It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:50 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Thanks for joining in. I wouldn't have nearly as much fun without you.

Is the fact that the source for OP is obviously biased toward one end of the American political spectrum of concern? No, of course not, but thanks for pointing that out silly 'liberals.'
Sorry, silly old argument. The NDP report is what is being discussed, not what paper is printing it. I think it's called "shooting the messenger." Focus on the report.

Unsurprising that the usual "amen corner" tactics imposed by a static group of right-wingers here on ATS, the OP is immediately followed up by a "and if anyone disagrees or points out the obvious flaws in facts and logic, why, they're just liberal 'unAmericans' who mindlessly support President Barack Obama." Followed by a chorus of "we told you so."
That's a change, anyway. Name calling and straw man arguments are a refreshing break. Nobody said what you're claiming. And if you think there are flaws in facts and logic in the report, have at it, point them out.

Does anyone think for a moment that a report generated by the Department of Defense (the source of the "National Defense Panel")
Sorry, go back to your research. The National Defense Panel is a creature of Congress. The DoD is part of the executive branch.

Or didn't anyone realize that this report (which as has been pointed out, addresses sequestration cuts not Obama foreign or defense policies per se) is created by the Defense Department, headed by, wait for it, the Secretary of Defense, who reports to, wait for it, President Obama.

For the fourth or fifth time, didn't anyone realize that this is not a DoD report, not created by the DoD, and the Secretary of Defense has nothing to do with it?

Anyone starting to get the real picture?
Not from your post, sorry.

Here's some basic information freely available on the internet.

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 101

Come on.

You can also get information on the Army's Main Battle Tank on the Internet, too. But that's not what's being discussed.

edit on 2-8-2014 by charles1952 because: bracket problem

edit on 2-8-2014 by charles1952 because: even more bracket problems

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:52 AM

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Progressives have one chilling belief... They believe the Constitution is a living document that should be edited at will...

So then it's the Conservatives who believe the inconvenient parts of the Constitution should just be ignored?

I don't think I fit either of those categories.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:53 AM

originally posted by: muse7
Conservatives would love to change the constitution to get rid of those evil ANCHOR BABIES!!

Really do not think so.... But I do not see you denying my statement so that is still true, right? Anyone with a half of brain would understand...

The Anchor Baby Myth is the erroneous belief held by many Americans that if an alien has a baby in the US, the alien has the right to remain in the US legally. But haven’t you ever wondered why there are over ten million illegal immigrants if all they had to do to
fix their status was have a baby here? Maybe it’s not so simple.

A child born in the US is a US citizen, but the immigration benefits to the parents are extremely limited. After the alien mother (or father) has been present for no less than ten years, the alien may apply for Cancellation of Removal (aka “Cancellation”) if she can
prove ten years of good moral character and that deporting her would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her US citizen child. This is an unusual form of relief as there is an annual cap of 4000 on the number of illegal immigrants who can be granted
Cancellation, and for the past several years the government has not reached that cap.

Who ever might be pushing this is an extremely small group, on the other hand when I say ALL progressives that tends to mean a rather large number of them, don't you think?

edit on 2-8-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:56 AM

originally posted by: Erongaricuaro
So then it's the Conservatives who believe the inconvenient parts of the Constitution should just be ignored?

What part is that? Please explain... BTW rewriting is a lot different than disagreeing. One person, or small group may disagree with some aspect of it, but when you rewrite it that mean ALL are now subject to it... This is a subtle difference that progressive seem to not comprehend...

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:57 AM

I am sure that all of these B.S and accusations against the POTUS comes from the AIPAC spy agents ordered by their Israeli masters since Mr. Obama showing kind of resistance to their voodoo crap.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:05 AM
a reply to: Erongaricuaro

Dear Erongaricuaro,

I've heard of you, and only good things, so I'm going to leave behind the frustration I'm having with other posters and start afresh.

My prediction was based on rejecting the possibility that Obama supporters would arrive and say, "That's a pretty scary report. Let's look at it's key findings and see if they're right, and try to figure out what to do about it if they are."

In a sense, I was saying "OK, everybody, this is a serious subject, don't dismiss it without even looking at the report. Don't dismiss it because there's a pen name involved. And please, don't just say the report is wrong. That's too superficial a response."

