Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So let me get this straight....

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
well if North Korea has nuclear weapons, whick they have admitted to, would you rather they attack first or us?
o and China is now integrating freedom into their society, and mao is long dead, you're oblivious to think they still suffer like under Mao.




posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Wait a second; you think the policy of not showing US dead troops' coming home is from the Bush administration? That this is new policy? I thought this was standard military policy for several years now? It's up to the family's if they want people to use their dead sons and daughters for propaganda from either political side.

Some of you lefties are such a cynical demented bunch. I bet you're just great to be around.

It doesn't matter what the Administration does, you will hate them for it. Nothing Bush could do would make you happy. Sad thing is if it was Kerry doing the same thing you would back him to the hilt. That's why Bush will win in November by such a large margin. Americans understand what's going on.

You however, don't.


Variable



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
ive got a little more back up too now so here it is:

"Great men do not wait to respond to important events, they make them happen. They are not the servants of history but its drivers. They are not cowed by the unknown, they are grounded in certainties -- their faith, their fitness, and their commitment to the American ideal. This is the essential quality of leadership. A leader defines objectives, assesses capabilities, weighs risks, and acts. Many of those who fail tests of leadership stall on the third step, endlessly debating, studying, considering, pondering, trying vainly to know the unknown in advance, until the moment passes and the opportunity is lost. Competent leaders accept the fact that not everything can be known, and move forward. To say that we cannot go to war because we do not know for certain what will happen is not an argument -- it is at best an excuse. Thankfully, we have a president more interested in shaping history than doing nothing and hoping everything will work out [Clinton anybody?]." --James S. Robbins

"One suspects that the number of undecided Americans may be fewer this week than the last -- at least if they heard about the UN reaction to Israel's ballistic dismissal of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas' leader-of-the-week. What a loathsome man he was. An architect of death and terror. Religious bigot, child-killer, slaughterer of fellow Arabs. Israel finally takes him out. The United Nations springs into action -- to consider a resolution to condemn the attack. It was 'extrajudicial,' you see. Contrary to 'international law.' In the mind of a Eurocrat, whose paycheck demands belief in these ephemeral concepts, these are grave charges. To your average American, however, the strike on Rantisi was like a strike on Osama bin Laden. Anyone whose main objection to the death of a terrorist is its 'extrajudicial' nature has odd priorities, particularly in wartime. It's as if UN groupies think we should prop up 'international law' so it'll be our shield when the tides turn against the West. As if a triumphant Hamas would petition The Hague for the right to exterminate the Jews before the final pogrom began." --James Lileks



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Iraq had how many nukes?


If NK was gonna attack us then yes I would say hit them first but Iraq could not have attacked ANYBODY.

And as for freedom in China were you not the onew that stated how bad they are treated and now its ok?

Ask the millions in prison for worshiping the wrong god or speaking out about the government how free they are.


Oh yeah bush wants the same kind of freedom here so its ok right



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   


Some of you lefties are such a cynical demented bunch. I bet you're just great to be around.



So I am a leftie now


I am a republican nazi on another thread RIGHT NOW


I dont believe in the dems any more than the reps both are lying murdering theives



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Iraq had how many nukes?


If NK was gonna attack us then yes I would say hit them first but Iraq could not have attacked ANYBODY.

And as for freedom in China were you not the onew that stated how bad they are treated and now its ok?

Ask the millions in prison for worshiping the wrong god or speaking out about the government how free they are.


Oh yeah bush wants the same kind of freedom here so its ok right


i was shedding light on the situation that China is not in the state it was in the 70s when Mao died
and try not being a leftist yuppie jerk please?



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
iraq could not have attacked anybody?
dont make me laugh, remember kuwait?
and all the illegal scuds he had?
what are you doing, only watching fox?



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
lol youre the devils advocate everywhere?



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by aldsar
lol youre the devils advocate everywhere?



I guess so I am a Libertarian



We have really strange ideas like freedom and minding our own business

So you are saying that now its ok for them to emprison millions?

But hey the name calling really helps your cause



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
i found it funny dude, i didnt mean it as a personal attack, and youre being the devils advocate here so...



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
AMUK said,


So I am a leftie now


Wasn't talking to you bud. But if your feeling guilty about something, nows the time to purge your sins


There is nothing wrong with criticism of the President. I just think people should be more consistent. I hate hypocrisy and straw-man arguments. I just think that equating the two coffin pictures is dumb, they are totally different things. No one answered the argument that debunks the whole thing, wasn't the policy from the Clinton years?

