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.

 

Kerry: "Don't behave in 19th-Century fashion by invading another country on trumped-up pretext."

page: 3
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

deadcalm



Isn't that what the U.S. did in Iraq?
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Don't forget about Afghanistan. Same old tricks. They sold it to the American people as ridding the country of the Taliban, which was a total lie. They wanted access to OIL, via a pipeline through Afghanistan.


And OPIUM. along with the vast COPPER mines. (chinese ran and guarded by the US), and also the LITHIUM mines.




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


And where is this "pipeline"? It hasn't even started construction yet and it is doubtful it ever will, given that when the West withdraws this year, the current President will likely be out on his arse and the Taliban will have a lot of sway again.

As for the mines mentioned, this is a natural development given the Afghan's need the money and China needs the minerals. It is said China isn't under the "international banker cabal/NWO" influence and yet they seem to be the one's benefiting from Afghanistan, not the West... It then begs the question if such a thing even exists outside the head of the tin-foil hatters?
edit on 2/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I wonder who writes his scripts?????, sure has a great sense of Humour...............can't wait for next episode.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Isn't this the same idiot that came out recently to the entire world and said "Although I have ZERO proof, the Syrian government is attacking and killing Syrians with Chemical Weapons therefore we have to go and kill Syrians so that Syrians don't kill other Syrians"???????

With ZERO proof - he said words along those lines with a straight face.

Or have I just landed in another dimension?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Putin finally got tired of being pushed around by the great Hypocrite, the US.
They have been encircling Russia with countries getting into NATO and this is the final straw for Putin.

Here with the CIA, I am sure, and NGO’S causing disruption, as they did in Egypt, Libya, and North Africa, instigating this virtual coup on the legally elected Ukraine government, has Russia is responding in kind.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Kerry needs to look in the mirror. Seriously.

I, for one, have not forgotten our own act of aggression that was based on trumped up pretext. Perhaps Putin should be using terms such as "liberating Ukraine" or "bringing democracy to the Ukrainian people" to make it more palatable for our politicians here in the US.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

stumason
reply to post by deadcalm
 

As for the mines mentioned, this is a natural development given the Afghan's need the money and China needs the minerals. It is said China isn't under the "international banker cabal/NWO" influence and yet they seem to be the one's benefiting from Afghanistan, not the West... It then begs the question if such a thing even exists outside the head of the tin-foil hatters?
edit on 2/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)


Afghanistan isn't receiving much benefit from the profits of the Chinese are they?

And more to the point. America is being bankrupted partly due to this war's expenses. And yet there are no American mines there to offset the cost in any way. yet US troops are being used to protect China's interests?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

jhn7537
Once again, John Kerry was not behind invading Iraq and Afghanistan it was Bush and his cronies... If we go far enough back in time, then I'm sure we can call EVERY leader in the world a hypocrite at some point.. Obama and Kerry have not invaded any countries off false reports, or have I missed some war that they've waged that I for some reason missed?


Ok - once again, Kerry was one of the people that voted yes on the Iraq invasion. Even as he ran against Kommandant Bush in 2004 he reiterated that he stood by his yes vote - only saying he would have run the war differently. And Obama - while he was originally against the Iraq war before he became a senator - has continued the current wars with no real withdrawal timeline, and instead of "invading" a sovereign nation - he just sends in drones to kill wedding and funeral parties...occasionally hitting some terrorists. And he does also claim victory for killing OBL, which was done by an "invasion" of a sovereign country.
All of them would be equally guilty of complete hypocrisy in making demands that Russia doesn't invade! At least Russia can honestly claim that Russian citizens who live there are in a life threatening situation. And what country wouldn't do the same to protect their citizens?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Hahaha.. Absolutely hilarious



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

la2
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


Exactly, for the first time in a very long time, US and UK can't take the moral high ground, we are just as bad as everyone else, and now we face a country that can defend itself.


Russians watched and learned from what the USA and UK did



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Is Russia invading Ukraine or are they just reinforcing their bases there?
Well anywho This is an interesting audio clip that I ran across.
I don't know if it will enlighten or add more confusion though.

www.kingworldnews.com...

you have to hunt for the link for the audio it's on the left or the page.


sorry link not working at moment
edit on 2-3-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

cass1dy09
America clarifies things for the Russian invaders

edit on 2-3-2014 by cass1dy09 because: (no reason given)


...or water.
...or you want to build a pipeline there.
...or if it doesn't join the global banking system.
...or they are next to Russia or China, so you can build bases and/or a "missile defense system" in strategic positions close to their borders. (And if they don't like that and react accordingly, turn on your propaganda machine and call them evil warmongers!)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Off the top of my head, countries that have been invaded or covertly toppled in some way on bs pretexts (by the US):
Vietnam
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Afghanistan (guess this depends on your view of 911)
Haiti
Nicaragua
Chile
Honduras
Panama
Mexico (Mexican / American war)
Cuba (failed)
Somalia (failed)
Syria (failing)
Colombia
Venezuela (ongoing)

After a couple days of studying what's going on over in Ukraine, I've come to the conclusion that Germany (with some encouragement from certain neocon groups in the US) instigated the coup. Furthermore, the actual elected government (whether they suck or not) is now hold up in eastern Ukraine, and they have asked for Russia to come protect them from the aggressive stance of the usurping forces. Western countries involved pretend that the usurping forces have always been the government there and are asking for help. According to the treaty oft mentioned, the signatories should actually be helping the ousted elected government, but we all know that has nothing to do with anything.

