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 asking for $70 billion more to keep war going

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


According to this report that's exactly what's happening.

And that's before we even get into this

So, two questions - are soldiers hired? i.e. do they receive pay?

Do soldiers kill?

If the answer to these questions is yes, wouldn't that make them hired killers?


Soldiers are hired. Sometimes they have to kill. There's a big difference between that, and the implication of hired murderers.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
According to this report that's exactly what's happening.

Am I supposed to take that as ground truth? I hope you are not using that as some kind of evidence that those things are actually occurring.



And that's before we even get into this


Whatever. Where do you people get this crap?



So, two questions - are soldiers hired? i.e. do they receive pay?

Yes. Not enough (IMHO).



Do soldiers kill?

That is three questions.



If the answer to these questions is yes, wouldn't that make them hired killers?


Yes, but not the street thug ones that people make them out to be.

Our soldiers kill when they have to. They don't get thrills off of it, but that is not something people seem to be able to understand around here.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I was asking for clarification purposes.

There also seems to be a conception amongst some, that the US military can do no wrong.

This is clearly not the case.

I have also said MANY times that the average soldier/sailor/airman etc is not to blame for this war.

But I have another question - was the defense "I was only obeying orders" a valid defense during the nuremberg trials?

BTW - it wasn't three questions - one was a clarification.

Now would you like a stepladder to get back on your highhorse?

Or can you manage OK from the moral high ground you think you are standing on?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
But I have another question - was the defense "I was only obeying orders" a valid defense during the nuremberg trials?

Can you show clear evidence that someone who used that defense, while being proven guilty of whatever crime, was able to get away with no punishment awarded?

If your asking for my opinion of that as a defense, I say it is crap.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Do you not remember the torture photo's?

A couple of people were made scapegoats and the rest got off scot free.

BTW, the word crap is considered profanity where I am.
I would respectfully ask you not to use it please.

I don't subscribe to using scapegoats for something that has approval from higher up, nor do I consider torture to be acceptable under any circumstances, including when accusations have been made against UK soldiers.

The soldiers are not the issue here.

The issue is that another $70 billion will be used to wage war - when not one of the excuses for the war have ever been proved.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


There was no approval from higher up for soldiers to do what was seen in those photos(if by higher up, you're talking DOD policy). Perhaps the case can be made for- a commander is responsible for what his troops do, and more mid level folks who weren't checking up on what was happening, needed to be held accountable. You can be assured that anyone that had sufficient evidence of guilt against them, was punished.
I'd love to see the evidence of specific individuals who were let off, that had evidence of guilt(which is the standard by which one is punished) in that incident.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I remember the cases, and it was made quite clear by those concerned that their actions had the approval of those in command.

Maybe they just meant to rough them up a bit, who knows.

I wouldn't imagine that the DOD would EVER issue an order along those lines - at least not on paper.
However, we all know that there is always written policy and unofficial policy - the difference between the two being? Not very much except for the lack of a paper trail.

Can you provide evidence (NOT opinion) that shows there WAS NOT at least tacit approval from those in command?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Can you provide evidence (NOT opinion) that shows there WAS NOT at least tacit approval from those in command?


Try looking up the UCMJ and the protections that it gives people who refuse to follow illegal orders.

No member of the Armed Forces has to obey a unlawful order.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juicy
I say give him the millions he wants. Just be sure to give it to him in Monopoly money


So give them US Federal Reserve Notes?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


Yes, because of course, I believe everything that is printed in a military handbook!

PUH-leeeze.

If you don't know that there are unofficial channels, there is really no point in this.

Whistleblowers are not welcome in ANY army, or large organisation for that matter.

It used to be policy where I worked to exit strategy someone who chose to go the HR route - especially managers who did it.

The same applies to the armed forces - it's the mentality of "if you're not with us, then you must be against us"

Pure hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tha stillz

Originally posted by Juicy
I say give him the millions he wants. Just be sure to give it to him in Monopoly money


So give them US Federal Reserve Notes?


Haha, that's what I was thinking. Our dollar is literally becoming as worthless as Monopoly money.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Great posts but i think i strayed you guys off topic a bit. Sorry to the OP.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Are you even familiar with the UCMJ?

Have you served a single day in the US Armed Forces?

If the answer to either of those questions is no, then further discussions with you will be CRAP.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


I need to be familiar with armed forces propaganda material to talk about why shrub is getting another $70 billion in order to carry on murdering civilians?

Has there been ANY evidence to show WMDs and al'qaeda links?

And he wants more money?
At a time when your economy is going down the tubes, he wants more money for war?



shrub - you gotta love his nerve if nothing else.
Oh, that's right, he doesn't have any nerve, hence his non participation during vietnam in ANY capacity.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be an easier sell if he requested the money in order to bring an end to the war on terror? How much of the money is going to actually be used to pay the forces for their sacrifices in this continuation? Is any of it going to be used in the stated mission of restoring peace in the region and rebuilding Iraq or are they going to ask for another amount to be allocated for that?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I can guarantee you nobody of Field Grade(Major-Colonel) or higher would risk certain career suicide, by saying that sort of treatment was acceptable or advisable. They did hold the female General(BG Karpinski) accountable, as well as some lower ranking officers, as it happened on their watch. I haven't seen evidence that any officers took part directly or indirectly though.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You have to wonder about tacit approval - which was the defense at the trial was it not?

In any large organisation, there are written and unwritten rules and/or orders.

People higher up the chain of command go the unwritten route for anything which may come back to haunt them.
It's called politics.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The trouble with this war is the amount of compaines out there making silly money in doing things the army should be doing for a lot less money.

There are now 630 companies working in Iraq on contract for the US government, with personnel from more than 100 countries offering services ranging from cooking and driving to the protection of high-ranking army officers. Their 180,000 employees now outnumber America's 160,000 official troops. The precise number of mercenaries is unclear, but last year, a US government report identified 48,000 employees of private military/security firms.

A lot of our taxes are being spent on these companies,who are raking in huge profit and have a very relaxed rule of engagement.

Link here
www.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 28-1-2008 by noangels]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


No question. I think pretty much anybody who has the slightest clue knows that 95% of the time, the underlying motive for war is to profit from it.

In the case of this war, when it first started, it was all about "the WMDs" and "the war on terror". Implications were made that Iraq was involved with al qaeda, and thus 911.

Then when that nonsense was sniffed out and found to be pure fantasy on the part of our pathological lying admin, the theme switched to "liberating the Iraqi people".

With Haliburton, GE, and the Oil Industries record plunderings of our finances, it became apparent rather quickly what these peoples true motives were.

It all boils down to bottomless greed and profiteering.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Wow, another 70 Billion? Man, and just tonight he gave the State of the Union calling for more financial responsibility. I liked these two choice bits.


Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely.

Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I'll submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012.


So look at that! he cut 18 Billion for the year right? That makes this 70 Billion OK.

Then I liked this


Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge.


I wonder where that funding went?

All in all the speech was about what I expected, apparently the buzzword for this year was "trust".

So yeah, just trust him. give him the money, surplus by 2012 right? Right???

If you want to check it out, here's the transcript. Funny, I didn't notice him mention the next 70 Billion for the war in this speech(course I couldn't watch the whole thing)...

Sorry, I could be totally off base, it just bugs me to see all this money going out the window while we have so many things at home that are under funded. Like schools....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join