Variable



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   


No one answered the argument that debunks the whole thing, wasn't the policy from the Clinton years?



to be honest I dont know but just because one crook does it doesnt make it ok for another to do it, remember clinton brought us waco and ruby ridge and this was under less strict fedral rules I truly fear for the future



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I agree with the sentiment about Clinton. Much of the early days were pretty scary and led to much ammo and weapons being put inside PVC pipes and buried (not by me Mr gub'ment netcrawler, Just something I heard ;p)

My take on it is that government takes away more and more of our freedoms everyday. The only way anyone, who wants to stop the rolling juggernaught of government, can have any impact is to take away the grease from its wheels and the fuel that runs the engine. The other good tactic is "sunset" laws.
www.cato.org...

With a two-party system, you have to look at which side is more inclined towards less Federal power. That party is the Republicans, in the future this may change; so then, will my party affiliation.

But, this is a little off topic so I will zip it.

Variable



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   


With a two-party system, you have to look at which side is more inclined towards less Federal power. That party is the Republicans, in the future this may change; so then, will my party affiliation.



With them pushing the Pat Acts how can you even START to believe that? Bush is putting more power in the feds hands than clinton EVER did



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
iraq could not have attacked anybody?
dont make me laugh, remember kuwait?
and all the illegal scuds he had?

Saddam wrote to the US for permission to attack Kuwait, the US administration replied that they didn't care.

Scuds, illegal? I'm sure they're legal in Iraq, according to whose laws are they illegal? If scuds are illegal than the US, China, France, Germany etc are brimming over with illegal weapons.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
lol
Saddam wrote to the clinton administration, not bush
and wasnt it clinton who put us in a position to be attacked in the first place?



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aldsar
lol
Saddam wrote to the clinton administration, not bush
and wasnt it clinton who put us in a position to be attacked in the first place?


Um, no. It was that month long holiday Bush took RIGHT BEFORE 9-11 onlyt after 8 months in office that got us into trouble. Stop lying.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Um, no. It was that month long holiday Bush took RIGHT BEFORE 9-11 onlyt after 8 months in office that got us into trouble. Stop lying.


Wait...are you saying that the reason we were attacked was because Bush was out riding horses?

PLEASE tell me you're deeper than that.

Anyway, in response to your first post- The world was not all lollipops and puppydogs before 2000. Go look at history. People were dying. Serbs and Kosovars were having that ethnic war they do every few decades. AIDS began running rampant in Africa. Arabs were still being beaten under a theocracy in many nations in the Middle East. Israel and Palestine still hated eachother. Drug use was an issue. Crime still existed. Our government from BOTH sides of the poloticla spectrum did stuff that would make us sick with disgust.

Take off the rose-colored glasses and look at history for what it is. The world didn't change. We were just hiding from it. Well, in 2001, the world got sick of us hiding from it, so it decided to come find us.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Colonel, you forget all of the terrorist attacks we took under the Clinton admin without retaliation.
the thing with terrorists is they are like bullies, if you just take what they give you, you are only encouraging them to attack you more.
so lets look at attacks under the clinton admin and not point fingers at bush for bills mistakes



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Wait...are you saying that the reason we were attacked was because Bush was out riding horses?

YES. He and his administration were exceedingly negligent. They were warned by the previous administration that Al Queda would be their main problem but, they focused on invading Iraq---not wanting to hear about Al-Queda. Then, they went on a month long holiday. After 9-11, they STILL wanted to go after Iraq and not nail the guys that did it. Read a book. Sheesh.



Anyway, in response to your first post- The world was not all lollipops and puppydogs before 2000. Go look at history. People were dying. Serbs and Kosovars were having that ethnic war they do every few decades. AIDS began running rampant in Africa. Arabs were still being beaten under a theocracy in many nations in the Middle East. Israel and Palestine still hated eachother. Drug use was an issue. Crime still existed. Our government from BOTH sides of the poloticla spectrum did stuff that would make us sick with disgust.

Take off the rose-colored glasses and look at history for what it is. The world didn't change. We were just hiding from it. Well, in 2001, the world got sick of us hiding from it, so it decided to come find us.

Oh, so now its just fate and Bush is juyst a victim of it. Gimmie a break.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution