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.

 

Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Just an aside, 'endless war' means we're loosing.

Like every empire before it the US is trying desperately to subjugate ever more countries, drawing ever more resources in denial that conquering the world is somehow working.


Oh yea we really "subjugated" Iraq LOL. And we are doing what in Afghanistan? Using the most backward country in the world as a springboard to world domination. LOL




posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: abe froman

It's not even an option, republican candidates are talking about war on day 1.

Start more wars, economy keeps going for a few more years, the rich get more, and back home unemployment seems pretty low because everyone is out on deployment. What would they do with the troops if they brought them back?

Now if only they could get women added to the draft that would solve all the unemployment issues.


You do know it was a Democratic President that vowed to bring all the troops home in the first place , right ? Just say yes . And then he changed his mind...STOP BLAMING REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING...
Ridiculous

Added : It was a Republican President that set the timeline that the following Democratic President did not uphold...


edit on 9-2-2016 by Gothmog because: added



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman




Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ?


Because they're too busy talking about:

"Walls"

and

"Being annointed by god"

and

"Beyonce"

and

"Women's reproductive parts"

and

"Pyramids and pharoahs"

and

"Brain-damaged Iowans"

and

......



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
What happened in Iraq due to our hurry to leave.....abominable. The result of the modern trained educated in foreign policy spiked with guilt and indoctrinated in the "history" of colonialism and imperialism when in fact the old model was certainly called for in that case. The MacArthur model. Instead we turn the country over to "politicals" untested and untried that had only Sadam as a model and were otherwise still concerned with protecting tribal and sectarian positions.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
What happened in Iraq due to our hurry to leave.....abominable. The result of the modern trained educated in foreign policy spiked with guilt and indoctrinated in the "history" of colonialism and imperialism when in fact the old model was certainly called for in that case. The MacArthur model. Instead we turn the country over to "politicals" untested and untried that had only Sadam as a model and were otherwise still concerned with protecting tribal and sectarian positions.


Almost exactly what I posted on another thread. And just think , all this now due to politics then. What next ?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: abe froman




Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ?


Because they're too busy talking about:

"Walls"

and

"Being annointed by god"

and

"Beyonce"

and

"Women's reproductive parts"

and

"Pyramids and pharoahs"

and

"Brain-damaged Iowans"

and

......


Uhh,,, I believe the heat should be on Obama,,,did he not change his mind about bringing all the troops home ?
Perhaps the next President..



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   


Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ?


Because regardless of the rhetoric spewed that gives us the illusion of 'choice' in elections, all potential candidates lead to the same end.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Logarock
What happened in Iraq due to our hurry to leave.....abominable. The result of the modern trained educated in foreign policy spiked with guilt and indoctrinated in the "history" of colonialism and imperialism when in fact the old model was certainly called for in that case. The MacArthur model. Instead we turn the country over to "politicals" untested and untried that had only Sadam as a model and were otherwise still concerned with protecting tribal and sectarian positions.


Almost exactly what I posted on another thread. And just think , all this now due to politics then. What next ?


When did Japan and Germany become what Iraq is? Thats what I am talking about. You are talking about the non-sense historical interpretations of modern times. Take the east. We and others were invited in to drill oil. It were the local tribal heads running the country, making the oil game a thing mostly for themselves. The communist did exactly what they accuse the americans and western powers of doing. The current leaders of Iran do exactly what they accuse the old powers of doing.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The main reason is we do not have Americans coming home every week in body bags like we did before. Americans do not mind war as long it can be fought with few to no American deaths. ISIS will be done by the time the next person takes office. However likely civil war will follow in Iraq and Syria will begin a new phase of bloody war as Assads mass slaughter of Syrians is likely to create tons of new radical groups dedicated to his destruction. And with his fall the next phase will begin between the radical and moderates.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Without an enemy and war, there is no need to increase the world's most powerful military and keep much cash flowing to the MIC. ISIS and terrorism is a replacement for the USSR. There will be no end any time soon. Plus, it's patriot to want to kill people who are different.

Waiting for someone to say they can see ISIS from their front door. Maybe Halliburton in Dubai?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

Bring home the troops? It seems that most of the Republican candidates want to deploy more of them to fight ISIS at the minimum.

Bernie DOES want to end the wars though. FYI.
edit on 9-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So he's a socialist without the hang-ups with the military/industrial complex?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Bernie is literally about fixing everything wrong with this country. It's amazing that people can still talk down on him all the time... Well it's mostly because they haven't looked at how Bernie stands on the issues.

Bernie Sanders on the Issues: War and Peace


1. Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.
2. Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.
3. Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.
4. Expand our global influence by promoting fair trade, addressing global climate change, providing humanitarian relief and economic assistance, defending the rule of law, and promoting human rights.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Oh yea we really "subjugated" Iraq LOL.

I know. No country is ever completely subjugated. Some people will always yearn to be free.


And we are doing what in Afghanistan? Using the most backward country in the world as a springboard to world domination. LOL

Nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan. Occupation is easy. The reason empires keep trying is because of its geo strategic location.

Geography doesn't change.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

Since Obama is still president, has he said anything about bringing home the troops?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


What happened in Iraq due to our hurry to leave…..abominable.

Destroying a countries infrastructure, power, sanitation, communication and transport, destroying the military and government is one phase of a multiphase operation. "Leaving" (we never left) and letting them starve and die of disease is the next phase. After some period of them dying and killing each other off, the expected result of modern day sieges is the survivors clamor for peace at any price, accepting their new overlords, indeed embellishing them.

It doesn't work, murdering millions by aggressive war only results in a seething resentment against ongoing efforts to control the countries population and resources.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: abe froman

Since Obama is still president, has he said anything about bringing home the troops?


He brought home some and most people were upset and want more troops in action now.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: abe froman

Since Obama is still president, has he said anything about bringing home the troops?


He brought home some and most people were upset and want more troops in action now.


We used to actually fight wars until we won and beat the enemy.

Now troop deployment has an end date?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
There will be no end, by design.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

The answer to your question is "because each and every candidate is invested in the military industrial complex, and therefore a war profiteer to one degree or another."





top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join