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 13th Zodiac
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Oh gee, I don't know maybe Hollywoods excesive use of CGI. Plus the fact that it has had it's ass handed to it for 10 years plus, by malnurished goat herders with stick's and stone's. With-out allied help you would be even worse off. What does it matter anyway,wars suck.What really is the point you are trying to make here ?
Originally posted by Jay-morris
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by peck420
Yes...and No. The People of the U.S. do not want WAR. But the World is a DANGEROUS PLACE! There is occasion now and then that the leash should come off.
Split Infinity
Are you really that gullible? Are you so blind to your
patrioism that you honestly believe that? In this day
and age, war is not about saving lives, its about money.
Do you really think that your, and my government went
into iraq to save those "poor people" ? Funny how documents
show that even before 9/11 they were talking about the iraq
oil. How many people have lost their lives to fill the pockets
of the rich and powerful?
Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts:Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.
Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China —while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction.
"[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
Originally posted by SoulVisions
I've seen an order, regarding that area over in the middle east and Iran. Well, "heard" one is more accurate, for a warplane to drop a line of carpet bombs off in the water there. It was to be between the ships out there on the water and where landfall is.
I have no singular idea why this would we be done, or the reasoning behind it, but it was discussed for the minute I walked in. I have never mentioned it here on ATS or anywhere, because it was just one of those things where you walked into the room mid-conversation between officers. Anyone have thoughts on this? What stage or reasoning there might be behind why this tactic/scenario would occur? It was not a stealth mission, I didn't believe, because they spoke about daylight hours and using just a typical jet..
Originally posted by darkstar57
reply to post by SplitInfinity
likely that the planes were under remote control, produced by dov zakheims company, CEO of SPC International (System Planning Corporation International) and maker of terminal guidance systems for cruise missles. no pilot needed
Originally posted by darkstar57
reply to post by SplitInfinity
The FEL free electron laser system was proposed in 2009.. the problem with speed of light beam weapons is coherence. i.e., send out a beam, it wants to expand in 360 degrees, except for beams that do not interact much with matter... e.g., light beams. electrons like to interact, and so begin deflecting as soon as it leaves the gun.
doubt that it is operational outside the lab.
Originally posted by LostPassword
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Hey SplitInfinity Listen Up
The son of your friend DIED because he bought the BS and went with a sniper to another
country to kill people. You are so smart yet you don't know 9/11 is an inside job set up
to send young men to die conquering other countries.
You take pride in US military superiority yet you are not smart enough to realize that
military superiority has cost the US so much we are in UN-PAYABLE debt
Honest to God people with selective intelligence like you bring out the worst in me.
THE WORST IN ME.edit on 3-11-2012 by LostPassword because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pheonix358
One little vial of a pathogen can destroy the US.
The reason Greece was never taken over by communists after WW2 was because the Greeks were fighting for their homeland and for their religion. They saw communists as godless people.
Iran will fight for their country and their religion. This is a huge advantage! Meanwhile many US soldiers are dissolutioned with their country.
The US made a mistake in leaving sanctions active for so long. Iran has had decades to build their own weapon systems. While I agree that the US is formidable, keep in mind that the west has no idea what Iran has. We also have no idea of Iran's capability in asymmetrical warfare. You can bet they have watched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with interest.
You are also assuming that after the fall of the USSR, that Iran did not purchase tactile nukes on the black market. Using them on their borders or against battle groups would be interesting.
You have no idea what new weapons the US has. You also have no idea what weapons China , or Iran or Russia has. A radically new weapon may surprise the hell out of an attacking force.
Lastly, the industrial complex in America wants the US to lose battle groups and aircraft, preferably in record numbers! Then they can make many more billions in replacing them all.
Just one little vial with a decent pathogen, scary thought. It could already be within your borders!
P
In a second but parallel attempt to amass nuclear weapons, Iran turned to the former Soviet republics. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990, Iran coveted thousands of tactical nuclear warheads that had been dispersed in the former republics.
In the early 1990s, the CIA asked me to find an Iranian scientist who would testify that Iran had the bomb. The CIA had learned that Iranian intelligence agents were visiting nuclear installations throughout the former Soviet Union, with particular interest in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. Reports soon surfaced that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.
Meanwhile, Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems from Kazakhstan. It also was reported that Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers.
To make matters worse, several years later, Russian officials stated that when comparing documents in transferring nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy of 250 nuclear weapons.
Last week, Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain who was at one point hired by the State Department as an adviser to one of its provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq, said that in March 2008, during a briefing on Iran at the State Department, the department’s Middle East expert told the group that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an experienced intelligence officer and recipient of a Bronze Star, told me that his sources say Iran has two workable nuclear warheads.