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 Equates War in Iraq Today With U.S. War for Independence

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Imagine this :
Because there are terorists in America and they threaten the world, a coalition of arab states executes a friendly invasion of USA. Understand friendly invasion ?
They start shooting and bombing everywhere for the terrorists, some 600000 american civilians die, but the arabs say "we are sorry" and that ends the problem
Can you imagine that ?
If some John Doe angry at the arabs, starts blowing them up with dynamite or attacking them however he can, nobody will call him a terrorist, he will be called a hero, a freedom fighter for the USA

I hope this post makes you understand what is the creation process of the "terrorists"




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
One day this war will end, ultimately history will decide who was fighting for independence and who had other motives. This war in Iraq being compared to the U.S. war for independence seems on the surface insulting to those early patriots who sacrificed themselves so the United States of America could be free of tyranny. Ultimately to provide the American people with freedom and democracy, and a constitution for which this Bush administration has shown little regard, and has exploited that very document, and its principles to fit an agenda only the mindless followers could fully support. Centuries past the American war for independence perhaps because of growing apathy, we may have ultimately traded one Tyrant for another.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
UM_GAZZ, people just think that Bush is tyrannical. We are being set up for someone much, much worse if we aren't careful.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think the Bush family for a long time has had to much intrest in oil (thats how they have made there $$$ over the decades).
They are in the beds with the saudi arabia sheiks etc...
even though they, "saudi arabia" teach their children hate
(the saudi school books preach anti-infidel studies).

I think we need a "Mad" president, to stir things up, ten fold , compared to this clip (hear what the sheik say's at the end.. www.youtube.com...


we need to put the fear in 'em..


[edit on 5-7-2007 by RUFFREADY]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY


I think we need a "Mad" president, to stir things up, ten fold , compared to this clip (hear what the sheik say's at the end.. www.youtube.com...


we need to put the fear in 'em..


[edit on 5-7-2007 by RUFFREADY]


Oh, we are definitely going to need a firebrand to pull America out of the hole it's currently in. We need a guy who everyone says, "Wow, that guy's a real maniac. But, you know what. He's right!!"



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I wonder if he knows what the definition of is is though.


I canvisualize Jon Stewart doing an impression:

"Well, you see, is is kind of like if, except with an s." Shaking hands up and down as if projecting actual wisdom.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Everyone is being witness to the first full scale private army being fine tuned for a coming homeland security matter. Rummy and company have been thinking out of the box with neo-con think tanks since the early 90's. on having a non- government private army. I use to think this war was about oil..and now I'm not saying it isn't because that would be just dumb to think. But..After reading "Blackwater" I have a much darker view of this war. I think we are seeing our military changing right before our eyes and not one peep of this is being covered on the news. We send soldiers to Iraq to train and they come back and are giving a position in "Blackwater". Rearming and going back to Iraq in a security roll that is turning more and more into a military roll. I was shocked to read that since congress had made some admendments that called for "private" contractors that reside within the U.S. to be held to the same standards as U.S. soldiers
The folks at Blackwater moved there administrations and bonding address outside the U.S. so their soldiers wouldn't fall under these codes. People we are looking at the biggest scandal with private contractors EVER. And this isn't going to surface untill Bush is out of office. Why do you think he has been so stern about more troops?Why has he called for more time for the "surge" to work? This surge is mostly "private contractor troops" protecting contracted interest



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
To fight this kind of foe, you must without a doubt, fight in a blind rage, with an outlook of "we must do whatever it takes to destroy this enemy, or we shall be destroyed", god help us!! Attack!!


This kind of 'foe' was created by the US during the Cold War. We hired, trained, and created al quaida to fight the Soviets under Bin Laden. Later on, we traded with Saddam to protect our interests in the middle east.

Edit: Added Taliban info

www.worldproutassembly.org...


The Taliban are a creation of the CIA and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban government was set up in 1996 as an Anglo-American client state. A fallacy is the premise that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the antecedent of extremism and militarism in Afghanistan. In reality, the creation of extremism in Afghanistan was the joint collaboration of U.S. intelligence and the Pakistani ISI, in the largest CIA operation in history. The construction of a war in Afghanistan was engineered by the United States, which gave birth to the Afghan Mujahideen and eventually the Taliban. According to Zbigniew Brezinski, the United States started operations to create a civil war in Afghanistan vis-a-vis Pakistani links before Soviet intervention on December 24, 1979.




A war in the middle east will never succeed. There are too many freedom fighters who do not wish a foreign adversary to take over their land. Can you really blame them?

I love the analogy Bush uses. As has been stated a lot in this thread, he must be comparing himself to King George and the Iraqi 'insurgents' are our American revolutionaries fighting tyranny and oppression. God help them.

To think we have God on our side when we invade country after country with no regard for human life (let alone that of the planet, animals, and plants) is absurd. We have fallen out of grace with God a long time ago.

