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.

 

New Hampshire GOP Pulls Support For FOX Debate

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Why? How have the Republicans been strong on Terrorisim? They created more with the Iraq war, Support for Israel etc etc. Plus they haven't caught Bin Laden, not really strong is it.

Yadda yadda yadda. Forget what the Republicans have or haven't done. Knowing every individual candidate's stance on terrorism is important in and of itself.




Originally posted by QuasiShaman
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Us being 'strong' on terror is exactly why there are more terrorists now then before. The War on Terror is a joke! An absolute fallacy, more people have been killed by White Tail Deer then by terrorists.

Until we understand that it is precisely our foreign policy fueling any type extremism, we will never put an end to terrorism.

Until we understand what BLOW BACK is, this will never end.

All that this "blowback" theory does is to pardon bin Laden for any involvement in 9/11, and it gives terrorists an excuse to murder another bunch of innocent civilians. It takes the spotlight away from the murderers and focuses it on the victims.

It's nothing more that a poor example of Psychology 101. "The devil made me do it", said the terrorist.:shk:

This is the essence of Ron Paul's "non-interventionist" policy.



Originally posted by zman
Not to jump on Ron Pauls bandwagon, but he did in Iowa beat the major of the US and Mr. Thomson, and he one a county. I do not understand why they even had the mayor of the US ( self proclaimed by the way) as he lost his shirt.

Something is unfair and unbalanced here and I want everyone to know.

First of all, your use of the tiny font is hard on the eyes.

Next, are you aware of Giuliani's strategy for the primarys? Only about 90% of America does; I can accept it if you don't. But you should educate yourself on the basics of each candidate's stances in order to vote intelligently.

In a nutshell, Rudy barely showed up in Iowa. He was busy concentrating on Florida, a much bigger prize.




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


FAIL!

I think you believe your own misinformation sometimes!


Even the FBI admits that there is no evidence connecting OBL to 9/11.

valis.gnn.tv...

Rudy's strategy has been pretty evident thus far: Fear and War Mongering! Using the term Islamofascists ad nausium. Does that about some it up?



[edit on 1/6/2008 by QuasiShaman]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by QuasiShaman
 



Originally posted by QuasiShaman
reply to post by jsobecky
 


FAIL!

I think you believe your own misinformation sometimes!


Even the FBI admits that there is no evidence connecting OBL to 9/11.

valis.gnn.tv...

Rudy's strategy has been pretty evident thus far: Fear and War Mongering! Using the term Islamofascists ad nausium. Does that about some it up?



[edit on 1/6/2008 by QuasiShaman]

Oh, that's right. It was the Jews that did 9/11. No, wait....it was actually done with holograms. No, wait....


And poor little Usama had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It's all a bunch of neo-con lies!
:shk:



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I think you present a pretty understandable viewpoint on most subjects, until it comes to anything to do with politics. Then you revert to jingoism.

You want to have the terrorists take responsibility for 9/11. That is all well and good. But then in the same breath you don't want American policies to have to do the same. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Sure the terrorists were wrong to do what they did. It was an evil act of aggression right up there with the carpet bombing of Dresden. But just as we felt that Hitler had to be stopped, and that we had been provoked enough to where it was justified, so too do people in other nations feel today.

You want to equate "blowback" with guilt. It's just like the law of motion, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ever hear the term "what goes around, comes around"? You can't ignore the fact that our policy has been one of not caring about anything except our own goals as a nation owned by the corporations and controlled by their greed, and that some people are not interested in those goals; so when we shove it down their throat, they shove back.

Now before you get all bent about how I'm not a patriot, or I'm apologizing for the terrorists, or any of the rest of the message from the idiot tube chorus, stop and think for your own self. If you come up and slap the pee out of me on a street corner, and I hit you square in the nose, is it all me being a bad guy? It's true that you didn't make me do it as in holding a gun on me and telling me to, but you do have some responsibility in the matter.

