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.

 

Cats out of the bag on Iraq

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
A talk show on comedy central with a comedian as the host and I'm to think this is where I'm going to hear the truth about the war in Iraq? I'm not supposed to pat attention to MSM but I am to Comedy Central and take it as gospel and not with the grain of salt and sense of humor that I would be advised to use when watching any other show on that network.


That's pretty funny




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DrumJunkie
 


Of course take it with a grain of salt and sense of humor. But the guy wasn't lying - he's written two books on Iraq, it wasn't a 'gimmick' interview, and that seemed to be his honest opinion.

And I find more breadth of honesty, if not 'in-depth' reporting, on The Daily Show than just about any 'serious' news program. Strange, huh?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by foremanator
 


But if you think that quote could be positive thought, It's a good thing.
That is: Everybody lives happily ever after, but it hasn't happened yet.
Alas, it is unlikely it ever will.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
As stated earlier I don't think it's something so sinister. i think it is more a we got our heels dug in because it's going to be a long ride type thing.

I believe that deafening silence was just because Mr Stewert didn't know how to get a laugh on that note and the audience was definitely in the same boat. Not because of this huge revelation but because the host didn't think on his feet as well as he might have wanted. Carson would have nailed it


The guy was trying to sell a book if he was wanting to show just how serious the situation is to him I don't think he would have had a story of a commanding general singing r-e-s-p-e-c-t


The war is going to be much longer than people might think. It's another campain promise that will go unanswered.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytquin
A war that will kill 1/3 of mankind.
???

I think they are hoping for a lot more and had it in mind about
30 years ago.

Georgia Guidestones - Rule #1 - 90% of mankind dead

The guy who owns the land owns a quarry so it is likely he is
the one who really made them, but the msg is much like the
msg in the book Limits to Growth put out by a Club of Rome shill.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by foremanator
 


I saw a documentary about missing 50 billion dollars in Iraq, money that was meant to support local efforts, infrastructure and even build a functioning stock exchange has gone missing. No one seem to have kept books or track of the money. Corruption and theft.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by foremanator
 


I think that perhaps you all should ask yourself a better series of questions, such as how does this pertain to today' events and how may this progress our government. This is all speculation of course but what if the purpose of Iraq and Afgahnistan are simply to occupy our soldiers?

With 28 or so states considering or delcaring sovereignty based on what the constitution says, who is going to enforce that piece of paper. The constitution can say what ever it wants, but only works if the bad guy respects that paper or if one has the muscle to enforce it. The states are claiming what they are based on what the Constitution says what powers belong to the state and not the federal government.

Where are the state's troops (National Guard)? They are all deployed and will continue to be so. So if all of their troops that the states would use to enforce any resisitence from the federal gov, are gone, what backbone or what muscle do they have to commit any resisitence against that same federal gov? THe same can be said for the Fed gov also. Where are all of the active troops? BUT.... remember what Bush signed in when he gave the U.N. troops permission to come on our soil to enforce Martial Law in the event of anarchy. That is the answer to the the Federal strength. So again, the states only have a piece of paper stating the rules, but who seems to be respecting that paper lately. Do you really think that will stand up.

Next question needs to be, well if all of this is true and the troops are just being occupied overseas, how did we get to that point? How was the reason that we are over there created and how much did we go through to get all of those guys and gals over there so that the states would be caught without strength, so that any American resistence is isolated off soil, and so that a foreign militia can enforce on our soil? So how far back was this planned so that it plays out in the future and anarchy is created?

Why is the government putting out financial recovery policies that will make neighbors angry at neighbors, like bailing out the mortgage of your neighbor who doesnt work but not yours when you work 5 jobs and still can not afford, tax, food, gas and a mortgage. Tell me that will not cause a little frustration around the BBQ pit...

Just thinking out loud. I would surely be interested in your thoughts and reply. Feel free to email me back.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join