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.

 

Iran vs. USA in one picture

page: 34
157
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by neo96
More BS and who asked the US to be there?

Who?







Someone needs to plot all the countries where Irans Hezbollah and Hamas are located throughout the globe which one would find them in the ME.Eu,central America,and south America.

Irans contractors mercenaries.
edit on 9-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


How far back do you want to go?

The Ottoman Empire?

Constantinople?

That region has warred with one another since the creation of the spear!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 





I have a question, how many wars within the middle east has the 'west' been involved in before the creation of the state of Israel?


France and england have been in the middle east right up until Ww2 where the rest of the world was fighting Fascism Persia was having tea with Hitler I mean Iran and then when the west was fighting communism and there Iran agian was embracing it.

Yeah it is like that even tho Russia occupied Iran once upon a time they are best buddies.
edit on 9-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


All puppets of the USA only to be killed when the bidding was done for the USA. USA backstabs threatens, sanctions, causes regional turmoil, assassinates until it gets its way. All those countries who said 'yes' were dictators and kings etc at the time who do not represent what the people of those countries wanted. US wanted to go into those regions not because of the urging of those leaders but because it wanted to be there. The USA placed a lot of those leaders in the first place.

Kuwait: Rumsfeld gave Iraq the green light to invade and even provided him with arms so they could use this as an excuse. Then Iraq destroyed and US bases in Kuwait.
Iraq: toppled by USA, then bases installed
Afghanistan: toppled by USA, then bases installed
Saudi Arabia: King backed by USA, bases installed
Turkey: NATO member with USA backing, US bases installed
Pakistan: USA funding president Zardari, US bases installed
Quatar: Another US puppet state, US bases installed

Oh how they all wanted US bases there....It is all protection money in exchange for oil. US provides the dictators with arms in exchange for oil rights, while the dictators keep the regime down and once that is done or the dictator does not go along with what the USA likes, they are removed.

911 happened because they did not want US bases on their soil, but their corrupt US backed king allowed it.

See, the USA wanted to be there, so they asked their own installed doorman to let them in.

USA was not welcomed in any of those countries, except the US backed/supported/installed leaders said yes to US forces being there
edit on 113131p://8America/ChicagoThu, 09 Aug 2012 23:14:10 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Let's keep it modern and relevant, say the same amount of years that Israel has been a state for? Let's go with 65 years before Israel was founded, how often has the west been actively involved in conflicts within the region compared to since the founding?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


All puppets of the USA only to be killed when the bidding was done for the USA. USA backstabs threatens, sanctions, causes regional turmoil, assassinates until it gets its way. All those countries who said 'yes' were dictators and kings etc at the time who do not represent what the people of those countries wanted. US wanted to go into those regions not because of the urging of those leaders but because it wanted to be there. The USA placed a lot of those leaders in the first place.

Iraq: toppled by USA
Afghanistan: toppled by USA
Saudi Arabia: King backed by USA
Turkey: NATO member with USA backing
Pakistan: USA funding president Zardari
Quatar: Another US puppet state

Oh how they all wanted US bases there....It is all protection money in exchange for oil. US provides the dictators with arms in exchange for oil rights, while the dictators keep the regime down and once that is done or the dictator does not go along with what the USA likes, they are removed.

USA was not welcomed in any of those countries, except the US backed/supported/installed leaders said yes to US forces being there.


Still peddling BS

Iraq is pro Iranian
Afghanistan is pro Iranian
Turkey is pro turkey who denied the air space and naval access to Iraq and who was murdering the kurds in northern Iraq.
Pakistan the guys who hid bin laden for a decade and who have funded the taliban and terrorism in the world since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.


Right don't let the facts get in the way of dogma.
edit on 9-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That means the people in those regions do not want military bases there. The USA pays corrupt leaders of that region to allow the US bases to be there or threaten them until the USA gets its way or invade how the USA did recently.
edit on 113131p://8America/ChicagoThu, 09 Aug 2012 23:16:21 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Most of those projects were cancelled or delayed. T45s with anti-ballistic capability are enough.

Even the electron laser won't be in operation until long after 2018. And the laser technology as of now is nothing new.
edit on 8/8/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)


You are VERY WRONG about this. I suggest you google Free Electron Laser and notice that the new class of Nuclear U.S. Carrier...the Gerald R. Ford will be the first carrier with an FEL nuclear powered system along with it's carrier groups Aegis Cruiser.

We have several fully operational FEL's deployed RIGHT NOW.

