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 Americans are our Worst Enemy

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
for $23 billion the u.s. gets free global hawk strikes at anyone it pleases and unlimited civilian casualties.

and as a bonus, america gets 50 free troops to blow up.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


I wouldn't trust the ISI about anything to be honest. They are the main reason the Taliban and other radicals are still around in Pakistan. I doubt Pakistan's Military and Government trust them either. This is the same ISI that supports the Kashmir Terrorists groups that attacked India's Parliament. Very bad people IMO.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


Just like I have said all along. They only want our money and nothing else.

-SAP-



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 



I have a few reservations about the information coming from this man. While I do somewhat believe that Pakistan would have this outlook on the U.S., especially considering all of the recent much protested drone bombings, it just seems like more and more anti-middle east propaganda.


Here in the UAE, there are quite a few Pakistanis.

We have some Ghurkas contracted to bolster our security operations, here - and, understandably, they tend to have a rather tense and cold relationship with the Pakistanis contracted to come in and work on the compound.

Generally speaking, when we have problems with someone - it's one of the Pakistani workers. That said, there are a fair number of people who work on the compound from Pakistan who are pretty good guys.

I'd have to say that the picture in Pakistan is a fairly complicated one. Most certainly, the government is not our ally and is not to be relied upon. Many of its citizens are still very tribally oriented, and their global views somewhat difficult to ascertain. Generally speaking - if a guy's physical traits put him as being Pakistani (or I have his labor card in my hand and it says he's Pakistani) - he gets a little extra caution and attention. Even if he proves himself to be a well behaved individual, I still put a little extra effort into making sure I don't discuss any bits of what potentially sensitive information around him.

Once we had a Pakistani guy from DP-World (don't laugh), who handle security and a number of other operations for the port. We work alongside some of their personnel (usually Filipino or Indian). Anyway - when some of our guys started talking about how BS it was that one of our security people got pulled to go to an Embarked Security Team (and have his per-diem taken away); the guy hung on every word they were saying. Then pretended not to speak English when they tried striking up a conversation with him.

So, yeah, we don't trust that guy.

Now, if you ask one of our resident Ghurkas about Pakistan - he says the following: "Terrorists! They're all terrorists!" He spent a considerable amount of time operating within Pakistan.

But, there again, Nepal and Pakistan have been killing each other for quite some time, now.

That said - I know I can trust the Ghurkas. So, if push comes to shove; me, personally, I choose to side with the Ghurkas over Pakistan.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by councilglasses
 



Pak ISI wants more terrorism against the US, so that US relies on Pak's help and in turn gives them billions in aid. This in turn will fill the pockets of Pak Generals and Politicians while leaving general population hungry, hurt and misinformed and thus providing more fanatics to help Taliban and AQ.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Pakistan can thank Bill Clinton.

Slick Willy's Quadrennial Defense Review axed tens of thousands of American jobs from DOD so the money could be used in places like Pakistan to destabilize them/rob them.

Americans are jobless....Pakistani's getting slaughtered. Clintons getting richer.

Bill Clinton's "Quadrennial Defense Review"......he should be hung from a tree for what he did and he knows it.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
if terrorists get it from Pakistan: A suitcase nuke is a tactical nuclear weapon which uses, or is portable enough that it could use, a suitcase as its delivery method. Synonyms include suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke, snuke, and pocket nuke.-

you know what will be after that
edit on 11-9-2012 by leosnake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Just read on fox (yes I know, I am on my phone its the best I can do) that Senator Paul is now going to push a bill to cut off all funding to Pakistan.

How quickly the tide comes in...

topstories.foxnews.mobi... tent=79741988&pageNum=-1

Link is from my cell, will update to regular when I get home.
edit on 11-9-2012 by CalibratedZeus because: added link



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Ghurkas have a long and storied track record.... I'm glad you have some there. I'd trust their instincts on the matter.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by leosnake
if terrorists get it from Pakistan: A suitcase nuke is a tactical nuclear weapon which uses, or is portable enough that it could use, a suitcase as its delivery method. Synonyms include suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke, snuke, and pocket nuke.-

you know what will be after that
edit on 11-9-2012 by leosnake because: (no reason given)



I seriously doubt that Pakistan's Nukes are of the suitcase variety. The only ones I've heard of are from the former USSR and probably the US. I remember reading something about the triggering mechanisms having to be replaced quite often or else the bomb is a dud. If AQ, had one, it would have already been used.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalibratedZeus
Just read on fox (yes I know, I am on my phone its the best I can do) that Senator Paul is now going to push a bill to cut off all funding to Pakistan.

