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.

 

Bush: Troop surge is on no matter what Congress wants

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
I personally dont think Democrats can handle this. Democrats in full control, they will bring back all the troops. Terriorists, etc, etc will regain strogholds in Iraq and Afganistan (the forgotten war) and they will chase us all the way back to our land and attack us here. They will do it...


A big WTF about that.

Afghanistan, ok, I give you that and actualy fully agree, but Iraq? Do you even have a clue?

Terrorists had less chance of getting, even a foothold, let alone a stronghold, in Iraq then a Muslim would have a chance of becoming US President in the next decade.

Terrorist groups don't mix with Totalitarian control freaks like Saddam.




posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR


how many times has the mujahadeen and even al-qaeda stated that if the West leaves the region (including support for Israel) they will call it quits? I'm losing count here.

[edit on 14/1/07 by SteveR]


So our defense strategy should be to hang Israel out to dry, quit looking out for our strategic interests, and then Al Qaeda will leave us alone?
I don't see either of those things realistically happening. I don't really trust Al Qaeda to keep their word either.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Israel can take care of its own.

The problem is "strategic interests" always involves killing people and injuring everybody's quality of life.

You may want to ask yourself who's interests are these? Sure ain't yours or mine.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
If the global economy didn't revolve around oil, it'd be one thing. I'd say it's in everybody's interest that oil remain available and not subject to the whim of tyrants. I'd love it if there were alternative energy sources available today, so that the mid east became irrelevant, but for now we're dependant on that region being stable.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Ok televisionhead,

Oil is never at the whim of the 'tyrants'. Big Oil sells every producer short, and when the nationals of that country demand for fair split of the wealth, suddenly they're made the bad guys. Chavez and Saddam are great examples of this.

There are many tyrants in the world that you've never heard of, and they make the current 'bad guys' look like choir boys. Why do you not even know their names? Because they have no oil and they fully co-operate with everything else.

Try again.

[edit on 14/1/07 by SteveR]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I think one could safely say that Saddam and Hugo would be considered bad guys no matter what. What makes them important(at least Chavez), is that he's a bad guy, who has oil. Don't even pretend to argue that the oil profits are going to be shared with the general populace, by folks like these. Show me one OPEC nation where the rich Sheiks hand out money to the average schmos. I'm supposed to feel bad for some billionaire not making a higher profit, when the world's economy is dependant on that product. I think not.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
I think one could safely say that Saddam and Hugo would be considered bad guys no matter what.


I am left wondering where you get all this stuff. Fox?

The ignorant statement you pose exceeds the scope of this thread, but I can safely say you are sorely lacking in information.


Originally posted by GT100FV
Don't even pretend to argue that the oil profits are going to be shared with the general populace


Venezuela has seen record regeneration. Big Oil kept that country in extreme poverty until Chavez demanded change, and was brave enough to wrestle for it. The U.S. government sponsored the killing of many innocent civilians in order to depose Chavez. No thanks to Pat Robertson. He came back, eventually, and his people vote him in everytime.

I've seen the changes in Venezuela. It is a GOOD thing. Please, no more mainstream news crap.


Originally posted by GT100FV
where the rich Sheiks hand out money to the average schmos.


Sheiks are in the Middle East. Not Venezuela or anywhere else.

Here's a sheik that fits your bill quite well:



I beleive that particular one shares the least oil money with his greatly suppressed populace.

I suppose this is ok with you.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
We as the US, can take dump Iraq. Or we as the US, can them out.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by GT100FV
I think one could safely say that Saddam and Hugo would be considered bad guys no matter what.


I am left wondering where you get all this stuff. Fox?

The ignorant statement you pose exceeds the scope of this thread, but I can safely say you are sorely lacking in information.


