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.

 

Graham: Military leaders ‘need to be fired’ if they don’t support my plan for war in Iraq

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.


To your point, Hillary can't be trusted.

"Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test
Burned by Iraq in 2008, but still a strong voice for military action"
swampland.time.com...




posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.


But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.


Yea Yea I know... I don't approve of Obama's pseudo-war either... I've said over and over on these forums that I wish we'd just leave the Middle East alone completely. I'm not going to defend Obama bombing them if that is what you are trying to suggest here or anything. But at least we aren't balls to the wall in full war mode, like I think we will be with a Republican President.


What I'm pointing out is I don't think there will be a difference. Remember, Hillary was ALL for the OIF/OEF wars in the beginning, as were most of the Democrats. They voted for them before they "changed their minds" after a bit. If it serves their purposes, they will just be as balls to the wall in a ME conflict.


That's not true. The media and the bush administration wrapped themselves in the flag and decreed that anyone who wasn't with them on war was against the U.S. If you spoke out against them you were challenged with "Why do you hate America". They burnt Dixie chicks CDs because they spoke against war. Don't give me that Fox News crap about the democrats supported the war, THEY HAD NO CHOICE!

If you are too young to have remembered how this all went down, I apologize but what I said is exactly how they pushed us right into a illegal war for profit.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

She's a politician, of COURSE she can't be trusted.
edit on 16-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.


That would depend where the tide shifts then, doesn't it?


Well Hillary is going to have to bank on some crazy event happening that she can take advantage of then (I'm not going to call false flag because I think such premises are stupid).


Meh, it all depends on how the media sells it. They could drum up support quite quickly.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.


But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.


Yea Yea I know... I don't approve of Obama's pseudo-war either... I've said over and over on these forums that I wish we'd just leave the Middle East alone completely. I'm not going to defend Obama bombing them if that is what you are trying to suggest here or anything. But at least we aren't balls to the wall in full war mode, like I think we will be with a Republican President.


What I'm pointing out is I don't think there will be a difference. Remember, Hillary was ALL for the OIF/OEF wars in the beginning, as were most of the Democrats. They voted for them before they "changed their minds" after a bit. If it serves their purposes, they will just be as balls to the wall in a ME conflict.


That's not true. The media and the bush administration wrapped themselves in the flag and decreed that anyone who wasn't with them on war was against the U.S. If you spoke out against them you were challenged with "Why do you hate America". They burnt Dixie chicks CDs because they spoke against war. Don't give me that Fox News crap about the democrats supported the war, THEY HAD NO CHOICE!

If you are too young to have remembered how this all went down, I apologize but what I said is exactly how they pushed us right into a illegal war for profit.


Considering I was in uniform at the time and a mid level officer, I remembered it quite clearly and not only did she vote for it, she made several impassioned speeches for it. They all did--Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary, Biden, Pelosi.




edit on 16-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


They had no choice? In what way? Are you suggesting that they compromised their deeply held "principles" to go along with an "illegal and unjust war" just to get re-elected?
edit on 16-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

My point in this thread has always been that the PEOPLE didn't want another war regardless of what the politicians (from either party) wanted. I think you've been misreading me or something.

Though I think it is more likely that a Republican would be more likely to stick to his guns of being pro-war despite public opinion. Though, you never know. Hilary could be the same way, but watching her opinions change with the tide, I think that is doubtful.


That would depend where the tide shifts then, doesn't it?


Well Hillary is going to have to bank on some crazy event happening that she can take advantage of then (I'm not going to call false flag because I think such premises are stupid).


Meh, it all depends on how the media sells it. They could drum up support quite quickly.


Again, remember the situation in Syria. Assad was accused of using chemical weapons on his people and we STILL didn't want to go intervene. All I'm saying is that the media's opinion is irrelevant if the people don't want another war.