The first guy up walks into an uppercut. I wanted a serious discussion, but he says it's all bogus because they didn't include a link to the report. Instead of de-railing it. I was trying to point out how to not de-rail it, but my advice was ignored.

So what category do you claim for jumping into the fray without having read the source material? Way to take the high road!
What do you mean "jumping into the fray?" No one had posted, there was no argument. As I said above, all I was doing was saying "This is a serious issue, let's treat it that way."

Sure stabilized the heck out of the opium trade in Afghanistan. A little chunk of that enterprise into the defense budget, official or otherwise, and that should secure us a spot on top of the heap.[/quote] Shall I agree with Obama that Afghanistan was the "Good war," and Iraq was a mistake? My point with that was that the US is fallible but I am unaware of any other country which commits it's military to protecting people and trying to preserve peace and freedom. The US doesn't do it perfectly, but who else even tries?

With respect,

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:06 AM
a reply to: paxnatus

I see Nothing Good In War!

Most of the US wars have nothing to do with Freedom! What about everybody's else's Freedom stripped away so you can have that So-Called Freedom you so claim you have? Anyone can just walk down the street anywhere on said Planet when they Choose. Only They have more of a risk factor either way since They do not have a Choice when the bombs are falling every other night, foods tight, and luckie to even have clean water!

And now that it seems to be at the Back Door here in the US; Fear sets in and a Cry for More War! You People Buy into it every time. Yet most live on Credit alone; have to go to work in the most worst weather possible just to keep said house, car, and Risk Lives doing it! Explain Freedom Now? Explain how no one wants the US Dollar, that our Word means nothing, And Learned never to ask for help since the cost is Very High!

That was not what Freedom means! It meant Anyone Could no matter Who they Are, have the Same Rights as everybody else, Period! Has nothing to do with going to the Mall, playing football, or kicking it at Home. No we just group people by any means so as long as you can Have that Freedom! Actually, its called Control, Slavery and Taxes even after Death!

Now at this time, it would seem War Is Pointless! We are in a state of complete Need for Oil, Fresh Water and Land to feed The People. Yet in order to do this Children must die, starve, and have nothing of what Freedom actually means in Their Lives so we can have Our Freedom.

I bet some of them are Rolling in their Graves wondering what happened to it all. They Fought for Freedom when it Exsisted back then. Seems the whole Idea of Freedom was nothing more then a scam to Bring people to America back in the day. To get away from Any Gov bent on Control and Power over All Peoples no matter Where they came from.

Now all I see is how Lazy, Cold, and Crule the US has become to the rest of the World. Not All, some Actually Have Values, Morals, and really do want to help a Lending Hand to someone in need. As for the rest who have to have it all! Take everything, leave nothing, give nothing.

A Change Is Coming!


posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: charles1952

The first guy up walks into an uppercut. I wanted a serious discussion, but he says it's all bogus because they didn't include a link to the report. Instead of de-railing it. I was trying to point out how to not de-rail it, but my advice was ignored.

Again, all I said was how can you write an article about a report and then not link the report! Never did I say it was bogus because the lack of a link, just a question of how you can right an article about something and not source it!

While I am sure a quick google search can find it, I don't seem to see a source for the claims the article is making. Seems like if you want to quote a report, your should link that report somewhere on the page.
I looked high and low, maybe I just missed it if someone else can find it on there.
My original post, no where do I say that what is being said is bogus because of the lack of a source.
I waited until I found the source and read the report to do that.
I predict a "well that is what you were implying" response from you....
edit on ndSat, 02 Aug 2014 02:24:00 -0500America/Chicago820140080 by Sremmos80 because: removed vid, didn't need it

edit on ndSat, 02 Aug 2014 02:46:58 -0500America/Chicago820145880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:33 AM

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Erongaricuaro
So then it's the Conservatives who believe the inconvenient parts of the Constitution should just be ignored?
What part is that? Please explain... BTW rewriting is a lot different than disagreeing. One person, or small group may disagree with some aspect of it, but when you rewrite it that mean ALL are now subject to it... This is a subtle difference that progressive seem to not comprehend...

