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.

 

Bring the Boys Back Home

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
You know when US was sleeping with the enemy nobody really though about how evil was Saddam. . . When Saddam wanted to take hold of his oil and keep it from the Americans greedy oil barons it became a Thread to the world and the US.

funny how people's memories are so selective.

Iraq is a mess and our soldiers are not wanted there, US is supporting the few that will take hold of Iraq and will sell it out for profits, and the best investors will be occurs US.

Reality hurts but just like US support dictatorship in other countries just until they turn agings US Iraq will not be any better.

US took Saddam when he became an "Enemy" but only to the US in 40 years of reign he killed many but no "Enemy enough to be taken out"

Now another regime is in place and they are doing the same, but that is OK as long as is called "Retribution" and they still friends they will be supported by the US.

Wake up people our soldiers has been used for profits, greed and power.

BTW Agent if you have problem with my spelling well I am spanish, do you have anything against spanish like me.
so now you must bash my spelling.

Or. . . should I make you happy and shut my mouth off after all I have to support Bush he is the president, Right?




posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Don't mind Marg, as you know, in the US there are quite a few people who have something against the fact that the primarily spanish speaking community in the US is growing.

They think all these people are illegal immigrants and "shouldn't be in the US".

They are the people who really forgot the roots of the US of A.

On topic, I totaly agree that 9/11 and subsequently the Afghani and Iraqi war s were designed for 2 purpouses.

1 being the control over oil resources that is destined to be sold to EURAZIAn country's. Control over your potential enemies resources is controll over them.

2 is to ignite the continent sized keg of nitroglyserine that is the Middle East. The longer they keep the US there, the more heated things will get.

Isn't it strange how in the 70's Osama fought the russians with all his muhijadeen forces to kick them out of there? Yet now, he supposedly has this huge al-Quada army ready, supposedly directly attacked the US, yet he lets the US invade not only Iraq, but also occupy Afghanistan, which he fought for so dearly.

The longer this situation goes on, the less sense the official story and reasons for everything make.

Lets hope everyone wakes up on time and sees the truth before we're fighting another world war.

When asked how World War 3 would be fought, Einstein answered:

"I honnestly have no idea exactly, but I'm very sure that WW4 will then be fought with sticks and stones"



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Wake up people our soldiers has been used for profits, greed and power.

BTW Agent if you have problem with my spelling well I am spanish, do you have anything against spanish like me.
so now you must bash my spelling.

Or. . . should I make you happy and shut my mouth off after all I have to support Bush he is the president, Right?


No I really don't have a problem with your ethnicity. Are you implying I'm a racist?



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

No I really don't have a problem with your ethnicity. Are you implying I'm a racist?


Did any where in my post said I did?


Or you are just baiting me into a contest. I guess your post will be ignore in my book I don't need to bait.

I guess when people disagree with the views and opinions of others they need to be bash to sense even if it included bashing the spelling of other members. Right.

I will answer not more to your posts.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Edited for prosperity.

[edit on 12/31/2005 by Agent47]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Thank god because your posts hurt my brain. UMGazz, Souljah, East Coast Kid. Those are people who can debate the war. You can't.

With respect agent, I request you take that comment back.

Marg is simply posting her/his opinion on war, its not your place to say who cant or cannot debate war...



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Play nice. Or don't play. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
As much as it pains me to say it, it's because W's father was an internationalist wimp with no vision!


Maybe the ex-head of the Central Intelligence Agency had a unique insight and understood the futility of forcing a way of life where it hasn't grown organically, and realized we'd be making a bad problem worse.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

I guess when people disagree with the views and opinions of others they need to be bash to sense even if it included bashing the spelling of other members. Right.


No Marge, people have an inherent right to disagree, but when people disagree on false grounds then the problem arises. BTW I think your spelling is great


[edit on 31-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No Marge, people have an inherent right to disagree, but when people disagree on false grounds then the problem arises. BTW I think your spelling is great




Thanks WestPoint, I may disagree with you but I have fun posting back to you, at least you do not insult me.


But also things has gotten very heated lately I guess we should blame it on the new years blues, this year was not very good for our nation and a lot of people including me is worry about what is going to happen next.

Happy new years to all of you.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I'm curious about the whole "activism" vs. "opinion" thing.

The cynic in me says that to some "activism" is expressing an opinion opposing the war (or Bush), wheras expressing an opinion supporting the war (or Bush) somehow doesn't qualify... IE: it's just another emotionally loaded buzzword that means whatever it's weilders want it to mean.

If I am wrong I'd appreciate a clarification.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   


Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.

The word 'activism' is often used synonymously with protest or dissent, but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, simply shopping ethically, rallies and street marches, direct action, or even guerrilla tactics. In the more confrontational cases, an activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on which side of the political fence is making the observation.

Since the 2004 elections and controversy over gay marriage in the United States, "activist" has often been used as a perjorative for those who seek to redress social ills through legal rather than legislative action. Thus many conservative politicians have sought to curb the power of those deemed 'activist judges' whom they claim are acting outside traditional boundaries of judicial review. Many liberals, however, contend that such judicial activism is in a long standing US legal tradition.
en.wikipedia.org...




