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.

 

Ron Paul: War-monger Obama should have returned Nobel Award

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
You know the thought of calling someone an idiot just shows how simple minded you really are. I am not just looking out for myself, but I do get tired of sitting back and watching this man spend money that is just going to help the rich get richer and the middle class get screwed. What has giving the large corporations so much money done for most of the country and that is not a damn thing. And yes I do look out for my country I live here and love it, but why give billions of dollars to countries that would rather see us disappear from this earth than share it with us. Billions of dollars to help out banks that caused their own problems then letting them go and spend it however they want is wasteful.Giving money to people so they can get raises and have big expensive parties for the head honchos is rediculous when you have people losing their whole lives with a recession he did not start I agree but he is definiately contributing to. I for one am still waiting to see all of this job creation that he says he is doing. So before you call someone an idiot you might want to take a long look in the mirror my friend.




posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2 cents
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Your right Obama is peaceful and will (eventually) fulfill his promise to end those wars (but only after he kicks ass first), after all, Democrats never start pointless, endless wars (Vietnam) they just clean them up


Perhaps the "he started it" argument may be underrated and maybe adults need to use that one more. But the fact of the matter is the best way to "clean up a mess" is often not "lets ship over 2 million tons of explosives". Did Obama promise to send in 30,000 super-helpers to help clean up? No he sent in 30,000 troops who's purpose is destruction. Clean up means clearing out the debris and re-building destroyed structures. So no, Obama is NOT sending in 30,000 troops for an "end the war" job as you suggest which consists of withdrawing troops after re-building a few things. Its kind of insulting actually, to the people of Afghanistan, when you say that.

You know, a lot of times I have helped people and found out later they were kind of angry and didn't want my stupid help. And I respect that. Unfortunately however, Obama doesn't give a damn what Afghanistan wants he is there to kill and destroy opposition not to make buddies or clean anything up.

And that is why he is a disgusting human being who makes a further joke of himself by accepting a "peace prize". I literally laughed as I wrote "peace prize".

Here is basically the strategy Obama has:
"Ooops, we screwed up in sending troops to the Middle East. Therefore, we must continue to screw up each and every day for the next ten to five thousand years by sending additional troops there." Obama wants military in Afghanistan FOREVER just like he wants military in Iraq FOREVER. He's a nasty little authoritarian... an authoritarian anti-freedom traitor... just like the rest of them in Washington DC.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by truthquest]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The nobel peace prize is bs...

And for that... Obama guy... well its not so bad, see... I've already seen the Nobel peace prize being given to Yasser Arafat so... regarding Peace prizes, you cant really go lower than that


Whos next? Gaddafi?
Oh well... Its the world as we know it



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


I'm not sure my intent in that post was clear - it was sarcasm. Vietnam was started and continued by a democrat LBJ.

DDE sent advisors but most agree that the war really began in full under LBJ. Nixon a republican ended it. Not that I really care about Rs and Ds after a name anymore.

It's so clear to me that all the war protesters are quiet now because their man (a democrat) got into office. Never mind the war continues and grows. Some convictions those people have.
The Nobel peace committee has all these people convinced that war is peace. Where have I heard that before?


[edit on 11-12-2009 by 2 cents]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
God bless Ron Paul. I love that man.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Now that the Democrats are in power "War is good"!

Hey, wait a minute, didn't someone write a thread on that?

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

And anyone not agreeing with the OP or Ron Paul, can you say-

Hypocrite Much?



S&F OP Totally agree with RP



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2 cents
Your right Obama is peaceful and will (eventually) fulfill his promise to end those wars (but only after he kicks ass first), after all, Democrats never start pointless, endless wars (Vietnam) they just clean them up


You made this about political parties. I was talking about people.
I'm not interested in the left right thing. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


The constitution can only be changed by an amendment which requires 3/4th of each State's vote and 3/4th of all State's vote. Without that there is no legal way of changing anything.

If you believe government should be allowed to interfere with the private sector like having government healthcare then get the constitution amended to do it right and legally. What they are doing is unconstitutional and will end up flooding the courts with lawsuits as many people refuse to take any part in their corruption. I intend to be one of them. I will not buy into their plan, they will not force me to buy something I choose not to buy and they sure as heck will not get my money by trying to tax me for not playing along with their corruption.

We have a legal process for this which is amending the constitution. They won't try that route because the over whelming majority of the people do not want it!



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Kissinger? Are you kidding me?

What the heck are you smoking? His involvement in ending the Vietnam War was paramount.

He definitely deserve his award!


Hello!? K

Kissinger killed enough people in Vietnam and Cambodia to qualify as a war criminal along with Milosivech, and he might have been tried, if 911 hadn't superseded the issue.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


I don't know; I do believe, though, that there are figures who are working for their own goals within the government...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Sorry Mr Manto, but you said he gave to charity can you elaborate more on what charities? If you know please tell me and maybe my views might change, but I very well doubt it. Right now the biggest charity that needs help is the economy and if I am wrong then I am wrong.Would giving the money back to the american taxpayer be so wrong since he did nothing to earn that 1.4 million anyway. In fact it would mean he was paid to come get the award and the taxpayers would not have to spend what we do not have. That is basic economics. If you win an all expense paid vacation you do not pay for things with a credit card and give the money away you use there money that will pay for it right. Well why would it not work the same way if he were to have used that money to pay for the trip. To me he is trying to make himself look better by giving it away, but he would have looked just as good had he have said he was going to payback the taxpayers for the trip. Would not have hurt his approval ratings in fact it would have helped i am sure.