Originally posted by GT100FV
Don't even pretend to argue that the oil profits are going to be shared with the general populace


Venezuela has seen record regeneration. Big Oil kept that country in extreme poverty until Chavez demanded change, and was brave enough to wrestle for it. The U.S. government sponsored the killing of many innocent civilians in order to depose Chavez. No thanks to Pat Robertson. He came back, eventually, and his people vote him in everytime.

I've seen the changes in Venezuela. It is a GOOD thing. Please, no more mainstream news crap.


Originally posted by GT100FV
where the rich Sheiks hand out money to the average schmos.


Sheiks are in the Middle East. Not Venezuela or anywhere else.

Here's a sheik that fits your bill quite well:



I beleive that particular one shares the least oil money with his greatly suppressed populace.

I suppose this is ok with you.


In which of my statements did I say it was a good thing that the Sheiks didn't share money with the populace? I said I didn't feel sorry if the Sheik's profit margin wasn't as high as they liked.

You disagree that Saddam and Chavez are bad guys?

I stand corrected- you're right- Venezuela doesn't have Sheiks.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I wonder what it will take before the military in this country stands up and says enough is enough Mr. President, your policies are bad for the country and they are bad for the military and its ability to continue protecting us? Not a coup mind you but a realistic refusal to continue with a bad and bloody policy.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
quote by forestlady


How would you like it if I constantly bombarded this site with statements about Republicans being stupid,l blind, non-compassionate, hate/war mongerers who want to destroy America?


You don't?


[edit on 13-1-2007 by RRconservative]


No, I don't RRC. I invite you to check out all of my posts, I have never called Repubs stupid, blind, etc. That's just not my style. I prefer to use logic in debating, not unimaginative name-callilng. There is a difference between hate-mongering and careful, intelligent debate.

As to not wanting victory in Iraq: Hey, didn't we declare victory in Iraq several years ago when Bush made that Hollywood-planned, macho landing on the aircraft carrier? (That he held up for 24 hrs for his photo op, before the soldiers returning from war could disembark and go home?)

What further victory do you want??

BTW, it's not only Dems that want to get our troops out, there are also alot of Repubs that do, too. Yes, I want to suplport our troops, I want to get them out of harm's way. We couldn't defeat guerillas who were defending their homeland, that was well proved in Vietnam and is sitll studied at the War College. Why are we still in Iraq? It's been uncovered that there are no WMD's and no terrorist links to Iraq - so...what in the hell are we hoping to win there?



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I wonder what it will take before the military in this country stands up and says enough is enough Mr. President, your policies are bad for the country and they are bad for the military and its ability to continue protecting us? Not a coup mind you but a realistic refusal to continue with a bad and bloody policy.


Exactly. Every single one of the Generals told Bush it was insane to put more troops in Iraq. Ya know, that's good enough for me - if the experts who know more about war strategies than anyone else on the planet don't think we should "do the surge thing", then what is Bush basing his strategies on? That's right, it's based on nothing except his own insanity.

Only 11% of the American people support the idea of more troops in Iraq. Gee, I guess that means that there are only 11% of the U.S. that are Republicans? Or maybe it means that the other 89% all have their head up their butts?

Everyone knew 4 years ago that we weren't putting enough troops in Iraq to actually accomplish anything, especially the military, which, oddly enough, were proved right. Gee, who knew? How did that happen, maybe they actually knew what they were talking about? And Bush is not listening to them now because....why?



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I wonder what it will take before the military in this country stands up and says enough is enough Mr. President, your policies are bad for the country and they are bad for the military and its ability to continue protecting us? Not a coup mind you but a realistic refusal to continue with a bad and bloody policy.


Amen, brudda. If the military right now refused to do Bush's bidding, based on the fact that over 80% of the public does NOT want more troops to go to Iraq, I don't see who would hold it against the military. In other words, they could "safely" do that, knowing that they had overwhelming public support. And not just public support, but majority congressional support as well.