Perhaps you would like to explain "rewriting the Constitution"? Such as with Constitutional Amendments? I believe the body of the Constitution has remained unchanged for quite awhile, though I have lived outside the country for almost a decade now, and maybe I have missed something??

The US has a nice, concise and not at all lengthy Constitution, compared to that of many other countries. Of course that is not the whole of US Federal Law, which opens another huge can of worms even though it is all based on notions elaborated on from the original Constitution. However that is all quite lengthy and subject to much interpretation. Perhaps it is where you consider the 'rewrite' takes place, as well the example in my own inquiry about ignoring the inconvenient parts.

As per Wiki to simplify things somewhat:

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

I really cannot place much stock or confidence in anyone's blanket indictment to such broad categorizations as the 'progressives' or 'conservatives' or some other ambiguous entity to place all blame. That, to me, is just ludicrous. I really can't take that seriously. My own inquiry was intended as a somewhat derisive jape, in all seriousness.

edit on 2-8-2014 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:47 AM
I see the inaccuracy of the OP was already pointed out. Oh well, I was late to the party anyway.

It's not going to be the death of the US to trim fat from the budget, get a grip. The military is so bloated that it's beyond bloated, hands down. We don't need quite so many enlisted people when we're not in an active declared war (drugs & cave-dwellers don't count in the grand scheme) We don't need to dump money in it for the sake of having shiny toys. Replace what breaks, yes. Buy/build for the sake of having it, no. Using our money and goods in other countries to usurp the legitimate governments? Has to stop. That's neither democracy nor honorable. The fat's got to go.

This country's budget is akin to a very badly managed household budget. Getting on track and getting rid of non-necessity expenses where possible is a step in the right direction, for everyday folks & governments alike.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:56 AM
a reply to: Nyiah

Hmmm.... The inaccuracy of the OP. Let me see, there were a couple of bits of text taken from the Daily Caller. Are you debating the accuracy of the Opening Poster? Do you think that the Daily Caller reported the study incorrectly? Or do you think the study is wrong?

I know you disagree with the study, but why? What in the study is wrong? Sure, it gets a different conclusion than you like, but how can you be sure you're right, and they're wrong?

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:59 AM
Troubling Yet Sustaining Facts (for those who actually read articles rather than merely pontificating however respectfully):

OP Article Link: "Joseph Miller" misrepresents, well, just about anything discussed in his article (which actually, by the by IS the source and point of discussion in this thread), to wit:

The findings of the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) prepared by the Secretary of Defense as mandated by Congress.

From the website of the "United States Institute for Peace" (which according to OP's article collaborated with the National Defense Panel) Source

The National Defense Panel delivered its review of the Department of Defense 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to Congress today. The Congressionally mandated report, “Ensuring a Strong Defense for the Future,” was written at the request of the Department of Defense.

(Just for S&G here's a link to the actual report under discussion: Ensuring a Strong Defnese for the Future).

And here's a direct quote from the Executive Summary of that document:

Given that reality, the defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States.

Hmmm ... nope, nothing about Obama ... lots about Congress and the Sequestration ... but let's go on.

While the "National Defense Panel" is composed of members appointed by the House and Senate, the Co-Chairs of the group are appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ... and their report, as noted above, was requested by DOD.

So, it's an awfully fine hair to split to claim that the NDP and its report (as grossly misrepresented by the character in the OP from "The Daily Caller") are not produced, directed and approved by DOD.

So, to review:

OP's article is an opinion piece written by a pseudonym ("Joseph Miller") published by a notably right-wing biased organization spreading propaganda (The Daily Caller) regarding the National Defense Panel's (members appointed by Congress, Chaired by DOD appointees) publication "Ensuring a Strong Defense for the Future" (requested by Secretary Hagel) to be presented to Congress ... which criticizes the SEQUESTRATION cuts to the "Defense" budget and claims nothing about President Obama, his policies whether domestic or foreign.

The only negative comments about Obama are in the opinion hit-piece quoted from The Daily Caller.

Let's at least be honest before we start bandying about meaningless "strawmen" here:

"How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" LOL
edit on 3Sat, 02 Aug 2014 03:30:19 -050014p032014866 by Gryphon66 because: Added links to documents

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:08 AM
a reply to: paxnatus

Must agree with this report ...