The MEB is ULTRA-HIGHLY CLASSIFIED and there is not a lot that can be found out about it other than it's existence. The SM-3's are Fully Operational NOW. At this time...the U.S. has an fairly decent Missile Shield...but it is NOTHING in comparison to what it will be capable of in a few years. This reality is one of the Main Reasons that China has decided to cut back on it's plans to develop a Large Blue Water Navy as the Chinese are practical and we had to inform them of the U.S. Military's current and soon to be operational abilities. After they were informed...the Chinese decided that remaining a Good Trading Partner with the U.S. was in their best interest and they have helped with the North Korean issue as well as you don't here much about China reclaiming Taiwan anymore. The U.S. is a few years away from a level of Military Capabilities that is beyond anything ever conceived in World History. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Oh boy you've just got an answer for everything dontcha? So, let me get this straight.....The US was only asked to be there by the leaders that the US installed there in the 1st place, is that correct? And the people in those countries did not want those leaders?
So tell me, do the people of Iran support it's current leader?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by neo96
 


That means the people in those regions do not want military bases there. The USA pays corrupt leaders of that region to allow the US bases to be there.


Wrong the only thing they give a crap about is the dollar bill and a truck load of them and boosting opec oil prices and selling mineral rights to Russia and China and a pipeline to pakistan.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


All puppets of the USA only to be killed when the bidding was done for the USA. USA backstabs threatens, sanctions, causes regional turmoil, assassinates until it gets its way. All those countries who said 'yes' were dictators and kings etc at the time who do not represent what the people of those countries wanted. US wanted to go into those regions not because of the urging of those leaders but because it wanted to be there. The USA placed a lot of those leaders in the first place.


I guess you were asleep at school that day during history eh? Historical Context



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
reply to post by beezzer
 


Let's keep it modern and relevant, say the same amount of years that Israel has been a state for? Let's go with 65 years before Israel was founded, how often has the west been actively involved in conflicts within the region compared to since the founding?



I triedcopying, pasting, let me link the list.

(it's huge)

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


I know exactly what you are implying and to tell you the truth you'd be more right if you asked what US involvement in the Mideast was before the need for OIL...
ETA But I'm not in support of your anti-Israel garbage you are trying to inject into the conversation.
edit on 9-8-2012 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


reply to post by munkey66
 


No the answer is quite plain.

An organization or group of individuals who, through non conventional means, seek to implement change using tactics that cause harm and death upon civilian populations. The use of such means causes terror amongst the civilian population in hopes of them pressuring their governments or leaders to implement the changes sought.

Within that framework fit many different groups. They can be groups aimed at overthrowing a government, removing an occupier, causing things such as the release of prisoners( which was a popular cause during the highjacking of aircraft through the 80's and early 90's), implementing religious views, gaining independence and so on.

This page says it better than I can but a commonly accepted definition is what I have just posted above, papaphrased in my own words.

So CE, can you accept that as a definition? If so can you answer my question? If not, please post what your definition of a terrorist group is..

before answering the question I have another just to clarify.
What is "through non conventional means" and before I get a definition, I know what conventional means.
I would argue that all sides use civilians as the pawns and now what was once non conventional is now the standard and acceptable practice of freedom fighters everywhere.

But if you insist upon the definition, I would have to say that the US and Iran would cancel out each others funding of terrorists, so we still have a long list left of aggression by the US and its proxies



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This whole thread is a "piss on America" fest. Lets call it for what it is.




Anti-Americanism is alive and well, on ATS.

Kudos, for having the freedom to expound your ideals, and agendas, ladies..................



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Interesting post. I do recall the US taking the top Chinese military officer/people on a "tour" of some of our higher tech facilities and were shown some of our capablities. After which, he stated emphatically that the US was far ahead and China was Incapable of competing technologically with the US.

It lends credence to your post...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


My friend - Why you're still arguing with deficients? They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Who is the superpower, America or Israel?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Man every time I see your posts I think "God not again". The amount of B.S you spew is just amazing, I mean it, I commend you for you extreme ability to think up, and spew this crap.

I take it you have never, once been to one of these countries? I also take it you have never been out of your house, or even visited the guy next door.

Point is I have, I've been to Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi-Arbia. They don't hate us, far, far from it. They do think, that the post invasion cluster- # that was the post occupation authority, didn't know what the hell they where doing.

Also pro-Tip we did find WMD's in Iraq... look it up.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by qvision
 

It is you who are lacking in knowledge. As far as the Polish people are concerned...there were true Patriotic Poles and Communist Collaborators.

If the there is ONE REAL HARMFUL ACTION that the U.S. did to Poland...it was to allow Poland to become part of the Soviet Block. Roosevelt never should have allowed it. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Thanks for the list, quite interesting reading




top topics



 
157
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join