No one should fool themselves that there are any good sides here. What we have are the elites playing their power games again at the expense of regular folks.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ... stop spreading lies. Iraq had WMDs and were going to attack us. We couldn't wait for that mushroom cloud.

Logic doesn't help you here!!!!!! Hahaha



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


You can live by "would haves" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they were not responsible for it, so calling them hypocrites based off something you believe would have happened doesn't sit well with me. When someone does something, judge away, but calling someone a hypocrite based off speculative claims is not okay to me... A lot of politicians can say they would handle wars differently, but until the time comes when they are put in that situation to make decisions where american soldiers will eventually die, they could live up to the claims or they could fold under the pressure of the situation. Kerry may say he would have handled the war differently, but who knows, maybe in the shoes that Bush was in he may have choice a different course of action and same goes for Obama... until they are forced to cross that path, no one knows (not even them) how they will react, but we do know how Bush reacted...



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 

Would haves?
Kerry did vote yes to invade Iraq.
Obama does send "collateral damage heavy" drone strikes (witout proper authorization) wherever he wants. The US is openly assassinating on foreign soil, previous administrations would try to keep that practice a little more under wraps - but are guilty as well.
All I am saying is that they are all guilty of hypocrisy based on what they have done or voted in favor of, not speculating on who is "more guilty".



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
All this episode does is highlight how badly the Bush regime and it's lies have damaged US credibility.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

jhn7537
Once again, John Kerry was not behind invading Iraq and Afghanistan it was Bush and his cronies... If we go far enough back in time, then I'm sure we can call EVERY leader in the world a hypocrite at some point.. Obama and Kerry have not invaded any countries off false reports, or have I missed some war that they've waged that I for some reason missed?


Your not getting it. And you not getting it proves that your understanding of the roles of political figures is about zero.

Kerry does not represent HIMSELF he represents AMERICA. What don't you get about that? Whether or not he personally flew a bomber into Iraq or not DOESN'T MATTER. America invaded Iraq under false pretense, after lying to the world and lying to the American people. The whole point of the system we have is that ITS NOT ABOUT THE PERSON, IT'S ABOUT THE NATION. He is supposed to be acting on behalf of America, not just on behalf of his own record or ideas. When he speaks he is the voice for the NATION, not just HIM the MAN.

I can't believe I have to even explain this to you, it's really, really sad.

This isn't supposed to be the middle ages where the King WAS the country. And a new king means what happened before didn't matter. No. We have presidents and officials who are there to represent America, not their own past or wants.

##snipped##
edit on Sun Mar 2 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

DISRAELI
Bring back Kissinger.
He' was the one who understood how to negotiate compromises with people who had weapons in hand and interests which needed protecting.
Striking moral attitudes in public is not the way to do it.


Oh god...

If you are supposed to be on the side of reason, maybe I should change sides....

Kissinger..... just wow. Seriously. ATS not a bastion of truth and reason, it's a bastion or angry people lashing out at anyone possible, and supporting anyone who attacks their common enemy in a similar fashion. That's not reason and truth, that's called cowardly following others because you can't do what needs to be done yourself.

Few people here seem to understand what integrity and actually standing for IDEALS means. Your just standing for or against people. Standing for or against ideals is what really matters. You're just playing middle-school politics.

Kissinger..... where's a picard face palm when you need one....
edit on 2-3-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


James, I respectively disagree with you. We have a 2 party system here and when one party is in control they have the power to dictate action. You suggest that a politician speaks on behalf of the country and not just themselves, to a certain degree I will agree with you that they are the "voice" you speak of, but I also believe Bush, Obama, Kerry, and other politicians are not my voice, nor the voice of the people, knowing that this country hasn't been "by the people for the people" for a very long time. So you can talk down to me all you want in your semi-abusive tone as you try to get this message knocked into my thick skull, but I just don't agree with you. This isn't a right or wrong thing here, you have your opinion and I have mine, I'm not telling you to think my way or that I'm 100% right, I just feel the way I do and I'm sharing it on this thread. I'm sorry you disagree with me so vehemently.
edit on 2-3-2014 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join