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.

 

Are These Men About to Start the Revolution?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


These "Militias" are the minority of the people who will start the revolution. The revolution will be a peaceful one. One that throws out the current, corrupt, unhanded government and brings us back to the original roots this country was founded on.

It will more than likely be done by a new political party that simply runs on the idea of upholding the original constitution. One that cuts 80% of current government spending and stops the lobbyists from taking this country over. I think everyone has just about had it with the Obamas and the Bushs that have sold us out for their own gains.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
As I've previously stated in another thread, there will be no revolution or civil war.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EMPIRE
 

That is wishful thinking so far from the truth that it's laughable.

I heard some 80-85 year old men and women talking about how this will not continue! These members of our "greatest generation" are too old to take measures at this point in their lives, but they are troubled, angry, and resigned to the eventual revolt against an unconstitutional government.

By the way. For all you history geniuses.

Never, ever, since time began, did a revolution begin with a majority of the people.

It always began with a very small percentage of the population who were in fact the "do-ers" and not the fence-sitters, the cowards, or those in denial.

A percentage of 5-10% always made it happen.

Only after things got to going well did another 15%-20% pile on.

The remaining 70%-75% just went along with the new deal, just as they'll go along with whatever crap is put on the plate before them and eat to get it as we speak.

Someone will make a mistake. A mistake from either a misunderstanding, a mistake from misjudgment, or a mistake of magnitude.

And that one, insignificant item will kick over the hornet's nest.

The fed has been shaking a hot beer for a long time.

Someone will eventually crack it open.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
As I've previously stated in another thread, there will be no revolution or civil war.


Do you have a history book from the future or something?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Don't see it happening either. You don't need a crystal ball to see the future.

Most Americans young and old are lazy and complacence.

Sitting every night in their homes stuffing fake food into their mouths hypnotized by the B.S. on the boob tube.

Only timed they get pissed is when the cable goes out or the power is off.

Not in this life time,not this generation.

Heck, here we are into 8 years into two conflicts that we had no reason sticking our noses into and there are no demonstrations?

Those guys making videos are a bunch of idiots they would ALL be dead the first day.

A revolution needs leaders that others will follow. There are none now.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Great.
A bunch of guys dressed in fatigues who think a revolution is a fun thing to do.
I kind of jumped through the video but I didn't see any exit strategy, you know, how to rebuild society after they win the revolution. Maybe the strategy was intricately woven into the gun waving scenes, which I skipped. Maybe I missed the recipe for success which has eluded humanity since the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution to the more resent East European revolutions. Darn.

These revolutionaries here are the useful idiots of the TPTB who are itching for them to do something stupid so they can enslave us more, just like we have the Patriot Act, thanks to 9/11. Who knows what we'll have thanks to the idiots on Youtube.

People, this is not 1776 when all the participating sides pretty much had muskets, the government you are fighting is not across the ocean and there is no French armada to come to your aid.

Does anyone honestly believe they can win a shooting war with the US government?


The 1917 Bolshevik revolution started with a mutiny on the cruiser "Aurora" and had the support of the military. The Russian military was made up of conscripts- not paid volunteers, and the population was starving.
So unless the USS Ronald Reagan gives the signal shot, the Marines storm the 'Winter Palace' on Martha's Vineyard and most importantly the American population loses a few hundred thousand pounds of fat, save your breath on the revolution talk.

Besides the government is a good student of history and grows evermore sophisticated at keeping the peasantry from actually revolting. It is interesting to observe the phenomenon, isn't it?



[edit on 5-10-2009 by tungus]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tungus
Great.
A bunch of guys dressed in fatigues who think a revolution is a fun thing to do.

I didn't see any exit strategy, you know, how to rebuild society after they win the revolution.

These revolutionaries here are the useful idiots of the TPTB who are itching for them to do something stupid so they can enslave us more, just like we have the Patriot Act, thanks to 9/11. Who knows what we'll have thanks to idiots like these.

Does anyone honestly believe they can win a shooting war with the US government?

Besides the government is a good student of history and grows evermore sophisticated at keeping the peasantry from actually revolting.


Exactly my sentiments. Thanks for articulating so well.

Yeah the government must really love this stuff. It relieves them of the concern that anyone with brains and organizing skill is putting something together.

