|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 12, 2007 18:07:59 GMT 1
No timetable' for Iraq progress  Defence Secretary Robert Gates is facing some stiff questions The US defence secretary has said there is no timetable for Iraq to prove it has fulfilled commitments required by the US in President Bush's new plan. But Robert Gates said the US would have a "good idea" of the Iraqi government's success before many new troops went in. He also told a Senate hearing there should be no announcement of a troop pullout as, in his words, the enemy would then just wait the time out. The hearing comes as criticism grows of Mr Bush's move to boost troops in Iraq. Mr Bush plans to send at least 20,000 more troops, saying it will help bring security to Baghdad's streets. But Democrats and some Republicans have spoken out strongly against the move. Mr Bush and his top officials have been working to convince sceptical lawmakers of the merits of the new strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 12, 2007 18:10:34 GMT 1
He also told a Senate hearing there should be no announcement of a troop pullout as, in his words, the enemy would then just wait the time out. ok iam not as brilliant as them militairy of the pentagon who think of these great war plans and such tactics, but isnt the enemy already waiting for the US troops to be pulled out, and infact they are not even waiting they are attacking and originised and growing attacks too.. this looks more and more like vietnam, because they (military) said the exact same thing back then.. |
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Jan 30, 2007 20:43:16 GMT 1
hello
the extra troops is a fact now
i dont like to say it but if the americans fail in their goal to secure the middle east, then i fear terrorists will spread out over europe and america(like the wtc towers etc) and even without bush, the war wont stop, he gave the sign to start it, but even whe democrats take the lead in the US they cant retreat their troops, the terrorists on their side know that too ( i guess) and want to prevent more troops are comming, they just need to wipe out the remaining troops and its fixed,
gtg now, ill finish this later
cya
gesp stylo
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 30, 2007 23:02:43 GMT 1
yes but the war in irauq is nto a war against terrorist in the first place, i mean saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and saddam was brought into power in the 1970s by the americans,
also plans have been in the makign to invade saddam under bush senior.
they wont win this war because the americans thoughed that they would be seen as liberators, instead they are seen as invaders, and everyone is fighting to defend there country, winning the minds and souls and hearts will not win in this case..
|
|
|
|
Post by fatfreddy on Jan 30, 2007 23:14:50 GMT 1
hello the extra troops is a fact now i dont like to say it but if the americans fail in their goal to secure the middle east, then i fear terrorists will spread out over europe and america(like the wtc towers etc) and even without bush, the war wont stop, he gave the sign to start it, but even whe democrats take the lead in the US they cant retreat their troops, the terrorists on their side know that too ( i guess) and want to prevent more troops are comming, they just need to wipe out the remaining troops and its fixed, gtg now, ill finish this later cya gesp stylo it's not if but when.as Ironman said the militairy are against, cause u can't win there. The "terrorists" will strike anyway. and the wtc towers... I don't know. It was a perfect timing, just before the senat would decide to decrease the militairy, there were this planecrashes and the so called axes of evil. If Irak is pro US, they control the whole area, (oil, oil,oil) same as in afghanistan. There would be the whole rich on oil former ussr states within control of US. It has nothing to do with religion, but everything with world domination. Control the oil and u have that domination. |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 30, 2007 23:49:56 GMT 1
here is a nice time table one i recently heard and saw and u can see it everyday.. 1 year befpre 9-11 the price was 23 dollar a barrle 1 week before the plains hit the twin towers a barrle of oil costed 44 dollar when the plains hit the twin towers the price of a barrle went to 50 dollar the fuel price at pump went up then the price went to 55 then price at fuel pump went up then these last years price went up and up because of war in irauq and the prices on the pumps when pooring it into your car raised with it till fuel was at peak of 82 dollars a barrle then the price for fuel here was at its peak now these last few months the price of oil went back to 55 dollar a barrle BUT the price at the pump is still the same as it was when a barrle of oil costed 82 dollars.. with gold it is the same thing only normal people dotn buy gold on a avarage day but we all buy ane need fuel  now tht is what i call a nice time table, |
|
|
|
Post by toppahousu on Jan 31, 2007 8:30:42 GMT 1
Its always on "wars" of US about the domination... They just need to rule the world one way or the other Its always about their interrests ( oil, gold, strategical military place) Only thing i have been wondering is why in the hell the americans go to serve their country...i bet no other country got their citicents to go to this stupid wars...hell no !! In US there are so many peoples living in steets and not haveing enough money to feed themselves...so how in the hell dont these idiots see what kind of country they serve...are they just so stupid  The hole US is like who needs to pay and how much to whom...no one is willing to take care firstly their selves and after that help the neighbours and relatives....they just need to get the benefit and no matter waht it costs and whos gonna pay the prize..so what if its the neighbour or even some relative...idiots !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Jan 31, 2007 13:27:11 GMT 1
the brits are still there, but do you hear of them, hell no, they won the people for them by being flexible, wearing hats instead of helmets etc etc
the italians came to reinforce US and british troops, after that hostage, they retreated, the belgians have lots of NATO troops in afghanistan...
