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.

 

Conservatives don’t believe in Global warming, Liberals don’t believe in fighting jihadists

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The two political parties, according to this formula, are both putting their heads in the sand regarding two major issues that can possibly bring world wide destruction….though from different perspectives.

The liberals, Obama as their chief agent, will stand by and watch religious savages grow and possibly acquire nuclear weapons of mass destruction (and they’ll certainly use them) because their misplaced “liberalism” doesn’t want to face reality of such an evil as Islamic radical jihadism. They therefore basically have their heads in the sand, led by clueless Obama.

On the other hand in lieu of clear scientific evidence the conservatives will stand by and watch maybe world-wide destruction through nature (if we don’t deal with Global warming). Their conservative dogma, ignorance, and Koch money prevents them from doing the right thing.

This is an interesting irony. And unfortunately the age old human fragility of dogmatic belief and the lack of ability to be open-minded may be the end, or near end of us either way.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I'm pretty sure Karma will bring this entire farce of a civilization into stone age. I mean look at the social and environmental problems humanity caused. Earth won't last longer until drastic changes happens and no I don't believe the New Age idea of spreading love will solve anything.
edit on 3/26/2016 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Sorry, I don't agree with the "Liberals don't believe in fighting jihadists" part. Neither political side is genuinely trying to stop these Wahhabi jihadists because neither is going after their financiers & the regimes that actually back them.

Repub & Dem presidential administrations support Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the rest of the GCC. And the Western MIC makes lucrative arms deals with them every year. And Western markets gladly encourage investment and trade between their nations and our own. Not to mention, it's kind of hard to claim we're against them when we have military bases in and around their countries specifically to prop up their governments.

Oh yeah, and let's not get into how Western govts use those Wahhabi jihadist groups as proxy soldiers. Some glaring examples of this are the jihadist proxy wars in Afghanistan (against Russia), in the Balkans War, in Chechnya, in Libya, and now in Syria. If you look at the timeline, this includes times when both Repubs and Dems have had political power in Congress and as Presidents. In fact, the "terrorists" in Mali that the French attacked a few years ago were our "freedom fighters" in Libya when we took down Qaddafi.

So no, it's not that us libs do or don't believe in fighting them. We just know the "fight" against them is a farce. And we also know they're being used as pawns in the geo-political fights between Iran & the GCC, Israel and Iran, and the West & Russia. Not to mention, we also understand that blowing up civilians in their countries only creates more backlash & more enemies. In other words, the current way of "fighting" them clearly isn't working (plus I believe that killing civilians is equally wrong whether it's civilians in the West or civilians in the Middle East).
edit on 26-3-2016 by enlightenedservant because: typos everywhere. my fault for typing too fast w/o checking my post



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Liberals don't wanna fight terrorism? Is Obama a liberal becaue he's been fighting the same fight since Bush left.

People are sick of the war on terrorism because the only results its produced is regime changes that satisfy agendas and the creation of even more terrorism who thrives in the areas of regime change.

People are sick of spending over $14 million an hour on the conflicts in the Middle East where most of that money goes into the hands of contractors.

There needs to be a new outlook to combat terrorism because clearly the road we're on now is lost.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Sorry to burst your little stereotyping pigeon-hole mold but...

I'm a liberal who doesn't buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory and who believes strongly that we need to wipe the planet clean of jihadists.


No soup for you.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
i am a liberal and i am all for our anti jihadi drone war.
edit on 26-3-2016 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
This canadian commie lol, is all for killing terrorist, but understands that you can't call out all muslims or christians when some retarded person thinks that blowing up # is helping there cause.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969



This canadian commie lol


I saw what you did there.

*wink wink nudge nudge*




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Global warming? Just do whatever needs to be done. To try to gain a consensus is futile.

As for jihadists?

If we don't fight them now, we'll be fighting them in our cities and towns eventually.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



If we don't fight them now, we'll be fighting them in our cities and towns eventually.


That is what was said about Iraq too, and look how successful that was.