People trying to overthrow the government, technically a treasonable offense - and they put it on Youtube. Smart.

No thought I'm sure of how things like food, fuel, water, electrical services, hospital - would be maintained. With most people living in cities and suburbs just a couple weeks without these would mean many millions of deaths, especially in Winter.

And which countries would back the Revolution and provide supplies? America's enemies like Iran, North Korea, maybe Cuba and Venezuela.

Maybe China or Russia would see a good opportunity to walk in with the military in disarray and no controlling central command.

Possibly Mexico will take back their 'Occupied' territiories like Texas, California, New Mexico.

Interesting to watch from here in Canada.

Good Luck.


Mike



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by calcoastseeker
 


You "get it."



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Kofi-Annan, was one of the precipitating factors in the US, Britain, and others invading Iraq a few years ago.



How can that be so?

When Kofi Annan and Hans Blix were the two UN guys that said that the war in Iraq was illegal all of the time!


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

And his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions

www.guardian.co.uk...


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan says the United States decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was "illegal".

Mr Annan's comments are likely to reignite debate over whether US President George W Bush, Prime Minister John Howard and British Prime Minister Tony Blair acted within the bounds of international law by failing to get a final UN Security Council resolution on Iraq.

The final resolution was adopted in November 2002, when UN inspectors re-entered Iraq, warning the Iraqi regime of "serious consequences" if it was found to be in material breach of the earlier resolutions.

Mr Annan says the decision on whether to act on Iraq should have been made by the UN.

"It was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be," he said.

Mr Annan told a news conference in The Hague, Netherlands, shortly before the invasion that if the United States took military action without Security Council approval "it would not be in conformity with the Charter".

The United States and Britain withdrew a draft resolution in the council in mid-March after it was clear there were not enough votes.

France had threatened to veto the draft if UN inspectors were not given more time to account for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

www.abc.net.au...


Iraq war 'illegal,' UN's Annan says

The U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council was illegal, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview Wednesday.
"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal," he said. "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time – without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

Military action is allowed under the UN Charter when approved by the Security Council.

Before the U.S.-led invasion into Iraq, the United States tried to get the UN Security Council to approve the action. But when that appeared unlikely, it said it didn't need approval from the United Nations.

At the time, Annan said an invasion without Security Council approval wouldn't conform to the Charter.

www.cbc.ca...



Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector - by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

www.commondreams.org...



War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone"

www.guardian.co.uk...




Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office. Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

whatreallyhappened.com...


So it is very clear that both Mr. Annan and Mr. Blix tried to stop the invasion because it was Illegal.

To make the invasion legal under the UN charter, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted by the entire 15-member Security Council.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
THese men are paranoid and have no clue what awaites them. I wouldnt dare try to get people involved in such bull. ALL THEY GONE DO IS GET A WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLLOWERS (THOSE WHO CHOSE NOT TO USE THEIR OWN FREE WILLS *KILLED WITH THEM*) THis is a new day people YOUR GUNZ & AMMO WONT BE ENOUGH. TRUST ME



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous

When Kofi Annan and Hans Blix were the two UN guys that said that the war in Iraq was illegal all of the time!


It's a matter of public record now that Germany and France, along with Russia and China, were the beneficiaries of deep discount oil siphoned out of Iraq in the the UN administered oil-for-food program. They all freaked out when the US decided to go into Iraq as they would lose hundreds of millions for prepaid oil and a sweet deal if Saddam was overthrown.

What came out was that Kofi Annan was in on this with his son administering one of the go between facilitating companies. In a real world the head of the UN would have been dismissed for conflict of interest and charges laid.

Arms were being sold to Saddam in exchange for oil. Even the US was doing this. But there were under the table deals that never became part of the record. The fact that the member of the UN Security Council were involved kept this largely out of the press. But we know now why the US and Britain going into Iraq made the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and the UN squeal like pigs.



www.nysun.com...

One of the next big chapters in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal will involve the family of the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, whose son turns out to have been receiving payments as recently as early this year [2004] from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program.

The secretary-general's son, Kojo Annan, was previously reported to have worked for a Swiss-based company called Cotecna Inspection Services SA, which from 1998-2003 held a lucrative contract with the U.N. to monitor goods arriving in Saddam Hussein's Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But investigators are now looking into new information suggesting that the younger Annan received far more money over a much longer period, even after his compensation from Cotecna had reportedly ended.

