Now that the Democrats are in Power "War is good"!

Just something simple and to the point.

My view is this, I am sick and tired of the US being the supposed Police of the world. We should have investigated the people behind it and wiped any known associates from the face of the Earth. Not declare war/police action on different nations.

You cannot declare war on terrorists. You can only declare war on a country. The people that attacked us on 9/11 actually hit a very good target. A symbol of our countries Empire building. The World Trade Center.

We are not at war, we are policing the world as a very few believe it needs to be policed.

Enough about my views, now yours. Please no trolling or partisan attacks. Just your views and an honest and open discussion.

reply to post by endisnighe


Put differently then I would have, but I find myself in agreement with you mostly.

Being the police of the world is bankrupting us. We're getting very little return on our investment. Our continuing hand in other countries' affairs is creating an ongoing problem. The cia referred to it as blowback.

We should be taking care of our own first and not traipsing off to save the world at every turn.

War is bad. (full stop)

edit : spelling

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Seiko]

Yes, I tried a different tact elsewhere and received no response. I tried it this way because the Democrats over the last 8 years have been screaming bloody murder to stop the wars.

I think they were absolutely right.

Thanks for your post.

It is bloody time to stop Empire, before we destroy our nation.

The afghanistan war had always had less opposition than the Iraq war for the reason that Afghanistan was a result of 9/11, as opposed to the failed assumption of WND's in the case of the Iraq war. Your assuming that the anti-war movement was against aghanistan war when it was the Iraq war that actually spurred on the movement.

I will agree that opposition against the war from both rightwing and leftwing is now at the majority, but the reasoning behind the war, the original intent following 9/11 was never an issue for both sides of the fence as opposed to the Iraq war, and maybe that explains why there is a different attitude towards troop increases.

Originally posted by endisnighe
My view is this, I am sick and tired of the US being the supposed Police of the world.

I verymuch agree with you endisnighe... I am sick of it as well. I think we should withdraw our bases from Japan, Australia, Germany and other parts of the world, I think we should continue diplomatic pressure of North Korea and Iran for peace but at the same time leave military option out, I think we should cut Israel and kick the religious fringe right and zionists out of our foreign affairs.

However I see Afghanistan as different and this is where the arguments comes. The original move for troops into Afghanistan was not based on foreign issues, our movement of troops into afghanistan was based on a domestic attack so I disagree that our troops being there are for the sake of foreign policing. It was in our interests following the attacks on our nation and the involvement of those in afghanistan. Ofcourse you dont believe the attacks were by terrorists, but then again thats your personal conclusion and it doesnt apply to everybody else.

You cannot declare war on terrorists.

True, you cannot, but you can attack the specific area where their strongest point holds, which is in Afghanistan. They attacked us on 9/11 apart from your personal belief, and thats where we go to put military pressure on them.

A large part of the problem, the current center of the "Iron Triangle", is the Project for the New American Century, who lobbied for military action against Iraq through the 1990s and from which Bush culled some twenty-odd members of his administration. What slipped under the radar is this bit of information about the head of the PNAC, Robert Kagan:

Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the New American Century,(along with Cheney) the group which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,(and demanded we attack Iraq) has praised Obama fulsomely

www.mydd.com...

Obama spoke out against the war, meanwhile when she was a senator, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton voted for the war, as did his now VP Joseph Biden.

But somewhere it seems he had a change of heart:

Penn, responding to a question about Clinton's vote for the resolution, used the opportunity to attack Obama, arguing that he had said in 2004 that he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate.

Clinton, Obama Camps Spar on War

In 2006, Obama voted yes to HR 4939, which gave a steep sum of $67.55 billion to the DoD for war efforts in the Middle East. No wonder Mr. Kagan, whose milieu of neo-cons operating throughout various think-tanks and who are deeply intertwined in defense contracting agencies, speaks so highly of President Obama!

I made a thread a while back, called Oil and a War with Iran that dealt with this very issue, yet it didn't get many replies. I wonder why...

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Someone336]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You either misunderstood me SG or cannot get yourself to agree with me whole heartedly, I do believe terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

But the same as what happened in WWII, it was seen as a way to allow the country to come together or a rallying cry so to speak. Foreknowledge is not the same as instituting, but why bring up the point, it will never be re-investigated. The new Bosses are the same as the old Bosses. I have given up on that point.

Thanks for your post, we do not see eye to eye on many things. I am glad we have found something.

As for Afghanistan being the center for the terrorist training or whatever. Bull#. I guess the next center will be in Iran. Than the next center will be in North Korea. Than the next etc etc etc.

I also see reports we are building 7 military bases in Brazil now. Must be terrorist training somewhere down there.

edit to clarify my stance on 9/11 better

[edit on 12/1/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Someone336


Yes, I see people do see things the way I do.

