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.

 

Visualize World Peas - a bumpersticker

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I don't think anyone here's in the appeasement business. We never appeased Ho Chi Mihn. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped through both theaters of war during WW2. We killed tons of V.C./NVA. And we were still the first to leave the party - that is, after the French.

As for Saddam. Appeasement was his job. Not ours. Our job was not getting into another quagmire, because as Americans we're supposed to learn form the past. But see - & I don't mean this as an insult - President Bush was an average student, and I'm not even sure if he took any history classes. And since he didn't serve in Vietnam, my guess is that he missed out on that entire lesson. I don't blame him, now, because a lot of people missed that class.

Now, to make matters worse, the Taliban is on the offensive. And the only reason they're on the defensive is because Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq, a country we had already beat in a war nine years earlier. Can someone explain this to me, how can you lose a war that had already been won?




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Yes, we did win the 1991 war with Saddam; we drove him out of Kuwait and didn't go farther. War over. That war caused a lot of gloating over how we had kicked the "VietNam Syndrome," no more fear of using our troops overseas in a war. BTW I remember one of Saddam's reasons for wanting to invade K, slant drilling by K and his belief K was really part of Iraq; but I also remember the feeble attempts by Bush I to justify the war to the American public--the economy, then jobs, then finally ok it's oil, then off they went.
Iraq I involved over a half million troops, and there was no police action by our troops afterward. Fast forward to the failed idealist plan of conquering Iraq with a quarter of the troops; My God, we sent 50,000 Guard after Katrina, and these idiots launched a war with only 100,000 more?! This time we invaded I but are now doing occupation work there. People like to say that, well, we occupied Germany and Japan; but those nations formally surrendered, and I don't believe Saddam formally surrendered--a big difference.
Haven't heard screw the pooch in years, but very apropo today.
Kim, the only thing about this Iraq war that makes sense to me is that we went in for oil (our "way of life", our "national/strategic interest" we had to "defend"), we wanted to do it wthout help, except Great Britain (hence laughable coalition and no UN troops), and we wanted to stay there.
Once again a country has a war, sending troops to their death for control of natural resources. Nothing new. But what is so very tragic is that none of this should have happened, if, as the great nation we say we are, we had a different energy policy.

I've seen billboards decrying spilling used motor oil on the ground, with its environmental concerns, but where are the billboards decrying the spilling of blood for oil?

[edit on 4-6-2006 by desert]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
The KEYWORD here is OIL!

Question.... WHO wins when OIL is PROTECTED? You? Me? Our Kids? Their kids?

Like I said about the Vietnam War... WINNING a WAR is NOT PROFITABLE.... keeping it GOING....... IS!

Just one opinion.

Dave



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
It's "Visualize Whirled Peas."



Pea Monkeys, not just for being in a pod anymore...



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hi Mirthful Me....

It's like someone once told me when they were complaining about how bad their students were spelling..... "You buy 'em books to learn... so what do they do, they EAT the covers!"

Thanks for the correction to the author. If ATS didn't have a NO EDIT RULE.... he could go back and change it.

Thanks for dropping in.

Dave



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dave Rabbit
If ATS didn't have a NO EDIT RULE.... he could go back and change it.


ATS doesn't have a "no edit rule," what ATS does have is an edit time window (about four hours if my feeble simian brain serves me right) after posting. Should a member wish to have a post edited after this window, all they have to do is contact a forum moderator (the list is conveniently located at the top of each page) and edits can be facilitated if warranted.

Hope that clears that up.


Edit Monkeys, not just for "misteaks" anymore...



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Mirthful Me.... thanks.... you are correct. But when you are MY AGE (57) and you wake up in the morning.... look in the mirror... and say "Who The Hell Are You?" 4 hours isn't quite enough.....


Well... now that Springer and I are chums and found out we are HOME BOYS and actually lived only a mile or so from each other ...... I have an INSIDE TRACT on that kind of stuff.

Thanks for stating the window......


Dave




top topics



 
0

log in

join