Here's where you can get off the train of following everyone else's words and think for yourself. You can admit that actions, even the actions of our own nation, can have consequences; sometimes bad consequences. Or you can go right on down the path of blind loyalty even when you know in your heart that your trust is misguided.

And this isn't about America the people, it's about America the government. America the people of this nation didn't cause this "blowback", but America the self serving egotistical manics did cause it. Deny the fact if it makes your life easier to face, deny it if you lack the intestinal fortitude to face the truth, but know well that the price of lying to yourself now may well be worse destruction for your offspring in the future.

The piper is always paid in full.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 

Excellent post.

Good job dissecting the whole "anti-interventionist" == "anti-American" thing, it's a cheap appeal to emotion and a diversion intended to derail the debate and turn it into a name-calling contest.

Pointing out that US policies led directly to 3,000 dead citizens on 9-11 does not absolve the terrorists who actually committed the act.



[edit on 1/6/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
[font=Book Antiqua]I guess my whole point of this tread was to show that there is a force that will deny any, and I mean any other thought but the CFR's. Look at all the other canidates out there, they all belong to a special interest and are a part of the CFR. It all comes down to which member you will vote for, cause you will get the same message. Notice how the government news sources have repeatly said change. This is a code word, is it not. To leave out a republican who handly defeated Mr. Mayor and Thomson and repeatly give us this message of change. Think about that word. Its a psyc op. Being that our money backed my nothing, our cost of living and our freedoms have been eroded by these globalistic cabel. Yeah change is what we need, not the same old same old. They expect us to believe in there message of change don't they. Look and learn. Listen and see what word will discribe themselves with.The only change I see is Mr. Paul, change our money back to something that has a backing, get us out of making other countries like a model for democracy, as we are a rebulic and not a democracy. People we have the power. Not the chosen few who take from special interest and listen to the CFR.

Who will ask what you can do for your country, not what the country will do for you,who will stand up for you , but you yourself.


[edit on 1/6/2008 by zman]

[edit on 1/6/2008 by zman]

[edit on 1/6/2008 by zman]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zman
Not to jump on Ron Pauls bandwagon, but he did in Iowa beat the major of the US and Mr. Thomson, and he one a county. I do not understand why they even had the mayor of the US ( self proclaimed by the way) as he lost his shirt.

Something is unfair and unbalanced here and I want everyone to know.


Yes. All my emails to various people and shows at Fux News HAVE BEEN BOUNCED BACK TO ME. The best comment I've read so far is ".. a debate without Ron Paul is just a secret society discussion group televised."

I am a lifelong demo and just changed party affiliation to GOP just so I can support RP in the primary. I don't agree with him in all areas, in fact, I'm diametrically opposed in some ares, but he has great ideas for the big picture.

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Ron Paul is not a Republican.
He went on the GOP ticket to mock the system. He gains all his money from non republicans. Every fanatical Bush-hating conspiritorialist is now a Ron Paul supporter. In some sick twisted way they think they will matter more than the common voter. They giggle themselves to sleep at night thinking they are screwing the GOP out of the presidency when in reallity they are only helping Clinton lose her nomination.

www.gopusa.com...

Here is an excerpt from the above link,
quote,
"Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.

In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; "Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.""
end quote



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 



Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I think you present a pretty understandable viewpoint on most subjects, until it comes to anything to do with politics. Then you revert to jingoism.

You want to have the terrorists take responsibility for 9/11. That is all well and good. But then in the same breath you don't want American policies to have to do the same. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Sure the terrorists were wrong to do what they did. It was an evil act of aggression right up there with the carpet bombing of Dresden. But just as we felt that Hitler had to be stopped, and that we had been provoked enough to where it was justified, so too do people in other nations feel today.

