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.

 

New Pentagon Paper: War on Terror an Unmitigated Disaster

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
yawn. Sorry, but he says the president has always had the right to use pre-emptive force. You are somehow hearing what you wish to hear. If you are assuming, by him referring to a test - global, or whatever - before the application of force, he means having solid PROOF and CONSENSUS. Are you unclear on the meaning of that? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the wisdom in that approach?

Yeah, eck, go get a cup of coffee. I'll wait. Yeah, I'm unclear on the PROOF and CONSENSUS thing, especially the CONSENSUS part.

Does that mean if we don't have 100% consensus, we don't go?

And even though I can't see the wisdom in the global test, I do see the folly in it.



where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?


I don't have time to avalanche you with my sources.




Translation: Does not have any.




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   
.
At this point I no longer worry about America. I only think about where I live.

Getting concerned about America is like throwing good money after bad.

America is a fraud and a lie, why sweat it?
.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


And you don't have to avalanche me. I'll be satisified with one verifiable snowflake of proof that the White House supressed it.


If it has been suppressed by the Whitehouse, do you really think the source for proof are still avalible?

Did you ever find another quote for Kerry yet? I mean, one that he actually said?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by jsobecky


And you don't have to avalanche me. I'll be satisified with one verifiable snowflake of proof that the White House supressed it.


If it has been suppressed by the Whitehouse, do you really think the source for proof are still avalible?

Did you ever find another quote for Kerry yet? I mean, one that he actually said?


Well, ECK says that there is an avalanche of proof. I'm asking for it. If he can't furnish it, it shows that he can't back it up. Or, as dgtempe put it

Translation: Does not have any.
Or are you admitting, for ECK, that what he implied was nothing more than speculation?

Are you saying that the one I furnished was not actually said by Kerry?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are you saying that the one I furnished was not actually said by Kerry?


I am saying that you misinterpreted what the quote you said, ment. It did not mean that we would ask the UN for permission, and no where in the quote from Kerry does it say this. You putting words in Kerry's mouth that you wanted to hear.

As far as ECK is concerned, I do not have to defend him, as he is quite capable of defending hisself, as has been show. What I was saying is, if the Whitehouse is suppressing the sources of info, how will they be presented? If they are no linger avalible, they cant be presented. It doesnt mean they havent been avalible in the past.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are you saying that the one I furnished was not actually said by Kerry?

I am saying that you misinterpreted what the quote you said, ment. It did not mean that we would ask the UN for permission, and no where in the quote from Kerry does it say this. You putting words in Kerry's mouth that you wanted to hear.

Well maybe you can offer another explanation for what Kerry meant. Can you?


As far as ECK is concerned, I do not have to defend him, as he is quite capable of defending hisself, as has been show. What I was saying is, if the Whitehouse is suppressing the sources of info, how will they be presented? If they are no linger avalible, they cant be presented. It doesnt mean they havent been avalible in the past.

If they were available in the past, you can be sure that the documents are archived by someone, somewhere. Even if it was said on TV, there would be a tape.

As far as defending ECK, well he does make some statements that are nothing more than hyped-up rhetoric, which I occasionally call him on.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Well maybe you can offer another explanation for what Kerry meant. Can you?



Um..... I already did in my first reply to your quote of John Kerry. Go back and read it. You cant quote someone and then turn around and say they said something els, then expect to be taken seriously. Thats exactly what you did. He never said anything about asking permission from anyone. You conservatives act like us Libs want to give up our place in the global world. Its not true. Now if you want to have a quote, try quoteing Bush when he said that a Dictatorship in America would be easier for him.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Originally posted by jsobecky

Well maybe you can offer another explanation for what Kerry meant. Can you?


Um..... I already did in my first reply to your quote of John Kerry. Go back and read it.


You mean this?

What it DOES imply is that he would rather have a world majority of support before we go poppin off governments agian.

Imply? Why is your implication any more valid than mine? And why didn't either of you answer my question:

Does that mean if we don't have 100% consensus, we don't go?



You cant quote someone and then turn around and say they said something els, then expect to be taken seriously. Thats exactly what you did.

I interpreted his statement. Or, as you would say, implied. My interpretation is shared by a large portion of the populace.

Now if you want to have a quote, try quoteing Bush when he said that a Dictatorship in America would be easier for him.