The importance of this story involves not only undisclosed conflicts of interest, but the question of the role of the secretary-general himself, at a time when talk is starting to be heard around the U.N. that it is time for him to resign, and the staff labor union is in open rebellion against "senior management."

"What other bombshells are out there being hidden from the public and U.N. member governments?" asked an investigator on Rep. Henry Hyde's International Relations Committee, which has held hearings on oil-for-food.




www.heritage.org...

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

France

France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program. […]

Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and '80s

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.


Germany

Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's "firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.

German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project. An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.


Russia

Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports. Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia's total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months. […]

Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.

Three Russian firms are suspected of selling electronic jamming equipment, antitank missiles and thousands of night-vision goggles to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions.Two of the companies identified are Aviaconversiya and KBP Tula.


China

China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.

China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.

In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell "meteorological satellite" and "surface observation" equipment to Iraq. The U.N. oil-for-food program approved this contract.

CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq's weapons imports


United States

The United States remains the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. However, U.S. companies can no longer deal directly with Iraq for its oil imports. U.S. companies are forced to deal with third party vendors as a result of a ban on all American companies imposed by Iraq. In […]

According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq's weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.



M


[edit on 5-10-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Armed revolution in America? Not likely. The machine is way too powerful. There is no way a group of people involved with an armed revolt will be successful.

The very second that happens the MSM will brand anyone part of it "domestic terrorists". There will be a full media blitz to discredit and humiliate the opposition. The public (sheep) will eat it up and any movement will be quickly crushed.

You have to understand that the majority of people in America do not frequent sites like ATS to find out what is really going on. They rely on the MSM for their information, they do not question what they hear from their TV. If the news reports it then it must be true.


So if the 6:00 new reports that a domestic terrorist group has killed Americans in a bid to try to overthrow the democratically elected government you can bet you will have a large group of the public willing to take up arms against them to protect the American people and the government.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I can not believe that you are doing it again!

Citing TWO die hard conservative sources which of course will defend the party line, the military industrial complex and the invasion of Iraq!

You are incredible Mike! I don't know if this is becuse of Stupidity or if you're doing this because you have an agenda?

Always citing die hard conservatives and neocon sources.

Of course they will write whatever lies and propaganda to defend the actions of the Bush administration.

For your information: Roger Hertog (the owner of the N.Y. Sun) is a die hard neocon - I rest my case!

Heritage is a conservative think tank and a die hard right wing conservative organisation and one of the GOP's interests organisations that always defend the military industrial complex and people associated with them in politics.

Heck! even old nazi Germans from the German Intelligence who moved to America under the command of the Intelligence genius 'Reinhard Gehlen' and the OSS and who later worked for the CIA, were placed under cover with GOP interest based organisations as producers of cointel propaganda.

This makes me remember when you "cited" an organisation where the owner also was a neocon from the 'Rand corporation' and the military industrial complex - and were best friend with Frank C. Carlucci and playmate with most of the people of the Carlyle Group.

I was going to give you chance to see if your sources were more balanced from that day, but that seams to be a wast of time.


Almost all your sources of information is more or less from neocon or die hard conservative interest based organisations, whom falsely fabricated articles to fit their PNAC agenda and to defend the people who are involved with this agenda then and now!

It's now sadly clear to me what kind of agenda you endorse, and apparently it looks like you're agenda driven from that perspective.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
I can not believe that you are doing it again!

Citing TWO die hard conservative sources which of course will defend the party line, the military industrial complex and the invasion of Iraq!

You are incredible Mike! I don't know if this is becuse of Stupidity or that you're doing this because you have an agenda.

Always citing die hard conservatives and neocon sources.

Of course they will write whatever lies and propaganda to defend the actions of the Bush administration.


I can't believe you're doing it again either. I just check Google for the first citation of a story to link to.

The fact that Koffi Annan was involved in a conflict of interest with his son running a company contracting oil-for-food, and the facts of France, Germany, Russia feeding at the trough were scandals reported by all the press.

Facts that are reported in the Right Wing media, even if they make hay of it, do not stop being facts. Every news source reported on it. Those favouring the UN kept it minimized. Below are a dozen links online saying the same thing. There are hundreds.