And forestlady, you're so right. Bush didn't listen to his commanders then, and ain't listening now. At the onset they recommended at least 400,000, and nope, didn't happen. Now they don't want more troops, and what does Bush do? Sends in more troops. :shk:

You know, I'd really like to feel that our military, from the CIC down, was a team effort, making every move with careful calculation, consultation, consideration, and most importantly, AGREEMENT amongst themselves. But it has become clear that this is now a handful of ideologists with blinders on imposing their will with nothing critical to risk, and no matter what the foundation is telling them.

And this is why this needs to change, so that it will never, and can never, ever happen again. There needs to be a way installed legislatively that puts either their lives or the lives of their family at risk in the crossfire- meaning, of course, that whatever their endeavor, they are willing to risk their lives over it before they take the lives of others. In this regard civilization has regressed. May the days of commanders leading their troops into battle return, dear God.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I am not an advocate of a military coup by any stretch of the imagination, having the military step into politics would set a very dangerous precedent especially considering the strong right wing/fundamentalist presence in it (a planned presence by those elements which bears watching). However, it doesn't have to. Turkey has had an interesting political relationship with its military for almost a century now. generally speaking it stays out of politics but at the same time if it feels that the civilian leadership is taking a dangerous tack for the state, it steps in and applies the brakes as it were, takes over the government, allows for a period of cool down, calls new elections and afterwards returns to the barracks. This has happened several times in the last 80 years and it is one of the reasons that the Turkish government has not been taken over by extremists, the military commitment to a republican form a government. As it stands right now we really need some form of balance. Bush is damned and determined to continue on his course, regardless of what the congress or the people want. This should be obviously clear by now and is probably going to provoke a constiuitional crisis some time over the next year or so. Where is a true patriot like General Smedley Butler today?

Does anyone doubt anymore that Gore or Kerry would have made a far better and responsible president than this one?



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I doubt it highly.

Was that a political stab?

These men would have done better than all 3:

Gene Amondson (Alaska)
Michael Peroutka (Maryland)
David Cobb (California)
Michael Badnarik (Texas)
Leonard Peltier (Kansas)
Charles Jay (Indiana)

These men and women would have done better than all above:

A.J. Albritton (American Republican Party-Mississippi)
Sterling Allan (Providential Party-Utah)
Lawson M. Bone (I-Tennessee)
Kenneth M. Bonnell (I-Mississippi)
Robert A. Boyle II (I-Maryland)
Harry Braun (I-Arizona)
Theodis "Ted" Brown Sr. (I-Missouri)
Fred Cook (I-Georgia)
Eric J. Davis (Michigan)
Robert DiGiulio (Children's Party-Vermont)
Bob Dorn (Washington)
Lonnie D. Frank (I-California)
Ronald "John Galt Jr." Gascon (I-Pensylvania)
Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Pennsylvania)
Michael Halpin (I-New York)
Larry D. Hines (I-Texas)
Georgia Hough (I-Georgia)
Keith Judd (I-Massachusetts)
Darren E. Karr (Party X-Oregon)
Samuel Keegan (I-Rhode Island)
John Joseph Kennedy (I-Georgia)
Joseph Martyniuk Jr. (I-Illinois)
David Mevis (I-Mississippi)
Muadin (E-Democratic Party-Massachusetts)
Jeffrey Peters (We The People Party-New Hampshire)
Andrew M. Rotramel (I-Texas)
Joseph "Average Joe" Schriner (I-Ohio)
Dennis P. Slatton (United America Party-North Carolina)
Dan Snow (I-Texas)
Brian B. Springfield (I-Virginia)
Diane Templin (American Party-California)
Lawrence Rey Topham (I-Utah)
Lemuel Tucker (I-Michigan)
Da Vid (Light Party-California)
Tom Wells (Family Values Party-Florida)
A.J. Wildman (I-Virginia)



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

And this is why this needs to change, so that it will never, and can never, ever happen again. There needs to be a way installed legislatively that puts either their lives or the lives of their family at risk in the crossfire- meaning, of course, that whatever their endeavor, they are willing to risk their lives over it before they take the lives of others. In this regard civilization has regressed. May the days of commanders leading their troops into battle return, dear God.


Right on, TA, I have a proposal. How about whenever Congress thinks they need to go to war, that we make a law saying that Congress's own children must be the first ones to go off to war.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Right on, TA, I have a proposal. How about whenever Congress thinks they need to go to war, that we make a law saying that Congress's own children must be the first ones to go off to war.


I like it


Wherever their kids are, no matter in what employ or life situation, if they can hold a rifle and be trained, and are under 50, then by God send em. That oughtta cure this problem, like REAL quick.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
You are correct. The only legit way forward is impeachment and removal from office. He is incomprehensibly going forward with his own agenda even when the will of the American people is obvious.

He is only going to weaken the power of future Presidents with his cowboy attitude. This man would be a dictator if he could. I have no doubt of that.

He is arrogant and sadly criminally incompetent to run this country and especially a war.

American troops won the war, it is over. American troops cannot win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world with ammunition.

American troops cannot win or defeat the civil strife that exists in Iraq without being exactly as brutal as Saddam Hussein was. Is Bush willing to go this far to save his own legacy? Will he continue to allow Americans to die to save his own face? You Betcha.

Our only hope is that the Democrats will stop him as the American public wishes them to do. Will they?

I doubt it, as the continued failures in Iraq will only increase the Democrats chances in 2008 to win more seats and the Presidency itself. All they will do is huff and puff until then. Again, it is a sad state of affairs.

Most American people put on blinders and blindly follow their chosen political party and vote the same.

Sean Hannity is a great example of an educated man who has sold out his own soul by becoming a fan boy of Bush even when he knows Bush is wrong. Most of us are sadly similar.

We think of politics like we do Football games. People do not consider the lives of our poor troops that have died in Iraq for a horrible blunder on the part of Bush.

Thank god for the 8 year term limits. That law is probably the only law that will keep America from becoming a dictatorship or worse.

If you are faithful you should pray for this man to be gone as quickly as possible.

The real sad thing is that he is not evil he is just really stupid and is unable to change. He does believe what he is doing is in the best interests of our country he is just to ignorant and arrogant to admit to himself that he is wrong has been wrong and is about to be wrong yet again.

I could go on and on...



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
So you don't think it could be a serious political liability for a Dem in '08, to have voted to cut off funding to the troops? It's true that most are not happy about what's going on in Iraq, but.....most still support the troops. If you vote to cut off funding for them to be able to do their job, that hurts the troops, not Bush, and that's why it wouldn't be a very saavy political manuever.


It's not about supporting the troops. It's about not giving Bush any more money to bring in yet more troops to an already ridiculous war. Why are we still there? We know there are no WMD's, Saddam's dead, we've installed leaders, we know there are no terrorist ties with Iraq and we have no way of knowing what it is we're looking for as far as victory.Maybe you can explain to me why we are fighting this war?

As far as painting people with broad brush strokes, that is something that I don't do, whatever other faults I may have, it's something I really don't like, never have. I don't think you understand the difference between bashing and stating opinion/telling the truth based on facts. Besides that, it's not like there are no Repubs bashing Dems whenever they get a chance.

You should also know that only 11% of U.S. citizens agree with a troop surge, hardly a majority. Get your facts straight, you might have more credibility that way.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
As for the title....No duh!!!

The decider has decided to continue turning the world upsidedown looking in all corners for the bad guys, who BTW, bear no distinctive signs or clothing or color to differentiate the good from the bad. That alone is quite the task for our troops. As he sheds a tear, he plows right on ahead with his agenda to send more troops to die for "HIS CAUSE"- A cause amidst all the lies we have no idea what it could be.

The man is dangerous and should be impeached IMMEDIATEDLY if not SOONER.


Now he wants to know who doesnt agree with him?

Just what would he do with the information? Open up the camps once and for all and turn on the gas???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join