You want to equate "blowback" with guilt. It's just like the law of motion, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ever hear the term "what goes around, comes around"? You can't ignore the fact that our policy has been one of not caring about anything except our own goals as a nation owned by the corporations and controlled by their greed, and that some people are not interested in those goals; so when we shove it down their throat, they shove back.

You and others here seem to think that the US got what it had coming. That 9/11 was a justified response to some wacko's hate for us being over there.

Are these your words or those of the terrorists?

Tell me, just what did we do to deserve the murder of 3,000 innocent people on a bright Tuesday morning?

When had we murdered 3,000 of them, prior to 9/11?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I never said it was deserved. Do you have a problem understanding the difference between deserving something and a consequence? I child runs into the street to chase a puppy and gets killed by a passing car. The child didn't deserve it, but the child did enter a dangerous place and by those actions paid the consequences.

Once more you're trying to paint me as a terrorist lover because I have enough sense to know that if you spend much time in a snake den, sooner or later you get bit. We've spent the last 60 years intervening in the affairs of other nations. It stands to reason that sooner or later we would get bit.

Did you read the part where I said it was wrong for the terrorists to commit such an act? IT WAS WRONG. It was evil. It was bad. They're snakes. We have no business playing with snakes.

I once went to a church service in the deep south that taught me a lesson about that fact. (It also taught me that a young man doesn't ever ask enough questions of a pretty girl, but that's a whole other story.) These folks proved their worthiness to God by passing around live rattlesnakes during the service! I left with an unbitten hide and an lot less ardor than I came with.

I found out later that many of these folks had died from the bites they got. God didn't do it to them because they deserved it; it happened as a consequence of acting in a foolish and dangerous manner. Our government acts in a foolish and dangerous manner, and we get bit. We don't deserve it, but it is a result of the actions of our leaders.

Did the people on the Titanic deserve to drown? Not at all. But that didn't stop it from happening when the ship failed to slow down in the dark, and failed to have enough lifeboats, and failed to have a good emergency plan. We have sailed along in a ship of state that is the direct comparison of that ill fated wreck, and now we've started losing passengers.

Please try to hear the difference between what the truth is and the spin the talking heads are putting on the words. Every time you parrot that tired sound byte equating consequences with deserving, like you can't find a dictionary to compare the two words, the more I fear this nation is already lost.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 



Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I never said it was deserved. Do you have a problem understanding the difference between deserving something and a consequence? I child runs into the street to chase a puppy and gets killed by a passing car. The child didn't deserve it, but the child did enter a dangerous place and by those actions paid the consequences.

You know, you might be an enjoyable person to debate with if you would dispense with the condescension and the snide remarks.



Originally posted by NGC2736
Once more you're trying to paint me as a terrorist lover because I have enough sense to know that if you spend much time in a snake den, sooner or later you get bit. We've spent the last 60 years intervening in the affairs of other nations. It stands to reason that sooner or later we would get bit.

I never painted you as a terrorist lover. Not once. I do, however, have a problem with your willingness to absolve them of any guilt for their actions.

We've been in the ME for over a century extracting oil. Why now? Why all of a sudden do they find it so objectionable?


Originally posted by NGC2736

Please try to hear the difference between what the truth is and the spin the talking heads are putting on the words. Every time you parrot that tired sound byte equating consequences with deserving, like you can't find a dictionary to compare the two words, the more I fear this nation is already lost.


Tell me this: if you are not trying to justify their actions, why continue to be a poster boy for them?

And please answer the other questions I asked in my previous post:

Are these your words, or those of the terrorists?

What acts did we commit that were heinous enough to warrant the murder of 3,000 innocents?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


You must have read my last post because you quoted part of it. But you turned a blind eye to the part where I said we DID NOT deserve it. And if I sound anything, it's exasperated that a bright person like you, (I have read many intelligent posts you have written) refuses to see that consequences have nothing to do with deserving.

I wasn't being snide, I was using examples.

I have never absolved anyone of guilt in the matter. Any person that kills innocent civilians to gain a political or military advantage is guilty of crimes against humanity.

