withdrawal, Iraq’s vulnerability has only increased.
Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by tpg65
I would suggest you not make such provocative statements.Yes,the ground forces are not the best.But the Navy and the airforce.Missile corps and artillery ,Russia hands down.
Originally posted by tpg65
The american armed forces are so poor , they are the laughing stock of the whole planet . If it wasn't for the fact that the U.S have first strike capability, America would have been invaded and defeated decades ago
It is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from dire deprivation under the British, notable atrocities including 10 million Indians butchered in reprisals for the 1857 uprising (see Amaresh Misra's book “ “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” –(Volume I -The Road to Delhi; & Volume II- The Long Revolution) ” : warofcivilisations.blogspot.com... ), the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1779 (that killed 10 million Bengalis, 1/3 of the population), 2 centuries of British-imposed famines that killed scores of millions, most notably in the latter half of the 19th century and culminating in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust, the man-made atrocity in which 6-7 million Indians in Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Orissa were deliberately starved to death by the British in the World War 2 Bengal Famine (see the transcript of the BBC broadcast “Bengal Famine” involving me, Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars: www.open2.net... ; see also Gideon Polya's book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com... ).
www.countercurrents.org...
This is more evidence (if more evidence were wanted) of India “moving forward” (to quote the horrible contemporary Newspeak) after suffering 2 centuries of genocidal British rule in which avoidable deaths in India from British-imposed deprivation in the period 1757-1947 totaled 1.8 billion, an Indian Holocaust and an Indian Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. Using census and other estimates of Indian population in these periods, post-invasion excess deaths totaled 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; and 0.4 billion in 1901-1947; this being 1.5 billion in total and 1.8 billion victims if the carnage in the various royalty-ruled Indian British Protectorate States are included.
mwcnews.net...
Madhusree Mukerjee systematically successively analyzes the background to the Bengali Holocaust in a prologue that deals with British India and the massive recurrent man-made famines, commencing with the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine in which 10 million people died due to British greed. Not quoted is Amaresh Misra’s book “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” that estimates that 10 million people died in British reprisals for the 1857 Indian rebellion. While the appalling famine history of British India is outlined the genocidal aspect is downplayed. Thus it can be estimated from British census and comparative mortality data that 1.8 billion Indians died prematurely less than 2 centuries of British rule. While Mukerjee makes clear the British economic exploitation of India, she downplays the reality that endemic poverty and hunger in India made it possible for a distant island of scores of millions to rule hundreds of millions of disempowered Indian subjects with the help of well-fed sepoys and other collaborators...
mwcnews.net...
Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by tpg65
where are you from? UK?
Originally posted by BRAVO949
Alien - for the love of God - do me a favor.
Will you please for the respect of the millions of people including the 58,000 Americans who died - give up on this?
Take Yankee Stadium and fill every seat. Now add 8,000 more people on the playing field.
Imagine that all of them are men aged betwen 17 and 30.
Now kill all of them by shooting, burning and blowing them up.
Picture that!
What part of that sounds like winning to you.
Go to a veteran center and help some vets then come back and you can tell me anything and I will listen to you.
Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Originally posted by BRAVO949
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.
We lost the war in every way.
Technically America never declared war on anyone in Vietnam, it was a "police action", so America technically never fought a war in the first place.
De jure though, it was a defeat as, despite not losing a single battle and inflicting far greater casualties than suffered, the US failed in its political objectives, namely the defense of South Vietnam.
South Vietnam lost the Vietnam War not the US. The Vietnam War was a civil war in which the US was a third party. North and South Vietnam had been at war with each other before the US entered the conflict and were at war with each other after the US left the conflict.
To say the US lost the Vietnam War would be like saying the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War instead of saying North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. It was not our war to win or lose. The US should not be blamed for South Vietnam's shortcomings and lack of will. The US can give all the money and weapons to the South as it wants to, but the South has to have the will and desire to win and they did not have that. Therefore the loss is theirs, not ours.
--- It is widely considered that "America lost the Vietnam war." But (as previously explained) saying that America lost the war is a misstatement. It was misunderstood at the time of the war.
North Vietnam had indeed signed a peace agreement with the United States to leave South Vietnam and maintain a demilitarized zone, much as had been done in Korea. The North signed this agreement, waited until the United States had pulled almost all troops out of South Vietnam, and then attacked, and easily overtook the South.
Did we win? We won on honesty and integrity, both of which the North Vietnamese failed to display once the power of the United States had left. Although the US committed enormous resources and defeated the communists in tactical engagements time and again, there was a lack of will to do the things that have to be done to win a war: Go on the offensive, advance into enemy territory, seize the military initiative, and so forth.
In Korea, the US advanced all the way through North Korea to China at one point, although it was later forced back. The communists worried that the US might do this again, so they had an incentive to keep the truce. In Vietnam, treaties were signed, but the fighting went on.
Eventually, US public opinion tired of an endless, defensive war. Congress ordered an end to direct US military involvement in August 1973. US financial aid to South Vietnam was cut off in August 1974 and Saigon fell to the communists in April 1975.
Source
-Alien
Originally posted by tpg65
Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Originally posted by tpg65
The american armed forces are so poor , they are the laughing stock of the whole planet . If it wasn't for the fact that the U.S have first strike capability, America would have been invaded and defeated decades ago
Right that's why we are strutting our stuff all over the world and no one is doing a damn thing about it
The unites states military has the largest arsenal of guns and ammo of any other military in the world. You know who has 4 times that? The United States' citizens.
COME GET SOME
-Alien
Your armed forces are made up of junkies , sted heads and brain dead moranic patriots
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Do you really think that Russia cares that much about Iran? Like we couldn't sway them with a few promises? They aren't going to jump into a world war to back Iran. They will talk, but they don't benefit THAT much from Iran.