There is much greater reason, for military to "up" it's budget now, rather than downsizing it. With all the wars, the US has created in the past decade, and millions of people it has murdered. There is a huge reason, for them to be afraid of the consequences.

But most of all, the US needs a greater base of intelligent citizens, who don't go about and elect a clueless moron like George Bush for president. Or rally around a black guy, who gives the public the finger on his election speech. Yeah, yeah ... call it a coincidence. He was just rubbing his nose, with his middle finger ... uh huh.

The reality of the situation is, that what is needed is not some idiot like GB, who goes and declares a war on an adjective. But who actually has some intellect, and intelligence and defines the goals. Beyond merely "I wannabe a war president".

If you do not comprehend, that you need to be "objective" in your goals. And that people like GB, who recklessly declares a war, without a goal or means. And declares a war on an "adjective". People like that, need to be charged for the crimes they are responsible for. It's a war crime, to target individuals in a war. If you don't understand, that your policies are controversial ... that your frame of reference is not the same for Russians and non-Russians. If you don't understand, that you can't target people for being "Taliban" as that is genocide. Anymore than the nazis could target people, because they were Jews.

If you don't understand that ... then you better arm yourself to the teeth, and keep yourself paranoid to the bring of madness.

Because you're gonna need it ...

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:10 AM
a reply to: paxnatus

No. Obama stays. I'm thinking 3rd term.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:19 AM
I find the fundamental paradoxes inherent in the positions by typical right-wingers/neocons fascinating.

For example, in regard to the nominal "topic" of this discussion ... aside from the predictable, misplaced bile directed at President Obama ... consider this:

On one hand, as a citizenry we should arm ourselves to the teeth with military grade weaponry vis a vis the Second Amendment in order to fight off the Federal Military that will come to take our Bibles, guns and secret stashes of Sarah Palin porn ...


We should not allow any cuts to be made to the Department of War Defense's budget but should in fact increase spending levels beyond any neocon dream sponsored by Bush, Bush or Reagan!

So, defend ourselves against a military that we want to empower with bigger budgets.

Nope, nothing schizophrenic about that ... no sirree.

Could it be that unlimited gun rights as well as unlimited "Defense" spending are merely two talking points in the insane constellation of fractious nonsense that passes as the platform of the modern Right Wing?

With conscience and rationality,

G66 et al.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:39 AM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Except that Obama has not attempted to do anything about this, even if he didn't cause it. This furthers the observations of how derelict and incompetent he is. He is better suited academically to run a diaper cleaning service, not run a country, or even a third world country like he has been trying to remake America into.

So based on his negative actions on everything, and lack of action on the really serious things, he is a complete disaster of a human being.
This makes your response irrelevant and a logical fallacy.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:01 AM

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Still does not detract from the fact that Obama is a foreign policy disaster walking.

As an outsider, I have to say, do you think Bush's foreign policy was any better?

As I see it, they would not need military requirements for 2 wars if they have GOOD foreign policy.
I cannot see any improvment with either the republicans or democrats. (outsiders point of view).

The US foreign policy is very aggressive, maybe why they need such a massive military.

You guys discuss who had the better foreign policy, all us foreigners see is the same old interfering in other countries politics, aggressive posturing, corruption and lies. No matter who is potus. Self proclaimed police of the world, yet none of us foreigners ever agreed or wanted that. But I guess you guys are paying for this mess, my conscience is clear on that regard.
edit on 2-8-2014 by pennydrops because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:11 AM
Who is the real threat to American citizens? The industrial Military Complex including NSA or the rest of the world?

With what US is doing in the rest of the world right now the hate against US will increase and people will hate Us citizens since they are not standing up to their government making sure it is doing the right things and that they have the real facts and not just the propaganda lies on Main Stream Media.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: bjarneorn

Ah yes the Bush defence is alive and well. When nothing else is left in the defense of Mr. Obama's job performance, always and without fail refer to the president of 6 years ago. That definitely adds credibility to poor performance.

I could make a fortune If I manufactured a liberal keyboard, the answer to everything liberal.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 09:38 AM
here are actual numbers and not Obama-hater numbers....AGAIN, the facts don't line up with what the right-wing says...i'm shocked!!... shocked, I tell you!!!

and here's what's planned for military spending outlays agreed to by congress, as well as the president....

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in