Changing the subject won't work.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
jsobecky

All that and you still cant show me where Kerry said specifically that he wants to ask permission.
Imagine that. Just cant grasp the fact that a Liberal candidate wants to keep America great instead of some subservant state that bows to the will of the UN. Liberals want a strong America. Quite tryng to make more false calims. We have already proved to you that Liberals hateing America is a lie. No it seems we must go through this on where Liberals stand on American backbone
Cant you guys (Neocons) get it through your head that you are not the only party that wants and believes in a strong America? Frankly, your claims about Kerry are false, as are most of the conservative opinions of Liberals. I can tell you truthfully that Kerry never uttered those words you accused him of saying, yet when it comes to me quoteing something that Bush ACTUALLY said, all you can say is dont change the subject. Well, Kerry never said what you tried to claim, so that is over. Now I can change the subject.

Tell me Bush never said what I accused him of. You cant, because he did. Now, If I said Bush wants to turn America into a Dictatorial government so he didnt need to ask permission from anyone, You might have a beef with my claim. But I didnt say that because that is not what was said. Hey, incase you didnt catch it, I just supplied you with another reason your claims are false.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
jsobecky

I can tell you truthfully that Kerry never uttered those words you accused him of saying, yet when it comes to me quoteing something that Bush ACTUALLY said, all you can say is dont change the subject. Well, Kerry never said what you tried to claim, so that is over. Now I can change the subject.

You gotta get a grip and try to stay on topic. You cannot sit there and deny that Kerry spoke those words on September 30, 2004:

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

We have got to agree that he said those very words. If you deny that he said them, then you have lost all touch with reality and the debate is over.

I realize that you are trying to defend Kerry, a man who had lots of plans but no details. That is why he lost the election. You are working at a disadvantage, and if you just want to concede that he can't be defended, then OK, we'll put that behind us. But you have to face reality with what he said in front of millions of Americans.

And please don't start with the liberals vs conservatives who loves America the most BS.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Jsobecky

You're the ultimate troll now. Better check your terms and conditions here


Just because you're on Bush's side does not guarantee you permanent residence and free you from bans and warns


Stop your trolling



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

You gotta get a grip and try to stay on topic. You cannot sit there and deny that Kerry spoke those words on September 30, 2004:

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

We have got to agree that he said those very words. If you deny that he said them, then you have lost all touch with reality and the debate is over.

Um... Yeah, thats what he said. You, however tried to say that Kerry also said he wanted to have to ask the UN's permission to do anything.. That is what I was refuting. If you maintain this chain of thought, it is you who have lost touch with reality.


I realize that you are trying to defend Kerry, a man who had lots of plans but no details. That is why he lost the election. You are working at a disadvantage, and if you just want to concede that he can't be defended, then OK, we'll put that behind us. But you have to face reality with what he said in front of millions of Americans.

Already tryin to get out of it huh? Well, I guess if you dont have the stomach to accept that Kerry never said what you accuse him of, there is no use continuing, as you will continue to claim he said something he didnt.


And please don't start with the liberals vs conservatives who loves America the most BS.

Did I hit a nerve?
Your not still sore over that are ya



So, lets see if in your next reply, you can either agree that you were wrong when you claimed Kerry said he wanted to have the OK of the UN to do anything, or if you will continue to embrace falicy in all its ignorant forms.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Well, I guess no rebuttle means I was right
Oh, I know, there was no rebuttle because I bore you
And here I though you might be one conservative that had a real understanding of how things actually are



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are you saying that the one I furnished was not actually said by Kerry?



Jsobecky, you provided a quote that was supposed to defend your position. It did not.
What you claimed he said (from the quote you provided, no less), he did not. You are projecting and paraphrasing. That is quite different from actual words spoken. I hope that clears it up for you.

If you feel you can find an actual quote, to thereby enlighten us, please share it. Otherwise, you should just admit that you were wrong on that. Oh wait! Bushies never admit faults!
What was I thinking....?



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Why every time people find themselves in a corner is better to used insults than to admit defeat?

I so typical, Our president has proved to be the worst president in the history of this country the facts are every where but people will still follow him blindly.

He can come out and said he is Satan himself but still people will worship him.

Amazing.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
People are brainwashed through government psy/ops and compliant media and educational systems. For the first time in my life I understand the scripture that states 'God will send upon them a strong delusion.' This site highlights how strongly delusions can grip those who live in fear. Bush folks, in particular, are the most fearful lot I've ever seen. They hide that with their silly chest-thumping.

It's so ridiculously simple, it's laughable. People should NEVER hate or fear people(s) because they are told to. Unfortunately, many are so simple-minded and controlled that they've got to have their boogyman of the hour to hurl all their personal hatreds at. Or, maybe they were just closet racists, until BushCo. opened that door and made it ok.
Pathetic.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bush folks, in particular, are the most fearful lot I've ever seen. They hide that with their silly chest-thumping.

It's so ridiculously simple, it's laughable. People should NEVER hate or fear people(s) because they are told to. Unfortunately, many are so simple-minded and controlled that they've got to have their boogyman of the hour to hurl all their personal hatreds at.