toppa, do you wanna say all those people are stupid??
cya
gesp stylo
|
|
|
|
Post by fatfreddy on Jan 31, 2007 16:50:59 GMT 1
Its always on "wars" of US about the domination... They just need to rule the world one way or the other Its always about their interrests ( oil, gold, strategical military place) Only thing i have been wondering is why in the hell the americans go to serve their country...i bet no other country got their citicents to go to this stupid wars...hell no !! there are dutch soldiers in afghanistan. the US has their slaves. |
|
|
|
Post by fatfreddy on Jan 31, 2007 16:54:05 GMT 1
the brits are still there, but do you hear of them, hell no, they won the people for them by being flexible, wearing hats instead of helmets etc etc the italians came to reinforce US and british troops, after that hostage, they retreated, the belgians have lots of NATO troops in afghanistan... toppa, do you wanna say all those people are stupid?? cya gesp stylo everybody who goes to war is an idiot. It would be nice when there is a war and nobody comes  |
|
|
|
Post by toppahousu on Jan 31, 2007 17:56:23 GMT 1
the brits are still there, but do you hear of them, hell no, they won the people for them by being flexible, wearing hats instead of helmets etc etc the italians came to reinforce US and british troops, after that hostage, they retreated, the belgians have lots of NATO troops in afghanistan... toppa, do you wanna say all those people are stupid?? cya gesp stylo Why are they there Italian, Belgians, Dutch, Finnish and many more...i know there are many nationalities Idiots are the ones who started this war and it was started cause of the oil !!! American want to make sure they get the oil and they get it descent prize... Stratetical weapons...pffff Nucleon weapons...pfff bla bla bla bla...pffff Its all about the oil, oil, oil Now there needs to be a lot of soldiers cause there isnt no one who can keep things in order...no government that can take the lead And those soldier have to be there for long and many country needs to spend a lot of money and effort just that Americans can have their oil. Americans could for instance put the money they put in wars (to take down the axes of evil) to develop their industry so that it doesnt need so much oil ( solar power, wind power...etc ) But hell no...they want their oil no matter what...but hey... they have already put so much effort to get that oil...helped Iraq to stand in front of Iran Let me say it wont take for long till next piece of axes of evil is in war with US = Iran.... The country that has oil wants the money out of it...and Americans arent willing to pay the money oil owners wants (Americans have already almost used their own oil) and sure they have to make sure they get oil in decent prize (other way they have to put a hell lot of money to their industry) And that isnt idiotic And to start the war cause of this isnt that idiotic And the war it self...isnt that idiotic too??? Kill your own species just to benefit yourself somehow This is just my opinion...and if u dont agree plz dont take this too seriously |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardus on Jan 31, 2007 18:27:15 GMT 1
Why don't the US, Britain and their friends want Iran to develop nuclear capabilities?
Because if they do, they won't be so easy to push around. The US wants to control the worlds energy supplies. This will be much more problematic if Iran possesses nuclear capabilities. It is that simple.
Lets have a look at some of the hypocrisy:
"If Iran had nuclear weapons, they would use them since they are 'unstable'" BULLSHIT, the only nation state who has ever used nuclear weapons on people is the United States.
Israel is also saying the same thing (strange how they still deny the fact that they even have a nuclear progam)
The other piece of bullshit here is this; when I was a kid I was told that nuclear weapons 'guaranteed the peace' so; nuclelar weapons were good. If this is true everyone should have them or no-one. If Iran has nuclear weapons surely it will discourage the US and Israel from attacking them and, lets face it, they are the only people talking about 'attacking' (and have done so) ergo, if Iran has nuclear weapons it will lead to greater peace and stability in the region because the two most belligerant nations on Earth won't attack them.
BTW - the US is desperate to attack Iran (in case you hand't noticed)
Ric
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Jan 31, 2007 19:45:25 GMT 1
yes iran is th enext on bush hes "to do list" and tht is why he is pressuring the UN and the EU so when push comes to shove Bush can say we did it withpoliticks and talks it didnt work now we send in the army..
but hes time table got mixed up because Bush was counting on a fast was in irak much liek afghanistan so then he could free up hes troops and send them to iran..
that is why america left afghanistan so quickly and left the "cleaning up"to the UN and EU militairy, so america would have free troops to send to irak, now in irak they wanted to do the same thing, wich is, a quick victory then let the EU and the UN send troops to keep the peace so america can free up troops to send to Iran..
if anyone has been paying attention they would have noticed that america is only attacking oil rich countries or countries that can stop the gas and oil flow to america and europe..
kuwait , afghanistan, irak and now next up is iran..