And how the hell am I supposed to understand the reasoning of why people do what they do, when they do it. I still can't figure out why you refuse to see the logic that messing around with other people's form of government is bound to cause them to have less than benign feelings for us. We would sure get upset if it was being done to us. (There's still hard feelings over us putting the Shah in power in Iraq.)

And when it comes to snide remarks, that label of being a "poster boy" ranks up there with the best of them. (Though at my age anything with the word boy in it sends a tingle up my spine.
)

And I did answer your question. It was not justified, as in the whole evil verses good texture of that word. Consequences do not equate to justification any more than they do to deserving. Consequences are the result of bad planning and operations, be it by a person or a government or any organization in between.

And no, much as you are trying to put ideas out that I am a mouthpiece for the terrorists, these are not their words. These are the logical deductions of a ration mind not being influenced by the sympathy card being played by the likes of some candidates.

And your last question is simply trying to rephrase the blame game. This time you use the word "warrant", having worked your way through "deserved" and "justified". But here we get into the concept that our idea and some extreme fundamentalists idea of what warrants what just are not the same thing. To me we did nothing to "warrant" such a cowardly attack, but to Atta, it was so dastardly that he was willing to die to get the point across.

Look, I can't change the motives for these people, hell, I can barely wrap my head around the existence of such barbarity. But I can see full well that by recklessly pushing the buttons of known nutjobs in the past, we incited their already low nature to a new level of violence.

I can also see that if we didn't try to "protect" every damn piece of soil on the planet, our troops could have been home protecting our own people on 9/11. They might have still tried to bring down the towers, but we would have had a lot better chance of stopping such crap if we had spent the last 30 years shoring up our defenses rather than playing real life Risk around the globe.

I can also see that if we brought home our troops and let these people learn to settle their own differences, we could patrol our borders and maybe stop the next head case from slipping in from Mexico or Canada. I can see that instead of spending $$$$ by the bale in other countries we would have enough to fund all the radios and equipment our civil responders need if there is a next time.

Basically, I refuse to turn a blind eye to the glaring mistakes our government repeatedly makes by not putting our own nation first, and by trying to be the Terran Police Force. We stir up trouble, all the time claiming were doing it to help some poor downtrodden wannabe freedom fighter, and then when they switch sides we cry alligator tears about how wrong it was of them.

Well, as an American, it was wrong. By my ethics it was evil. But it is the price (consequence) of not minding our own business in the world and letting everybody else do the same. (And then if they still act up, go to all out war, no quarter given, and when you're done, make it such a good example that it'll be ten generations before they even think about doing it again.)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I almost agree with one thing you said - that it is the price we paid. But I disagree with the reasons we paid it.

You believe it was because we like to meddle in other people's business. Would that that were true. We wouldn't have the mess called illegal immigration, if it were true. We'd just annex Mexico.

No, the reason we are over there is oil. Our economy depends heavily on exports from the ME, i.e., Saudi Arabia. And we have been good guests in Saudi. Take it from me, or ask any contractor who ever worked with Aramco, etc.

You call it a "glaring mistake" that our gov't made. A result of "bad planning". I bet that doesn't stop you from filling up the car, though, does it?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by zman
 


I for one, am GLAD that Ron Paul is not going to be there. He would be taking time from the REAL candidates. Ron Paul is as extreme as ANY muslim!!!!!!! You "PAUL" lovers need to understand that AMERICA is MUCH better off now than beore 2001. If you hate AMERICA so much, leave!!!! Just my two cents!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Why is it such a bad thing that we are over there for the oil? We need it, they have it, that has been how the world has been since almost the beginning of time. You can say there are other ways to get it........in the end, taking it really is what is happening.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Jsobecky, you are killing me. We have been at war with these people long before 9/11. Just because it was the first MAJOR attack on US soil doesn't mean that is when it started.