How about this, from the most left wing major English language paper, Britain's the Guardian. They try to exonerate Annan, but still elaborate on the the UN's gross negligence. I didn't even want to get too deeply into the other things the UN is guilty of. Accepting genocide in Africa for starters.
Their Human Rights Council is another major scandal.

The Left and the Right agree on the corruption and negligence of the UN. Sorry.


www.guardian.co.uk...

What kind of leadership would tolerate this conduct 10 years ago? The answer is: precisely the same leadership that, 10 years later, permitted the oil-for-food scandal and the sex-for-food scandal. Why did it take everyone 10 years to figure this out?

The second searing irony for me is that the American neoconservative right has occupied the moral high ground in critique of Annan, outflanking the left, which sits on indefensible territory in his support. But if prevention of genocide and protection of the vulnerable are not core priorities on the left, then what is? If anyone's values have been betrayed, it is those of us on the left who believe most deeply in the organisation's ideals. I am mystified by the reluctance of the left both in the US and the UK (the Guardian 's coverage, for example) to criticise Annan's leadership. The bodies burn today in Darfur - and the women are raped - amid the sound of silence from Annan. How many genocides, the prevention of which is the UN's very raison d'être, will we endure before the left is moved to criticise Annan? Shouldn't we be hearing the left screaming bloody murder about the UN's failure to protect vulnerable Africans? Has it lost its compass so badly that it purports to excuse the rape of Congolese women by UN peacekeepers under Annan's watch? Is stealing money intended for widows and orphans in Iraq merely a forgivable bureaucratic snafu?

I am co-author of a book critical of Annan's peacekeeping legacy, Emergency Sex (and Other Desperate Measures): True Stories from a War Zone . My co-author, Dr Andrew Thomson, penned a line that drove the UN leadership to fire him. Lamenting UN negligence in failing Bosnian Muslims whom it had promised to protect in its 'safe area' of Srebrenica - where 8,000 men were slaughtered - Thomson wrote: 'If blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers show up in your town or village and offer to protect you, run. Or else get weapons. Your lives are worth so much less than theirs.'

Our book is often criticised by fellow travellers on the left because we hold Annan and the UN accountable. As head of peacekeeping then, and as secretary-general now, Annan's power to effect any change on the ground, our critics remind us, is constrained by the interests of the Security Council (the US and France didn't want to intervene in Rwanda, the French again in Bosnia, and China and Russia now in Darfur). Therefore it's unrealistic to argue that Annan should risk his job by exhorting his Security Council bosses to do the right thing in the face of genocide.

Our response? Annan asks - no, orders - unarmed civilians to risk their lives every day as election observers, human rights monitors, drivers and secretaries in the most dangerous conditions all over the world. They do it, heroically, every day. And, in the service of peace, some pay with their lives; others with their sanity. How can he then not ask of himself the courage to risk his job in the cause of preventing genocide? At the very least, he could go down trying to save lives, as opposed to going down trying to explain why he didn't.

Annan is not personally corrupt or incompetent. But the UN cannot have failed more catastrophically when the stakes have been highest. If he does not lose his job for that, then for what? And if not now, when?



Misc stories on Annan and oil-for-food.



news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4448775.stm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan

www.canadafreepress.com/2003/main042803.htm

www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/opinion/17SAFI.html

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-125152747.html


M

[edit on 5-10-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Yes! and I mostly agreed about the corruption, but!....the way you said that:

"Kofi-Annan, was one of the precipitating factors in the US, Britain, and others invading Iraq a few years ago"

And it was that post of yours that I was answering!

The UN worked days and nights with the Security Council while trying stop Tony Blair and Georg Bush from using the UN resolutions as they were, as the pretext & Casus belli for war!

You made it sound like Kofi Annan was the one to blame for the US, Britain and others invading Iraq, when Kofi Annan and Hans Blix in reality tried to stop the invasion on the eve of the war with legal arguments.

Nice spin though!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Do you have a history book from the future or something?


No and that isn’t what anyone needs to see the obvious.


Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by EMPIRE
 


That is wishful thinking so far from the truth that it's laughable.


No, thinking some type of armed insurrection that will lead to the restoration of the constitution and the removal of the government is wishful thinking and laughable.


I heard some 80-85 year old men and women talking about how this will not continue!


These are the people who are going to lead the battle or, due to their age, will they be used as human shields?