It's really going to come down to how much the President wants to piss off the populace.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Here is what I see is the problem:

Wars are fought on 2 fronts, the first front is the one we all hear about, the actual fighting. Armies fighting each other, along with the killing. There is no clean sanitary war, nor is there any way to avoid it. The other front is the one where it would require the population to say yes they support it. As it means that those are the people who have to support such, in the way of being willing to send love ones to fight in the war, making the materials and other goods.

The problem is that no one wants to go back into another conflict, the people do not support such, the number of people who do not want to see their child, brother, father, mother, sister, uncle or aunt to go marching off to some foreign land to die for reasons that are never clear. It is a losing strategy.

When the USA went into Afganistan, there was support among the majority of the country, as we saw that the Taliban was hiding and supporting Osama, that is what we were led to believe and supported. That support started to waiver and slow down if not reverse when the country went into Iraq. Now many believe it was a mistake and we should never have gone in there before, as it was apparent we went in for all of the wrong reasons and the people were lied to about those reasons. And like all who would bang the war drums, beat their chests, there is never a plan for what happens after the fighting is over and the clean up begins. The United States cannot afford it, and something tells me that the world is not going to tolerate the USA going into Iraq again. We go in, but can’t go into Syria, and what do you think the ISIS fighters are going to do? They will retreat across the border into Syria and sit there, or worse, take control over that country, or even stop fighting the current ruler in Syria, make peace and wait, and when the USA leaves, start this all over again.

The only people who can stop ISIS will have to be those people in the region this time.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
While I agree that the president should take some advice from (subject matter experts), aka military Generals, I feel that for the most part the Generals are going to advocate for war MOST of the time because it means more work for them, budget increases, "job security" for their troops, etc. So, taking what the Generals have to say about war and military intervention should not be used to make all decisions. It should be up to Congress.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: charolais
While I agree that the president should take some advice from (subject matter experts), aka military Generals, I feel that for the most part the Generals are going to advocate for war MOST of the time because it means more work for them, budget increases, "job security" for their troops, etc. So, taking what the Generals have to say about war and military intervention should not be used to make all decisions. It should be up to Congress.


Certainly it should be up to congress--that is how our republic was set up for civil control of the military with the power of war in no single person or branch's hands. It is up to the congress and POTUS to decide to use the military but one should listen to the military as to the feasibility of action. The "why" and "when" should be left up to the elected representatives, but the "how" should certainly consider the advice of those who know what they are doing.

However, the "Dr. Strangelove" caricature of military war mongers is overplayed an it really does not work that way.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Could you repair your youtube links....please



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: NavyDoc

Could you repair your youtube links....please


Okay. A little advice on how to do so? I cut and pasted the links.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Make sure you only cut and paste the string of letters and numbers after the v= in the url. That's all you need if you use the yvid tag.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Make sure you only cut and paste the string of letters and numbers after the v= in the url. That's all you need if you use the yvid tag.


That was easy. Thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I will suggest that Mr Graham and 9,999 of his supporters pick up a rifle and head on over to the Mid East. I bet with his leadership they will have the threat shutdown in a day or two.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I think politicians should be reminded that the US Military took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Lindsey Graham is one of the biggest puppets in D.C. He doesn't stand a chance in hell of being nominated though, let alone elected.

The fact that he believes that he does just shows how clueless, delusional and out of touch with the herds he is. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
That's just good strategy...if you get rid of everyone who disagrees with you, you can espouse a 100% support rate...what nice numbers!
edit on 16-6-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: olaru12

I think politicians should be reminded that the US Military took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.



Does that oath really mean anything? I think the professional military as it now stands have more of an allegiance to those that write their pay checks than to the American people.

I don't trust any authority figures, political, military, financial or bureaucratic. Their record of lying to the American people speaks for itself. 911 changed everything!
edit on 16-6-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
He is right up there with Hilary as far as likelihood I would ever vote for him.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Amazing how history just keeps on repeating, isn't it??

Every single generation keeps having to learn the same lesson, over and over...and over...and over again.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join