We overthrew Irans democratically elected government in 1953 and put in a pro US dictatorship. Extremists overthrew that dictatorship in 1979 and took US hostages in Munich during the Olympic games. We funded a dictator in Iraq in 1980 to go to war with Irans new government, most likely in an attempt to regain political control in Iran. The Iraq Iran war, which we funded both sides weapons for, killed over 1 million people. We were a big factor in that war occuring. Saddam bombed kurds, we didn't care. USSR tried to move into afganistan, we radicalized an already extremist group, armed, and trained them to fight off the soviets. All the meanwhile we occupied their holyland with US troops, giving them an excuse to recruit more extremists to attack us.

They attacked in 93' at the WTC and failed. They blew up the USS Cole. We were attacking them and they were attacking us long before 9/11 ever came to be. 9/11 was just another chapter in the war that we inadvertently started. Our goals to secure our middle eastern oil has gotten us into an unforeseen war that we can't just walk away from whenever we want.

We can't punch them in the face and then declare the fight is over. It doesn't work that way. We came there and tried to secure our own interest and it came back to us. It really doesn't matter who started it or whos fault it is, because it has become a war with many causalities on both sides.

Its like a gang war. One guy from a gang says something insulting to another. Later on that gang member gets jumped for what he said. He gets pissed, gets a couple gang members and guns down one. This causes an even bigger uproar with more deaths. What was it for? Because two people had a difference and wanted to show they were the ones in control? Whos got the bigger muscles? Thats worth all this death?

Everything comes at a price. No actions however small doesn't bear the possibility of grave consequences. Something as simple as not looking to your left before making that right hand turn in your vehicle could end somebodies life. Whatever we did back then might not have seemed threatening or dangerous or grave at the time, but it was.

That is the fact, what we did blew up. It doesn't matter who is at fault, and history won't remember it for who's fault it was, but how we dealt with it.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tacticaljay

I for one, am GLAD that Ron Paul is not going to be there. He would be taking time from the REAL candidates. Ron Paul is as extreme as ANY muslim!!!!!!! You "PAUL" lovers need to understand that AMERICA is MUCH better off now than beore 2001. If you hate AMERICA so much, leave!!!! Just my two cents!


I won't address the Ron Paul part because that would be futile.

My question is how you came to the odd conclusion we are better off now then before 2001?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tacticaljay
Why is it such a bad thing that we are over there for the oil? We need it, they have it, that has been how the world has been since almost the beginning of time. You can say there are other ways to get it........in the end, taking it really is what is happening.


why is it such a bad thing? 9/11, USS Cole, etc. If you believe oil is worth the blood of innocent people, let it be you who stands on the frontlines of such consequences for those actions. You can play armchair warrior all you want, but it is a very different world when you are watching somebody fall from a tower to their death or know people who you will never see again for something they had no involvement in. To you they are just causalties of your armchair war, to me they are friends and family.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Grim,

Here are the answers to your question:

1. Unemployment rate..........well, ummmm, ok 5%
2. Mortgage interest rates........5-6%, unfortunately there is also a record number of foreclosers............
3. Oil...........ok, so it was at about $27 a barrell before the war and now at $100?

Listen, ok, maybe I was just tacking that statement on the end to help drive my point home. It looks as though maybe I over stepped a little!.........
I'm still glad Ron Paul isn't going to be there!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 





Originally posted by grimreaper797
Jsobecky, you are killing me. We have been at war with these people long before 9/11. Just because it was the first MAJOR attack on US soil doesn't mean that is when it started.

Thanks, grim, but I don't need a history lesson. I fully realize that terrorism didn't start on 9/11.

The fact is, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. SA is the #2 exporter of crude to the US. We bore the costs of exploration, extraction, and shipment, all the while being the best guest in the world. Then we sold our investment back to them so they could control it.

What could we have done any better?

BTW, this thread has gotten way off topic...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join