How quickly the tide comes in...

topstories.foxnews.mobi... tent=79741988&pageNum=-1

Link is from my cell, will update to regular when I get home.
edit on 11-9-2012 by CalibratedZeus because: added link


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by leosnake
if terrorists get it from Pakistan: A suitcase nuke is a tactical nuclear weapon which uses, or is portable enough that it could use, a suitcase as its delivery method. Synonyms include suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke, snuke, and pocket nuke.-

you know what will be after that
edit on 11-9-2012 by leosnake because: (no reason given)



I seriously doubt that Pakistan's Nukes are of the suitcase variety. The only ones I've heard of are from the former USSR and probably the US. I remember reading something about the triggering mechanisms having to be replaced quite often or else the bomb is a dud. If AQ, had one, it would have already been used.

Actually the whole bomb gets radio active eventually, so it all has to be stripped down, the Uranium is recovered, and the rest of the parts are buried, half life of something like 15,000 years.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Despite the fact the Americans have supplied tonnes of aid, relief and charity.

Americans are NOT the enemy, just the wretched American government.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


Ha Ha what a joke. The first four words of the article are a design in fanaticism unmatched in the annals of fabricated
fear mongering.

Oh Nose, Oh nose, Pakistan has intelligence and it's powerful ! Ahhhhhh!

To bad 90% of US Americans are still to drenched in sap to see it.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Thanks for the info. Again, I doubt the Pakistan nukes are of the suitcase size.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
From my understanding of the situation in pakistan, it is a cluster# of people and groups with their own agendas. Some of those in govt are truly American friendly, some are not.

This guy making such a blanket statement is a bit ridiculous. I think the reality is, we just do not know who over there is "on our side" and who is just giving lip service in exchange for our lovely American tax dollars. Even within the ISI and govt there are those who are really working with us and those who could care less.

And how do we Sort them out? How do we know who to trust? It's complicated. People have a tendency to back the winner, and so my bet is that most Pakistanis at high levels in govt are backing the US, just because they know the US has the power and ability to crush Pakistan if it really wanted to. They aren't stupid, they know how to play ball.

Same thing in Iraq.....the big wigs got a clue early on, it is better to be on the side of the winning team, cause one way or another the Americans were gonna win that war, and to the victors go the spoils. They wanted to keep their positions in government? Play ball boys.....they wanted their lavish lifestyles while their countrymen had no running water? Better play ball....The problem with a nation like Iran is they do not want to be bought off or strong armed by the US. They refuse to play ball.

I don't like that the US treats other nations this way, I hate it actually, but it makes sense. If you were a top official in Pakistan and the big bad Americans came pounding on your door, it is either cooperate or get taken out in one way or another. It's a dirty game and it's criminal, but sadly it's the reality I think.

Those that don't cooperate are ultimately on the losing side, when push comes to shove they wouldn't have a hole deep enough to hide in, because I am sure if we really wanted these people taken out, we could do it. All these other nations are aware of this....they know that cooperation is in their best interests, they try to negotiate with the US because they understand the consequences of refusing the US.

As I've always said.....we are the nation that as teddy bear Roosevelt said "speaks softly and carries a big stick".



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mijamija
 


Well said.

It makes me think of Libya and now Syria and the shadowy hand the U.S. has in the downfall or eventual downfall of those who refused to go along.

I am sure a lot of countries leaders truly hate the American government and their ways biut put on a nice suit ajd a smile when it comes do diplomacy. Many have gotten smart and just pretend to fall in line...



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


Exactly. Fall in line is the best way to describe it. What other options do these leaders really have? They have to play ball because they have all seen the consequences of what happens when they dont(saddam). The thing in Libya and Syria is just another example....my question is why do we need to lock down the entire middle east? Why are we so invested in that region? Is it just the resources? Is it national security? What have they got over there that we need so bad it is worth all the bloodshed? Why are we forcing these guys to be on our side? What is the end game? What are we sacrifing so many lives for? How can anything ever be worth all of this maddness?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mijamija
 



Those that don't cooperate are ultimately on the losing side, when push comes to shove they wouldn't have a hole deep enough to hide in, because I am sure if we really wanted these people taken out, we could do it. All these other nations are aware of this....they know that cooperation is in their best interests, they try to negotiate with the US because they understand the consequences of refusing the US.