Also notice that america claims to get rid of a brutal dictator (saddam) but when the gulfwar was over they handed kuwait back to its very own dictator..
also notice thbat afghanistans new president is a none elected official, and also a close personal friend of Bush (they went to same school) so bush just takes over countries and places hes buddie sin key positions to ensure a good flow of oil in the future..
this is like world war 2 and it smost famouse general Erwin Rommel, he used the same tactic in the deserts of africa, he raced to the closed oil wells made them hes and then either destroy them or go on to the next one..
|
|
|
|
Post by JNK on Jan 31, 2007 20:51:58 GMT 1
A good thing is that democrates have are the dominant in "white house", so they can/will close the budjet for Bush's stupid thoughts. But i personally dont think that Bush/US armed forces won't attack Iran. As you iron once said in post in year 2004, that USA will wenever attack country with some kind of mass destruction weapon. Iran doesnt have though one yet  But maybe USA will attack to prevent Iran make a weapon  |
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Feb 2, 2007 18:30:03 GMT 1
hello i dont think USA will attack iran, they are taking serious loses in the wars they now are in (best example: iraq) They cant afford to send more troops and supplies, they simply would run out of money, even the great US can reach its limit, and with or without republicans, the US wil have to defend itself from terorists since they played a mayor role on the attempt to destroy terorism and ofcourse i know its for world domintation but i would be more pleased with the thing that the US have the oil than terrorists or other savage cya  gesp stylo |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardus on Feb 4, 2007 10:08:50 GMT 1
The United States will CERTAINLY attack Iran in the near future.
Whether that attack will be a 'full scale' attack or limited to air strikes against nuclear development installations remains to be seen. The military will prefer the second since they don't have the concentration of forces necessary for the first (even with Bush's extra 20,000 troops)
The point however remains the same: The US CANNOT allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons beacuse that will make it so much more difficult for the US if they want to invade Iran in the future (the Iranians can threaten to attack them with nuclear weapons)
So, the US has a dilemna: they cannot invade Iran easily because a) they dont have the forces to do so and b) they dont have the support of the international community. By the time those conditions are satisfied (assuming they can be) Iran will be closer to developing nuclear capability.
The US will therefore seek to destroy or 'put back' Irans efforts by preventative airstrikes against Iran's nuclear installations. They will do so with the help or Israel.
This is CERTAIN.
Ricardus
|
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Feb 13, 2007 21:17:06 GMT 1
ur right ricardus
i mean, they will call in air strikes
and with israel (one of the strongest armies of the world toghether with russia and USA) iran will be bombed but an invasion...
dont think it will go that way
iran will be forced to surrender and then diplomacy will resume
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Feb 14, 2007 2:59:53 GMT 1
Its always on "wars" of US about the domination... They just need to rule the world one way or the other Its always about their interrests ( oil, gold, strategical military place) Only thing i have been wondering is why in the hell the americans go to serve their country...i bet no other country got their citicents to go to this stupid wars...hell no !! In US there are so many peoples living in steets and not haveing enough money to feed themselves...so how in the hell dont these idiots see what kind of country they serve...are they just so stupid ;D ;D ;D ;D ok it is simple, here is the tactic, and it is really simple.. 1) you make sure that the good schools cost a lot of money so normal avarage kids cant come in,, 2) you make sure that social benefits are so low you cant life off it. 3) you make sure that the patriotic feeling and love for own country is high, 4) you create a paranoid enviorment, in wich you make the people believe that the country is surrounded by "enemy forces" .... now you created a perfect enviorment to get new recruites for the army, most of them are have a low education and are in a social shitty spot so the army is the only job they can get + the army promises them a education and more benefits. like any war, it is the rich who start the war , but it is the poor people who fight it and die, whilst the rich people who started the war get more rich and dotn do any of the fighting.. that is how it works toppa it is called conditioning, you are conditioning people in a certain way that they think it is normal to do a certain thing and then you are set to execute whatever you have planned... now u know why the avarage american has a iq of 80 and a avarage european has 100, because american people are not more dumb nor stupid , but they are kept dumb, because the dumb will follow there leaders whilst the smart people will ask questions and will argue with there political leaders where the more dumb person will just do as hes been told.... pretty smart huh! ... |
|
|
|
Post by gespstylo on Feb 14, 2007 13:56:32 GMT 1
lol nice plan lol
i do that with my bros too lol i mean i do such a kind of plan just to keep the under my supervision (no bad plans lol)
is it really true US people have an avarage iq of 80??
bye
gesp stylo
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Feb 14, 2007 15:40:44 GMT 1
lol nice plan lol i do that with my bros too lol i mean i do such a kind of plan just to keep the under my supervision (no bad plans lol) is it really true US people have an avarage iq of 80?? bye gesp stylo yes it is true a good example is Bush he has a iq of 81 or 82, so hes as dumb as a doornob and it shows, if Bush did a IQ test against a teletubbie then he would lose from the teletubbie we dutch are amoungst the most smart people in the world with a avarage iq of 105, we dutch are also the tallest people in the world with a male avarage of 1.80 cm and female of 1.75 cm tall.. and not to mention we are the most rich country in europe and we give the most money to the Eu of all european countries, only sad part is we pay the most but got the least to say.. |
|