An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgement or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because it is not possible to prove (or disprove) an opinion.

For example, one may claim that strawberry is a better tasting flavor of ice cream than vanilla. Another might claim that vanilla is a better tasting flavor. (If you disagree with either of these opinions, substitute chocolate, butter pecan, or whichever flavor of ice cream you think tastes better than vanilla, for my use of strawberry.) The original claim is an opinion; it is neither true nor false, it is simply a claim which can neither be proved nor disproved. Now, if one claims that strawberry is a more popular flavor than vanilla, that is no longer an opinion, it is a fact, which can be proved, (or in this case disproved) by showing another fact, that more vanilla ice cream is sold than strawberry. (The presumption being that people buy ice cream in order to consume it, thus, more purchases of vanilla would indicate vanilla is more popular than strawberry since people would not purchase ice cream simply to throw it away.)

The issue of whether strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream is still, however, arbitrary and nonprovable, and thus remains an opinion (as would the opposite opinion that vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry. Note that simply because a particular opinion is more popular still does not make the opposite opinion incorrect or wrong). It would not be permissible for someone else to claim that either opinion on which tastes better is wrong because opinions are still arbitrary and can neither be proved nor disproved. It is permissible to state that one disagrees with the opinion. It is, however permissible to claim that the statement that strawberry is more popular than vanilla is wrong, because it is a claim of a fact, the claim having been contradicted by one or more other facts.

Opinions can either be made up by a person or taken over from another person. Sometimes some people try to force their opinions on others. In general, all people are free to form opinions as they see fit. However, in certain political regimes, it may not be advisable to express certain opinions openly. In economics, philosophy, or other social sciences, analysis based on opinions is referred to as normative analysis (what ought to be), as opposed to positive analysis, which is based on observation (what is). Not all schools of thought find this distinction useful.
en.wikipedia.org...


Here. Everybody have a go at determining whether this thread is activism, or opinion.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
He, he, thanks for the two definition I guess I will say that this thread is just base on opinions, feelings, lots of anger and a lot of passion coming from people that believe what they say, either pro war or anti war.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'd have to agree, I see it as opinion mostly. Although I think by definition, expressing your opinion in certain forums such as a newspaper (not sure about internet discussion boards), rally, etc. in hopes something will change (such as bringing the troops home) could be considered a form of activism. But if internet discussion forums count, I think we are all activists in some way or another.


[edit on 31-12-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
in the US there are quite a few people who have something against the
fact that the primarily spanish speaking community in the US is growing.
They think all these people are illegal immigrants and "shouldn't be in the
US".


I have no problem with LEGAL immigrants to America. No matter their
language, ethnicity, creed, culture ....

What I DO have a problem with is the illegals who flood hospitals so
that LEGAL residents can't get health care (ask Sugarlump about it).

BTW - MARG - your english is great. Don't get discouraged by
anything anyone says. I disagree with your position on the
war, but I'm glad you are able to express it so well.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

BTW - MARG - your english is great. Don't get discouraged by
anything anyone says. I disagree with your position on the
war, but I'm glad you are able to express it so well.


Thanks Fyers and not to worry if the world was a perfect world we will not have need for public discussion boards and it will never be reason to debate for.


I think we would become a happy bored world.


I am glad we can still debate and still get along together.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Lets not forget those who are away, at war, and will not be home for the Holidays.

Here is a little girl who sings an original song for her brother who is serving in Iraq.




[edit on 17-12-2006 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
My only question is, when there is rampant genocide and mass murder like in darfur, do we go back?

When they are threatening us with nuclear weapons and 'the oil weapon', do we go back?

In the time since this thread was first started, we've seen just how much hatred is stored up in iraq, and what forces are at play. There's a genocidal-regressive campaign going on there now with US Troops propping up some sort of government, and providing whatever small measure of security that they can. Things are clearly going to get very bleak and very dark once the US does leave Iraq.

When the british were running the show in iraq, they faced radical religious insurgents, both native iraqis and from around the arab world, and didn't progress in terms of propping up a more democratic and civil society as quick as they wanted. The conservatives started lying about their progress, and shifting their goalposts, and eventually public pressure forced them to leave.
The country descended into chaos, and they were back before long, even worse off than when they first showed up.

www.foreignaffairs.org...

Any reason to think that things will be any different for us?? We've been using the same old playbook that they were using so far, so it probably won't be long before we are back.

Or worse, we never go back, it becomse a radical islamist state, actively works with the nuke building iranians, and manages to nuke an american city or two.

And then we go back.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Another year has rolled by and yet no one has explained how the Iraqi security forces are going to contain little alone defeat the insurgency.
How can anyone expect forces of a lower quality to get a handle on the situation ?

The only sane option left is to partition Iraq along tribal lines and redeploy coalition forces to provide security in the tribal regions. Pulling the troops out of Iraq would be a disaster but staying only continues to tie down coalition forces that could be used elsewhere. Al Qaeda only has to maintain a small presence in Iraq in order to tie down large numbers of coalition forces the other insurgent groups do the rest of job for them.

Even if the goal was/is to fight Islamic extremists you should never attack the enemy at his strongest point.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by xpert11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join