These members of our "greatest generation" are too old to take measures at this point in their lives, but they are troubled, angry, and resigned to the eventual revolt against an unconstitutional government.


Newsflash for the history and war genius, you’re looking at two different groups and somehow you come to the illogical conclusion that both groups share the same sentiments. The older generation knows what it was like to grow up in segregation, to have the constitution mean at least half of what it does today, to adapt and live without technology and to farm and to use their hands. Now look at this generation, solely dependent on technology (specifically MySpace, YouTube, cell phones and Halo 3), can’t even tell you the first three words of the constitution, can’t tell you how to farm but can point you in direction of the nearest Fat Burger, and generally show a lack of respect and concern for the so-called “greatest generation”. Now who do you think is going to lead this revolution? You think some John Conner type hero messiah, some Rodimus Prime type guy is going to rise from the ranks and lead his people to the land of milk and honey?

As for everything else you said it was filler and not really much deserving of a response. There is not going to be a revolution of any sorts, and if by chance something did happen, it will be instantly crushed. No manpower, no technology, no core ideology holding everything together, no power structure or influence within the present government, limited weapons and supplies, no compelling leadership, no exit strategy--no revolution.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by EMPIRE]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Yes! and I mostly agreed about the corruption, but!....the way you said that:

"Kofi-Annan, was one of the precipitating factors in the US, Britain, and others invading Iraq a few years ago"

And it was that post of yours that I was answering!

The UN worked days and nights with the Security Council while trying stop Tony Blair and Georg Bush from using the UN resolutions as they were, as the pretext & Casus belli for war!

You made it sound like Kofi Annan was the one to blame for the US, Britain and others invading Iraq, when Kofi Annan and Hans Blix in reality tried to stop the invasion on the eve of the war with legal arguments.

Nice spin though!



I'm in a discussion on a conspiracy site. This is conversation not documentation.

I see the UN proclaimed a force for peace, and I react trying to counter that blanket perception.

No simple answers to anything. Everything is multifactorial. But points usually not noted, Annan and his son were complicit in self-serving agendas. We stopped short of prosecuting him to save face.

France, Germany, Russia didn't want to see their billion dollar contracts with Saddam evaporate when he went down. They became outraged and indignant. I don't swallow the public record rhetoric of what was legal and illegal. The UN lets illegal activities go on all the time. The Sudan was their Waterloo for credibility. They don't give a damn about human lives when there isn't a buck in it for someone. It's just another corporation.

I think Annan was a total sleaze and I think the UN is corrupt beyond redemption. They is little recourse for their crimes and negligence. They won't get bounced fram any club of international bodies. They have no one to answer to except their members. Of their 192 member countries, the vast majority are run by military dictators, oligarchs, despots, corrupt monarchies. It's a club where most of the members are unconvicted criminals.

Some may believe they are an august body of worldwide statesmen trying to being peace to the world. Their track record says something else. Under Annan's watch even the semblance of keeping the peace faded away.

The world could use a force for reconciling differences between countries, and help the victims of bad governance. The organization calling itself the United Nations doesn't even try to do that.

I realize there's more to it than that. But someone needs to point out the great disparity between what the UN proclaims and what it does.


Mike



[edit on 5-10-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


OK! I now think I got the answer to my question that I made in my earlier post -It seems to me that it was maybe more of some minor stupidity, than of a personal agenda?!

Thanks mmiichael!


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Like Gil-Scott Heron said: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, The Rvolution Will Be LIVE!"



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EMPIRE
 

You're outta your mind.

The fact that these elderly folks were upset with what they see in the US has nothing to do with any racist residue from fifty years ago.

What they see is an economy tanking. They see a liberal court system out of control. They see laws that increasingly intrude on not only individuals, but states.

You just sit there all smug and certain.

You don't get it. Something is going to occur - an event. Just like in other times, a seemingly inconsequential event all of its own, but there wlll be a kickoff.

And you're going to be on the receiving team or the kicking team.

And by the way. Any idiot that thinks thirty million armed, pissed off citizens are going to be overwhelmed by our military - many who will not be present in a free-for-all scenario - is dumb, crazy, delusional, and really lacks the ability for rational analysis.


Any military that DO fire on the American people will in turn be snuffed by the guys behind them. And believe me, it happens.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join