I know exactly what you mean ECK. My mom once tried to knock some sense into me by saying "The people (of course she mean Bin Laden and group) who attacked us on 9/11 are crazy!" Of course I simply ignored her. IMO the people who are crazy are the people in our government. They are the one's responsible for all this mess.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
People are brainwashed through government psy/ops and compliant media and educational systems. For the first time in my life I understand the scripture that states 'God will send upon them a strong delusion.' This site highlights how strongly delusions can grip those who live in fear. Bush folks, in particular, are the most fearful lot I've ever seen. They hide that with their silly chest-thumping.

It's so ridiculously simple, it's laughable. People should NEVER hate or fear people(s) because they are told to. Unfortunately, many are so simple-minded and controlled that they've got to have their boogyman of the hour to hurl all their personal hatreds at. Or, maybe they were just closet racists, until BushCo. opened that door and made it ok.
Pathetic.


ECK, I don't know you other than the words you post. It is amazing, though, when I read the above quotes, how uncanny it is. I mean, it sounds as though you described your very self.

NO, I am not trolling, I am simply responding to what I have read.

The only real test as to whether the "war on terror" will have been, or not been, a success will be when one can take a historical look at the years in which it was fought. Many today are in to instant gratification, if results are not achieved in a short time, they become disillusioned. This war will not be over soon.

I stated at the onset, hmmm, let's see, I think it was 9/11/01, that the enemy of the free world made a tactical error in attacking the U.S. homeland. What we have today is a result of that error. As you, and all else can plainly see, the U.S. has been, and will likely be, in the middle east militarily for quite some time. My bet is for the rest of my lifetime, and I am 45 years old.

I know, I know, the conspiracy thing, the neo's were behind 9/11, or the Israeli's, no plane hit the pentagon, no passengers were lost that day, grieving families were staged to cover the deed of the evil imperialists, etc. I guess if you believe these things, the argument is moot.

One thing is clear, to curl up by the fire, sipping cognac, smug in the belief that all is well, would be a very dangerous thing to do in the current world climate. Delusional at best.

Terror has been around for millenia. I suspect it will not go away. Possibly one might be openminded enough to realize that the war in which we are currently engaged is improperly named. Maybe we should have called it the war for Mideast Oil. That is in fact what is being decided here. Will the Mullahs control the Iraqi flow, or will the U.S.?

Now Eck, as of yet I have not posed a question for you, but shall do so.
Are you prepared, and do you think your fellow countrymen are prepared, to give up your reliance on that oil?



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors


The only real test as to whether the "war on terror" will have been, or not been, a success will be when one can take a historical look at the years in which it was fought. Many today are in to instant gratification, if results are not achieved in a short time, they become disillusioned. This war will not be over soon.


You make some intresting points SaM. There is just one problem I have with this. If Bush would have stayed his course and focused on Bil #head, I believe that Al puka would be eliminated by now. Bush switched focus in the middle of one conflict (the war on terror) to another conflict (Iraq 2) before the first one was even complete. If the resources put towards Iraq had been mobilized to hunt down Al puka, I dont think we would be in the situation we are in now.



Now Eck, as of yet I have not posed a question for you, but shall do so.
Are you prepared, and do you think your fellow countrymen are prepared, to give up your reliance on that oil?


I know you didnt pose this question to me, but since I am one of the fellow countrymen, I feel I can answer. If we started producing hydrogen fuel cell cars, I will be first in line to by one. As it stands now, for my next car, I am looking at either the new Scion coupe (42 MPG) , or a toyota prius. Yes, I will give up my dependance on oil in a heart beat, just as soon as other options are made avalible.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   


I know you didnt pose this question to me, but since I am one of the fellow countrymen, I feel I can answer. If we started producing hydrogen fuel cell cars, I will be first in line to by one. As it stands now, for my next car, I am looking at either the new Scion coupe (42 MPG) , or a toyota prius. Yes, I will give up my dependance on oil in a heart beat, just as soon as other options are made avalible.


Hey, this would be the topic of another thread for sure, but giving up ones dependence on oil is serious business. To do so as an individual would be near impossible at this juncture, and to do so as a nation, the U.S. that is, would be total and unequivocal disaster.

Face it, our whole nation, our economy, our way of life depends upon OIL, much of which comes from the mideast......yeah, the U.S. will be there militarily for a long, long time.

Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene, Lubricants, Synthetics, Plastics, Asphalt, Home Heating, Trucking, Shipping, Farming, Automobiles, Lawn Tractors and Weed Whackers, man, the list goes on, and on, and on........




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join