Maybe if we decide to withdraw from Afghanistan (yeah did you guys forget about this war against the Taliban- another CIA created group to protect their poppy fields) and Iraq and every other country we are stationed in, maybe then will our economic prosperity return. Maybe then the rest of the world will actually respect us for what we are, a soverign nation that doesn't meddle in others' business.

We are worried about terrorists in the middle east when there are still multiple counts of genocide occuring in Africa and probably China as well against their own people.

Let's fight a 'real' conflict and let the middle east decide its own fate.

If they don't want democracy and wish to have an Islamic republic instead, let them. Its not like they haven't been under that sort of rule for over a thousand years already...Its basically all they know. So don't force a half-hearted democratic state to comply with US standards. They are a different people with a different culture, who may not want help from us.

As I said in my podcast, let's fix our own problems before we continue being "TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE." I have enough problems dealing with the bills and I'm sure a lot of others do as well. Do we need to be paying taxes to support an unnecessary war on 'terror' among others?



[edit on 5-7-2007 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
That is an excellent post biggie smalls.


Please forgive my off topic post, but this is one time when I had to offer praise for a fellow member's post.

Good stuff!



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fjtruth
But who are the Iraqis fighting? They're fighting the Americans and the British!
So that must mean that if "the Iraqis are fighting [for] a more idealist democratic society and government", then the Americans and British must be fighting to stop them achieving "a more idealist democratic society and government".
But didn't Bush say he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq?

Bush's "foot-in-mouth disease" displays another relapse...The Colonists fought for a Republic form of Government & spelled it out with the Constitution! The Founding Forefathers abhorred Democracy in their time as much as Communism was feared during the Cold War Era.


Originally posted by dgtempe
Somewhere, out there, there is a village missing an idiot.
Loam, thank you for those examples.

Well, if you're referring to FredT's description of Wolfowitz & Rumsfield as being the "missing village idots," I'd have to say that Pres. Bush would represent the "missing village drunk." BTW, did Bush ever really give up his "college partying days?" Bush must've been among the "Flower Children" movement in the 1960's...He's still a blooming idiot if he thinks The People can't think for themselves.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
The only way you can win a middle east war, is being completly ruthless.


Indeed. In the 30's when Britain was in charge over in those parts, we gassed the buggers to death. The insurgency didn't last long....

Not that I am saying we should do that, but the only way you can crush a movement that is so entwined with a dangerous mix of nationalism and religious extremism is to be as ruthless as they are.

Shouldn't be there in the first place. And it pains me to see people saying "we're over there to spread freedom and democracy". What? Let me think about the reasons we were given:



  1. First, it was WMD's. Dodgy 45 minutes claims and useless "intelligence" presented as fact in front of the UNSC.
  2. Then, when it became obvious that there were no WMD's, we were there to "spread freedom and democracy"
  3. Then, after the "war" dragged on for a bit, were suddenly there to fight terrorists. Well, gee, let me think. There weren't any terrorists there before we turned up, so how can that be a reason to be there?


I wouldn't have minded if they stuck to reason 2 from the word go, instead of BS us with all this spin. If they just plain came out and said "We want to get rid of Saddam", I bet we would have a better reaction from the Iraqi people and the world at large. Instead, we've been exposed as liars and cheats.

Also, the double standard shows us up to be nothing but hypocrites. If we are "spreading freedom", then why don't we bring freedom to Zimbabwe, or Belarus, or Burma or any of the other nations who flagrantly flout even the most basic human rights and butcher their own people...

Oh, thats right, I forgot....



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The audience for this speech was military. So very upbeat about the war. He's ever the cheerleader.

Here's the speech he should give to the American people, taxpayers or not.

"Before you come at me with pitchforks and muskets, let me tell you how very, very sorry I am. You see, a few of my buddies, Dick, Rummy, Wolf, and a few of their friends like Scooter and Doug, had it in their heads to use the military to lord it over everyone else in the world, teach 'em a thing or two 'bout how to govern, and keep safe our national interest. You're not stupid, you knew I meant oil. hehehe They were going to try out their theories on Iraq and Saddam.

Well, they were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Heck, look who their leader was! hahaha You see, these men couldn't plan worth s***. They didn't want to hear what their military leaders had to tell 'em 'bout goin' in to Iraq. And they didn't want to here about what to do afterwards. They told me some fellow named Chalabai was going to have a government in weeks, and we'ld all go home. Why bother with postwar planning, see?

When I stood on that aircraft carrier under the Mission Accomplished sign, you see, we did have a military victory. Trouble was, we didn't follow up too good. Another good Republican, Mr. Bremer, went over there, and a bunch of other good Republicans followed. Didn't matter that they were qualified to nation build. Hell, I told you before you voted for me the first time, that I wasn't into nation building, and I meant it!

Let me just end here with some advice--be careful what you wish for. You see, I wanted to be your President, and look at the mess I got y'all into. I really think we should rename Operation Iraqi Freedom to something more appropriate, like Operation Wishful Thinking.

Good Night and God Bless."



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join