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.

 

Ultimate Accountability-Those who arent in the war editorial

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I like this editorial because it's time to smash the entire conspiracy of silence so it becomes deafening and obvious. These people have nothing physically invested in it and they never will. Because they are hypocrite cheerleaders. I love how this guy has taken
Jeb Bush and Bill Kristol to task both turned red faced and embarrassed. Why? Folks, the jig can be up if we all EXPOSE it.


The Bill Kristol outburst is classic "WHY SHOULD I??!?! WHY SHOULD I??!"


Don't back down to the bully. Punch them in the face with truth.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Cheney
George
Rumsfeld
Rice
Kristol
Tony Snow

etc

It's all just make believe because they were too scared to go to the frontlines but yet maintain this "Stay the course" bull pucky.




posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Jeb Bush appeared at the Florida booth at the biotechnology meeting in San Franscisco in 2004. I stood across from him, and asked him, "are any of your children going to volunteer for Iraq?". He answered, "no, I don't believe they will. My sons are 26-28, and my daughter, she's in college". Then, he added, "but she might do it, she might do it". Most tellingly, while he spoke he turned red in the face, and when he finished he turned on heels and walked away.

This is silly.

Give the power to go to war to the troops, and we'll be at war with half the world.


The Economist recently analyzed the strategic options in Iraq and concluded that all the options were bad, but the least bad was for the US to stay-the-course. Well, that's just great--they are perfectly willing to see our sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers die or be dismembered, and for our treasury to be raided.

Again, this is silly. If staying in iraq is a better option than leaving, then it'd be stupid to leave iraq.

If leaving iraq now saves the lives of a thousand troops, but then costs thousands more years later, then where was the sense in leaving? The paper doesn't


the question of whether "staying-this-course" is acceptable as the best of bad options. As John Kerry said about Vietnam: "how do ask the last person to die for a mistake?".

If being in iraq at all is a mistake, then we shoudl leave. Leaving, however, would be the mistake. Leaving is what is going to result in a disaster in the middle east, not staying. IF we leave iraq, the people that come to power there aren't going to favour us, they're going to use their oil reserves, at least in part, to fund attacks, if not by themselves then by international terrorist organizations, upon the US.
So when they say 'its the least bad of the bad choices', they're saying 'staying in iraq sucks, but its better than multiple 911s'. The author of that blog is saying 'well if it sucks then we shouldn't be there, even if we have more 911s'.
Nonsense.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
What I struggle to understand in this "Iraq War" is how the US is planning on winning. Will it be when Iraq gives up? There is no way all the factions are going to give-up and admit defeat. It is an unwinnable war. There will be no surrender. It will only be winnable if all the religious groups unite to fight the invaders -- and that is highly unlikely.


Support the troops -- send them home.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
The US 'wins' in iraq as long as its oil reserves aren't being used to fund international terrorist organizations. It doesn't matter how much havoc and death is occuring amoung the iraqis. If they want to stop dying, they can stop killing each other.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join