Should the world invade US to remove Bush?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 25-2-2008 @ 11:31 PM by GetOutOfMyRabbitHole
reply to post by Alxandro



Oh, I don't know about that. I am a liberal person- but not a "far left" liberal, and I support the right to bear arms. And I think that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the left/right paradigm would band together if we were all of a sudden attacked- or worse, invaded- by another country. Sad as this sounds, the most united I have ever seen my country was for a brief amount of time right after 9/11. Singing peace songs are great, until you are forced to defend yourself on your own soil.

My point in my original post was that if you cut the leg off a starfish it just grows a new one.

NewWorldOver, I also believe that the next president will be a democrat. I once read, and do not know where I read it, or else I would give them credit, that when the country needs hope "they" put in a democrat- when the empire is going to expand "they" put in a republican. Or something like that. They said it much better than I just did...


reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 08:58 PM by VIKINGANT
reply to post by Michael Scofield



There are anumber of countries with not only the motivation but also the means to invade the US if they so wished. As a collective effort it would be no trouble for them.

UN will protect the US? The UN is the US


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 01:08 AM by TrueAmerican
It's going to take a war allright!

Yes Siree Bob. It's going to take a war. It's going to take a war, because the people cannot contain it any longer. It's going to take the next brave country to stand up and say that's enough. And it's going to take the combined powers of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and more to do it.

Do what, you say? Do what even the Democrats cannot do: stop this warmongering administration from:

1) Expanding the Middle East war into Iran and Syria
2) Allowing this administration to seize impunitive power from the American people
3) Allowing the NWO to continue to expand and challenge the world

I believe that most of the rest of world understands. I believe that most of the rest of the world still has faith in the American people. But I also believe that most of the rest of the world is fed up with American government, and its insistence on meddling in foreign affairs to project its power and seize vital resources. If the American military cannot be pursuaded to defend this country from domestic enemies, then maybe it is befitting that it be destroyed by the might of an enraged world.

The situation with Iran is more than just a bad movie on a late night TV show. There is much more at stake. Not only for the American military-industrial machine, but for China particularly. An American-controlled Iran is probably the last thing that China needs, and yet is the first thing, now, in this administration's gun sights.

The beachead established in Iraq was a move to divide and conquer. Going into Iraq made absolute sense to those privy, while it was total lunacy to the innocent bystander. The UN, while taking its usual time, would have eventually cranked the pressure up on Iraq to the breaking point on its own without the need for military intervention.

But hey, Iraq as a beachead will serve its useful purpose. Not only did it put Iraqi oil under American control, but it allows unfettered access to its surrounding countries, particularly from a conventional weapons standpoint. And what lies directly across Iraq's eastern border? About 90% of Iranian oil.

Which Bush and his plump military-industrial machine are eying as does a lion an antelope. All under the same BS reason that he claimed Iraq: WMD's. In this case, Iran's supposed intent to acquire the bomb. Maybe this time, the American people will demand the solid evidence first? And from more than just our "trustworthy" intelligence and Israeli pressure.

Taking Iraq was just the crucial second step to American dominance in the Middle East. Because cruise missiles, by themselves, are just not enough.
But dividing and conquering can have its disadvantages, the primary being that it puts the enemy on more than one front. And the warmongers got lucky.

Had China, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria flexed their muscles jointly the minute Bush decided to attack Iraq, this situation could have turned out completely differently. Had those countries used the UN as a legitimate international reason to intervene, they would have been arguably as correct as Bush claimed he was in attacking. And once it was determined that all the WMD's in Iraq turned out to be more hearsay than truth, all the more reason.

HAD those countries intervened, some might say that would constitute world war 3. But would it have? Faced against not only the insurgency on the ground, but against heaps of incoming missiles as well as air support, I believe the combined powers of those countries would have been more than enough to keep Bush out of Iraq. Even if Bush would have sent the entire US military. And all this in a conventional sense, of course, because if anyone was stupid enough to use a nuke- well, we all know what would happen then.

When faced with the reality that conventionally the US couldn't stand a chance against a force like that- even with the help of hesitant allies- there would be only one choice: retreat or break out the nukes.

So now the question is, would Bush have used nukes in a case like that? Was he so intent and sure that Iraq was going to blow up the world that he would engage in global thermonuclear war to make his point and quell this wretched supposed threat from Iraq?

I think not. And from that position, I honestly believe that there really ARE others motives at play here. And not that it really takes that argument to make the point. Manufactured and exagerrated evidence taylored to suit agenda is the central point upon which this case rests. And it is the central point at which the world should have made its move.

The world may have been unhappy, but tolerating, of Bush going into Afghanistan, but remember that the world as a whole was staunchly opposed, for many reasons, to the US attacking Iraq. Enough damage had been done and enough people had been killed in retribution for 9/11 with the obliteration of the Taliban.

It's going to take a war. Yes Siree Bob.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



I finally solved a great mystery! I think I see now...
  Posted 18 days ago with 72 member flags
Finally! MSM Coverage - Legal Challenges to Fed - The End is Near
  Posted 18 days ago with 48 member flags
You Westerners Are Deluded
  Posted 19 days ago with 30 member flags
‘Barcode everyone at birth’
  Posted 4 days ago with 20 member flags
Pentagon Source Alludes to Martial Law Around July 1st, 2012
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags
FBI Seize Email server, then return it
  Posted 15 days ago with 16 member flags