As for not getting many responses, a title must be polarizing here on ATS.

I have several threads that have no responses or only a couple. Of course than I have a couple that went pretty big.

I guess their are a lot of variables.

I will have to stop by your house and do some reading.

This is the trick of the false dichotomy, or split, in US politics. When Republicans are in power, they are the "master," and the Democrats are the "slave." When the Democrats are in power they are the "master," and the Republicans are the "slave."

The self-identified slave might try to manipulate its way into master status, and it does so by pointing out the half of the story that the master does not address, and also by using all sorts of ruses and linguistic demolitions, among other tactics. The self-identified master might try to hold onto its power through primarily both sheer force and marginalization of the opposite. In reality, all of these tactics are used by both slave and master, but the key difference is, of course, master seeks to keep its status while the slave seeks to usurp authority.

Nevertheless, in this circular drama, the slave then becomes the master, and while the roles change, the play stays the same. It is a play of domination and manipulation, divide and conquer, total slavery, a slavery which is first mental, then physical. The most simple view could be that the slave manipulates, while the master dominates.

This slave and the master dynamic dances and circles around a center point that is a synthesis of the domination/manipulation duality, a BEASTLY, androgynous goat, devil-like singularity, if you will. 1 +1 = 3.

I find it both curious and obvious that this AUTHORity behind this drama would constantly promote freeDOM, both at home and abroad, freedom (FREE DOMINATION) being the supposed right to ruthlessly dominate and manipulate another, as if it is a virtue, and as if it is "free," bearing no cost or consequences, bearing no responsibility. It is truly an egocentric view, one in which the "beast" masquerades as divine. Remember folks, rights and responsibilities exist hand-in-hand. One cannot exist without the other. For more on the master/slave dynamic, look at some of my other posts.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

Just a suggestion, break up your posts a little bit.

It plays hell on the eyes trying to read block print.

I call it the Dem/Left-Repub/Right paradigm.

I am just following the lead of others. The dems and repubs are no different, just two sides of the same coin.

And I am trying to spread the word in my own way. Asking why when one party takes power, all of sudden, the people that had been screaming for the end of the wars, all of a sudden, fall SILENT.

reply to post by endisnighe


Point taken. I do have that tendency. I do like to talk in a sort of stream-of-consciousness, as I want people to look in the mirror, so to speak. I see that the best way of accomplishing this feat is by expressing myself naturally. But I do need to make a little more effort in editing, because, as you said, it is easier to read. Peace.

Edit: Is it not obvious? The mindless ideologues of the Democrats and/or Republicans are just that, MINDLESS animated meat puppets. I am not trying to be rude. The ideology pulls their strings and not the other way around. It is much as if people are just happy if their "team" wins the Super Bowl, which in no mere coincidence, is yet another "game" springing from the war metaphor.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

reply to post by endisnighe


Is it just me, or do the days of the ATS that demanded real research and insight seem long gone? Perhaps as more time after the initial election shock dies down people will really begin to question things beyond the talking box on the television.

You mentioned in another post the building of seven military bases in Brazil... this is, quite frankly, not surprising at all:

After September 11th, the U.S.-led “war on terror” moved swiftly into Afghanistan. Once the heavy combat had diminished, speculation turned to what the next target would be. The Philippines, the former Soviet republic of Georgia, Yemen, Somalia, and Indonesia were all discussed as possibilities. Except for a few disparate stories, the tri-border region of South America received little attention as a locus of terrorist activity despite a recent history of Islamist terrorist activity. But this region, which already has a history of mass casualty Islamic terrorism, is also an area of concern.

One 1999 report, however, did link al-Qai’da and the tri-border region. Agents from Argentina’s Secretariat of State Intelligence (SIDE) passed on a report to the CIA and Mossad detailing their findings that operatives from al-Qai’da were in the tri-border region and coordinating with extremist Shiite groups.[5] The report also noted that several suspected terrorists and fugitives had passed through the area. Among them was Al-Sa’id Hasan Hussein Mokhless, an Egyptian accused of carrying out the 1997 Luxor massacre in Egypt, which killed 62 people including 58 tourists. Mokhless had trained in Afghanistan and was a member of al Gammaa al-Islamiya. Additionally, U.S. intelligence sources report that they have obtained information about al-Qai’da activities in South America during operations in Afghanistan. At least one official says there are indications that al-Qai’da is working in Latin America preparing for a future attack.[6]

Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region



Of course...

OGJ reported that Brazil had 1.9 million bbl/d of crude Oil refining capacity spread amongst 13 refineries. Petrobras operates 11 facilities, the largest being the 350,000-bbl/d Paulinia refinery in Sao Paulo. Petrobras also controls a dominant stake in the retail products market. In February 2005, Petrobras signed an agreement with Venezuelas state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA) to build a new, 150,000-250,000-bbl/d refinery in the northeastern Brazil at a cost of $2.5 billion.