It's difficult to refer to the U.S. as a singular entity with a single agenda or modus operandi.

Many U.S. companies want to move a number of man-hour intensive jobs overseas, where labor costs less (and the people can live at a similar 'class' within the lower cost of living - the jobs we export, even though you couldn't live off of what they get paid in America - are awesome jobs to have overseas, usually - many people wouldn't have # for opportunity if it weren't for exported jobs).

Manufacturing looks to market their products to parts of the world with developing industry and a hunger for higher quality products and lavish devices (such as cell phones). They want to sell to a country hungering to buy more with the jobs other companies have exported.

It's economic bootstrapping.

Governments, of course, look to regulate, tax, and otherwise find ways of ruining the fun. Governments of foreign countries like to restrict the use of automation in factories and force higher employment rates (quality and practicality be damned - unemployment is always bad news for those in political power in any system).

Our government tends to try and establish stronger and more binding ties with various foreign powers. They have lobbyists who look out for the interest of industry patents and copyrights, idealists who believe the only real form of government is democracy (despite the fact they are letting it get destroyed at home...), etc.

Our government shifts from time to time - our industry shifts from quarter to quarter.... it's hard to say that there's a consistent or singular objective or way of the U.S. other than the raw concept of growth. Which is what all life seeks to do.

I'll say that it works out pretty well for countries like the UAE.

Right now, though, they are having trouble figuring out how to secure their future. Every business that operates here, essentially leases the right to do so (hence, few of the Emiraties actually work - land and property are a sort of stock around here and businesses pay to be a part of the action). While quite a few of the people who work here have better opportunities and quality of life (at least in the air conditioned spaces) than available in their home countries - the economic and political disparity is eventually going to cause some problems - particularly when the oil industry begins its inevitable decline.

Which is why they are focusing on port/shipping activity and attracting tourism - but the many partially filled apartment megaliths and abandoned construction projects are not good indicators.

Raw economic pressure will eventually force a change in the way the government operates here (it already has - the wealthier sub-nations within the Emirates have had no choice but to abandon the strict enforcement of Sharia-like laws; foreigners are the life blood of the wealth they enjoy).

If they hadn't been willing to do business with the rest of the world (not just America) - then they would still be a nation stuck in the hot wet blanket that is the air of the Persian Gulf... and the only place suitable to live would be caves or houses built to emulate caves. It would suck and no one would bother coming here.

I'll be blunt - the only reason I'd ever come back to this place is if it was a job that paid better than any opportunity I had back in the States. The weather sucks, every green thing hinges on life-support systems, and the government owns all the telecommunications systems.

The people are nice - and it's a melting pot that challenges the legends of 1900 America - and -every- store and fast food restaurant delivers.... but the fact of the matter is that everyone in this country is happier because of western influence.

Case in point - while there are Muslims here not happy about a certain film production - they didn't use it as an excuse to act out like these other nations did. They can do things like watch movies, go to the skating rink, go to Ski Dubai (a ski resort in a mall in the middle of the desert... why the hell not?), etc. They don't need to kill people for entertainment (which, sadly enough, is about the only entertainment available in some parts of the Middle East - as I understand from guys in my unit who have deployed to Afghanistan).



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You bring up a Important point....most of what is going on over there is due to economic factors. I think the money and resources and business in general is in large part what is driving all this, I think it ties into our govts concept of "national security" after all, we need the resources and money to keep us afloat, so being on friendly terms with nations in the ME and SWA are to our advantage, but what happens when those nations leaders do not want to cooperate? Diplomacy and foreign aid only go so far.

I have several people close to me who spend a lot of time in that region and they have mixed feelings about what is going on over there. They see the good things westernization has done in places like the UAE, but then they also speak of countries further east like Pakistan and its a different story. I think if the people are open at least a little bit to westernization then it is possible to work and trade in those nations, but when the people are so against any western influence, it is better to leave them alone, but we still keep pushing our agendas in nations that are not open to it, and that is where the trouble is....so why do we keep doing it? Do we really need to have that much influence globally? At what point does the good of it all outweigh the bad? I see a lot of bad, and the good is still a glimmer on the horizon in some of those places.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join