I wouldn't deny that ISIS is a threat, or that they claim to be Islamic 'soldiers' I just don't want another ground war that leads to trillions in debt, funny how that is always ignored here, and our men and woman and their civilians dead.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If we get into another ground war, we should actually fight to win next time instead of the PC bull#### that passes for victory.

I figure that too many will just find it easier to surrender than fight anyways.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

OHHH so the 10+ year war that was fought was just PC tripe, got it!

Let me guess, turn it into sand and let god figure it out?

Screw the people that had nothing to do with it and by no choice of their own live in that region.



I figure that too many will just find it easier to surrender than fight anyways.


You can figure that all you want, but I don't want to bank on it and send more kids to go die for yet another war in the ME that does nothing but reset the cycle. All while costing our nation trillions more, but hey who cares about that if we are killing people right!
edit on thSat, 26 Mar 2016 16:36:23 -0500America/Chicago320162380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

nope.

nope.

and nope.

But so good of you to make baseless assumptions

(clap)

How about actually fighting to win instead of fighting just enough to perpetuate and sap our strength, money, and soldiers?

Too many pussies in DC to actually fight to win and maybe shorten the war by a few decades.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I’m sorry but you’re just denying clear reality.

Sure not ALL liberals are against taking the fight to jihadists and not ALL conservatives are against GW but most of them are.

The vast majority of liberals are against, of course not ALL, are with Obama and his flimsy, phony war against these barbarians as they destroy innocents he could have prevented.


The question of phony war I actually agree with you to a great extent



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Willtell

Sorry to burst your little stereotyping pigeon-hole mold but...

I'm a liberal who doesn't buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory and who believes strongly that we need to wipe the planet clean of jihadists.


No soup for you.



Sure it’s a generalization. But it’s reasonable and correct.

Just as you can say most liberals are for Obamacare and practically all conservatives are against it.

That’s a legitimate generalization that is backed up by reality and statistics

Certainly there are exceptions



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So just generic statements of fighting to win.

Last I checked we bombed and shot the bad guys last time, what do we need to do differently?

More bombs and shooting?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The world beat Nazi Germany in 6 years.

We can't seem to beat ISIS for a decade.

Sounds like there's an issue.

Why don't you try to reason with them. maybe give them a hug.

That'll fix it.

The candy-asses running the governments now, want a perpetual war. That way they can tax more, spend more, and restrict OUR freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorists.

They are fighting this war the same way they fought "the war on drugs".

And we all know how successful that has been.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Nazi's were a uniformed entity, not some extremist group using guerilla warfare.
Also yes it was the world that fought them, with the US just coming at the end to kinda clean it all up. If the nations in that area want to fight them, by all means do it. Just tired of the US being the spearhead in the ME, we front the bill and get our kids killed just to go back 5 years later.



Why don't you try to reason with them. maybe give them a hug. That'll fix it.

So we are even on baseless assumptions. I never said that was the answer.



The candy-asses running the governments now, want a perpetual war. That way they can tax more, spend more, and restrict OUR freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorists.


Again, just more generic statements that don't really say anything.
Tell me how the war needs to be fought to win it then, we bombed and killed the last bad guys we fought over there. All it accomplished is killing a bunch of people and the rise of ISIS.
edit on thSat, 26 Mar 2016 17:07:00 -0500America/Chicago320160080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Why bother?

You wouldn't agree with me unless my solutions came with green tea and white flags.

Who are you?

John Kerry looking for ideas?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Exactly, you want to say things and ask other people to make their point but when you are asked for the same you duck away.
Prove me wrong though, tell me how they need to fight to win. We did the bombing and shooting before, but you called it PC tripe, lets here the real way to do it.

I am pro done and airstrikes, so now you are one up on the baseless assumptions that you wanted to ridicule me on earlier.
If another country wants to lead a ground force in then by all means give it a go. The US has already tried for decades, but if someone else wants to try that method then we can support them. It will save us the $ and cost us less of our service members lives. The VA is already under enough fire, but lets add more to their list of people they can't care for because we spend more on sending them there then taking care of them after.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join