Oil Pipelines in Brazil

If military action comes against Iran, then that would be a military presence in one of the BRIC nations and it's close "ally" (if you could call it that), the China-Iran-Russia axis, a conglomerate along with Venezuela and the China-India-Russia "strategic triangle" which could currently be considered the number one threat to western global supremacy. Quite contrary to the program of the Project for the New American Century and their geo-political play book written by Brzezinski.

If you want to get into a really weird twilight zone of connections, check out that Reverend Moon is buying up land in the tri-border region. Check out Reverend Moon's political friendster entry for why this is particularly interesting.

Sorry for straying off topic.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by Someone336]



[edit on 30-11-2009 by Someone336]

Not a problem, as you can see, not many people(trolls or the like) wanted to wade into this discussion. I will spend some time reading through your links you have given. I like diverse sources and just a quick query of yours look interesting.

If you have never heard of SpartanKingLeonidas here on ATS, I suggest reading through some of his threads.

Hell of a lot of info.

Yes, we (US) have become what we began as a nation to avoid, a tyrannical empire.

And the government has the American People right where they want them, divided and arguing amongst themselves.

Fear not though, the numbers of the awoken are growing.

As for research, hell, most of the people here cannot hold their own attention long enough to read two paragraphs.

The last thread I was reading on poster actually had the gall to say in the reply that after reading the first two sentences that he had to make a reply.

Idiocy, ignorance and narcissism runs rampant.

I have actually changed my mind after being a member here for about 5 months. I did start reading here last year around September, when I became unemployed. Too busy on several other sites and projects.

I kind of just swing through and see what is going on on my threads and a couple of other's.

Like I said, I will be reading through you links and will stop by your house(home page) to see what you have been up to.

One other thing, I was investigating the South America situation after it was released that Brazil had found a huge oil reserve. The US is going to borrow them the money to get it up and running. Guess who runs the company in charge of that? George Soros. Coincidence? That is where I stumbled across the info on the new bases. Gotta protect that oil, I mean Friendly Country!

Thanks for your responses.

Get out of both places -

The whole thing is wrong on so many levels...

IMO the D's need to pull the plug, even if there is serious fallout because of (??????).

It bugs me that we bashed W for being a war monger (which I believe is true) only to
keep on keeping on. I don't like being hypocritical if I am conscious enough recognize it, don't know, like I said wrong on so many levels. Let us hope someone has the brass to call it a wrap and get our folks home, regardless of the political implications.

reply to post by Janky Red


Damn, I got two of the most Democratic folks on ATS to almost completely see the LIGHT>Dem=Repub Paradigm.

I must be getting more persuasive in my ATS age.

Thanks for your comments Janky Red.

I agree.
Just another clue of two sides of the same coin.
And the peeps loses everytime. Go figure.
My 2 ameros....

War is never good, even if it is big bidness!



[edit on 1-12-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


Thanks for posting dodadoom.

War is the only bidness these asshats know.

What would not surprise me, that if Catastrophic Peace hit the world, they would go insane.

I am a progressive who voted for Obama and was a major opponent of the war in Iraq. I am also a strong opponent of the war in Afghanistan.

I too believe that the USA should not be policing the world.

I also believe the war on terror is a farce concocted by the Bush Administration and perpetuated by the Obama Administration to fuel the military-industrial-complex.

The points you make in your thread are all very agreeable to me, so why the title?

You do nothing to explain how that now Democrats are in power war is okay? Because as far as I can tell no one among my peers agrees with the escalation.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I give you the OP and all, stars.

I could not agree more. I that country is a breeding gound for training, use our technology and take them out with a few cruise missles now and then.

There is now way to ever come out with a long term "Win" there.

How come it is that even in a place like ATS has been with the trolling, bashing back and forth, this is one subject that we almost all agree upon?

Why is it, that our Govt., both sides, our Admin, Obama, all keep it going, keep our troops in danger?

Not spending on this crap would go a long way to cutting the budget. But on the other hand, they would just spend it somewhere else.

When with the Madness of DC stop?
When will the DC madness consume us all?

How soon we forget:

December 16th, 1998

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Different guy, different party, but read through it. The justification sounds familiar.

The Democratic leadership was never 'anti-war'. They were anti-Bush. They supported the wars right up until the point where they realized they could capitalize politically from tapping into the public anti-war sentiment. Now that the ball is back in their court, surprise, surprise, they jump back onboard.

That's where the current Democratic party leadership lost me forever. I think they're playing games with national security, which makes them the lowest form of pond scum, IMO.