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.
Originally posted by Duzey
The US has been very adamant in their refusal to sign any agreement that would ban the use of landmines. So that means that they can use them any time they want, and I'm sure they have a good supply on hand and could get more pretty fast.
If there were ever a good reason for the use of them, I think this could be one. You can catch those that try the checkpoint, and the ones that try to cross, well..... boom. The only problem would be keeping civilians from blowing up.
edit spelling
[edit on 13-1-2005 by Duzey]
Current day Iran is economically and militarily weaker then Iraq was.
The insurgents can't fight Americans head on. They aren't a military threat to us.
As for Opium, we can't just destroy the fields because then you're just putting farmers out of work. That would destroy the economy, and no one wins. Right now we're teaching them to farm other things.
Originally posted by ProphetOfYahweh
The insurgents can't fight Americans head on. They aren't a military threat to us.
If they aren't a military threat, then why are they winning? The insergentancy keeps getting more effective and causing more havok now than when the war started. It doesn't matter if they don't fight the troops head on, it's called warfare.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Yes, terrorisim is warfare. In country funding in Iraq has been cut off therefore the terrorist are getting funding from outside countries. SYRIA and IRAN. To stop the attacks one must stop the money flow. No guns, bombs or bullets, no terrorisim. The only thing the terrorist are winning is the hearts of the liberal media and the bush hateing leftist.
The U.S. government gives more than $10 billion in foreign aid each year to foreign governments and foreign and international organizations. Tyrannical regimes are the worst terrorist organizations in the world, with respect to racking up impressive body counts. Foreign aid has been aptly described as handouts “from governments, to governments, for governments.
The U.S. government will give more than $120 million this year to the government of Uzbekistan, a convenient ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The nitpickers at Human Rights Watch have complained about Uzbek government officials seeking to enlighten dissidents with methods such as “beatings, electric shock, temporary suffocation, hanging by the ankles or wrists, removal of fingernails, and punctures with sharp objects.” Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), who supports the aid to Uzbekistan, stressed that it is “terribly important that we not uncritically align ourselves with governments which torture citizens.” But what is the difference between uncritically and critically using U.S. tax dollars to underwrite torture?
Many regimes with dubious human-rights records collect windfalls from American taxpayers, including Egypt (which routinely uses torture), Israel (which has a formal policy of assassinating suspected Palestinian militants), and Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, two repressive countries with “poor” human rights records, according to the U.S. State Department. In 1998, the U.S. government condemned the Kosovo Liberation Army for its “terrorist action”; in 1999, the United States christened the KLA “freedom fighters” and deluged them with arms and aid.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government does not pass the Bush “one dime” standard. The U.S. government is probably spending far more to finance terrorist activities with its foreign-aid programs than Muslim charities are raising in the United States. The only defense for U.S. foreign-aid programs is that terrorism is not terrorizing if it is inflicted by people wearing government uniforms. But this is a distinction that guts human-rights protections for the vast majority of people in the world.
If the U.S. government wants to reduce funding for terrorism, it should cease all aid to foreign governments and organizations such as the World Bank. In the same way that Bush is shutting down Muslim charities suspected of misdirecting contributions, the federal government must abandon its addiction to throwing money at foreign governments. There are much better ways to help the poor people of the world than throwing more money at their rulers.
James Bovard
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think we have some satellite pics of Terrorist training camps in Syria and also evidence of people crossing the border to help distablize Iraq. Soon they might be getting some cruise missile sent there way. No American troops no planes just Cruise missiles and maybe a few UCAVS. Very select targets and the Syrian goverment wont be doing anything about it.
Originally posted by bodrul
the US really does love conflict and blood of other ( must be the bloodiest nation in history )
Soon they might be getting some cruise missile sent there way. No American troops no planes just Cruise missiles and maybe a few UCAVS. Very select targets and the Syrian goverment wont be doing anything about it.
Funny how the brain washing of American society is working so well, people that fight in their own lands against invasion of foreign forces are tag "insurgents" and " terrorist" I wonder if the situation was reverser and it was the fight in American soil against invaders we will never called ourself "terrorist" or "insurgents" we will be patriots.
It seems to me that the only ignorant post is yours, the middle east belong to the people of that area, borders or not borders they share common ground, ethnic, racial, culture and origins.
Obviously something that US will never know due to the fact that US is mixing pot of cultures.
How do you feel if you see outsiders come to your land no(t) because they want to help but with destruction and death.
Open your eyes that is all the people in the middle east are seen destruction and death at the hands of foreigners.
Denied Ignorance or join your Military and fight for Bush
Originally posted by Duzey
The US has been very adamant in their refusal to sign any agreement that would ban the use of landmines. So that means that they can use them any time they want, and I'm sure they have a good supply on hand and could get more pretty fast. If there were ever a good reason for the use of them, I think this could be one. You can catch those that try the checkpoint, and the ones that try to cross, well..... boom. The only problem would be keeping civilians from blowing up.
edit spelling
[edit on 13-1-2005 by Duzey]
If a city has "terrorist" in it. Level it and 10 miles around it.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bodrul
the US really does love conflict and blood of other ( must be the bloodiest nation in history )
Actually, it's the most restrained superpower in World history. The US can't even compare (as far as bloodshed) to the Greek, Roman, British, etc. empires.
Soon they might be getting some cruise missile sent there way. No American troops no planes just Cruise missiles and maybe a few UCAVS. Very select targets and the Syrian goverment wont be doing anything about it.
Best post in this thread. Why people are talking about invasion is beyond me. If we do attack, we won't use any ground troops (unless special forces go in a few times).
Funny how the brain washing of American society is working so well, people that fight in their own lands against invasion of foreign forces are tag "insurgents" and " terrorist" I wonder if the situation was reverser and it was the fight in American soil against invaders we will never called ourself "terrorist" or "insurgents" we will be patriots.
...and here we have the worst post in this thread.
Don't be ignorant Marg.
Do you honestly believe the majority of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis fighting for their own land?
Of course they're not, that's why they have no problem blowing up police officers and army recruits (protecters of Iraqis).
Do you honestly believe that Iraqis are blowing themselves up and hundreds of others because they believe that the best way to stabalize the country is to disrupt elections and cause havoc?
Get real...
If they aren't a military threat, then why are they winning? The insergentancy keeps getting more effective and causing more havok now than when the war started. It doesn't matter if they don't fight the troops head on, it's called warfare.
So much for the War on Drugs eh? Hardly a good reason to allow them to traffic drugs "for their economy" you know the CIA trafficks drugs right?