He hasn't stated which charities yet; so, until we know, I can't tell you.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 

Because, peace is made in many ways. We're dealing with an enemy here that if we were to stop fighting with them, they'll attack us again.

So, let's say we stop feuding with Al-Qaeda and head out of Afghanistan.

What happens the next time they attack us, Sacks?

[edit on 11/12/09 by Mak Manto]


you are starting to sound like bush!

i think that we should at least try to find the guy who attacked us the first time. these were individuals. individuals in an organization the cia funded for years.

osama may have went rogue, but the previous administrations had many chances to catch him.

if we pull our forces out of all these places we shouldnt be to begin with, then maybe they wouldnt be so mad with us to want to bomb us.

we effectively started a war against individuals, and now we are just staying there fighting everyone in the world.

i support any efforts made by our women and men in the forces, but I have a problem declaring war against individuals.

perhaps if the president said he would pull out, then he should.

being a support of democrats, im sure you were against the invasion to begin with....

what happened?

I was never against the war in Afghanistan. We went after the Taliban because they hid Osama.

I was against the war in IRAQ. We never found any WMDS, did we? Did we find any connection with Saddam Hussein working with Al-Qaeda?

WE DO KNOW, though, that the Taliban is working with Al-Qaeda.

So, I supported the war in Afghanistan since the beginning.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


The constitution can only be changed by an amendment which requires 3/4th of each State's vote and 3/4th of all State's vote. Without that there is no legal way of changing anything.

If you believe government should be allowed to interfere with the private sector like having government healthcare then get the constitution amended to do it right and legally. What they are doing is unconstitutional and will end up flooding the courts with lawsuits as many people refuse to take any part in their corruption. I intend to be one of them. I will not buy into their plan, they will not force me to buy something I choose not to buy and they sure as heck will not get my money by trying to tax me for not playing along with their corruption.

We have a legal process for this which is amending the constitution. They won't try that route because the over whelming majority of the people do not want it!

WRONG...

There is nothing illegal against it. Stop blowing smoke, Constitution...

There is no LAW against not changing the Constitution when adding new things...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
 


Government health care is not against the constitution per se. However, something that is constitutional may be unconstitutional as applied. We have had government ran health care for many years. Government could declare a national emergency and cap profits for hospitals which would drive costs down. But then the hospitals wouldn't be able to continue hiring paper pushers and admin staff to keep up with all the government regulations. So this health care deal is simply designed as a bailout to insurance companies and hospitals that are seeing Americans cancel their insurance policies to be able to afford their mortgages.

I say nothing wrong with government regulated health care as long as the direct money benefit is given to the people and not the insurance companies.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Kissinger? Are you kidding me?

What the heck are you smoking? His involvement in ending the Vietnam War was paramount.

He definitely deserve his award!


Hello!? K

Kissinger killed enough people in Vietnam and Cambodia to qualify as a war criminal along with Milosivech, and he might have been tried, if 911 hadn't superseded the issue.

Please...

Like I said before, peace is made in many ways. If you think the people who receive these medals are either just good or bad, then you're foolish.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by mahtoosacks

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 

Because, peace is made in many ways. We're dealing with an enemy here that if we were to stop fighting with them, they'll attack us again.

So, let's say we stop feuding with Al-Qaeda and head out of Afghanistan.

What happens the next time they attack us, Sacks?

[edit on 11/12/09 by Mak Manto]


you are starting to sound like bush!

i think that we should at least try to find the guy who attacked us the first time. these were individuals. individuals in an organization the cia funded for years.

osama may have went rogue, but the previous administrations had many chances to catch him.

if we pull our forces out of all these places we shouldnt be to begin with, then maybe they wouldnt be so mad with us to want to bomb us.

we effectively started a war against individuals, and now we are just staying there fighting everyone in the world.

i support any efforts made by our women and men in the forces, but I have a problem declaring war against individuals.

perhaps if the president said he would pull out, then he should.

being a support of democrats, im sure you were against the invasion to begin with....

what happened?

I was never against the war in Afghanistan. We went after the Taliban because they hid Osama.

I was against the war in IRAQ. We never found any WMDS, did we? Did we find any connection with Saddam Hussein working with Al-Qaeda?

WE DO KNOW, though, that the Taliban is working with Al-Qaeda.

So, I supported the war in Afghanistan since the beginning.


So you support breaking the law, like obama.

That the taliban hid osama, or refused to deliver him, has been refuted many times. Just like the US would do in a death penalty case, they asked for evidence... the bush had none.

The taliban worked with al-qaeda?, nope... never been proven. Suggested or insinuated.. sure.

The violence in afghanistan is illegal because it has never been proven conclusively in a fair open process that the state had anything to do with an act of war against the US. The suggestion is that one guy thought of 9/11 in their zip code.. which is not an act of war.

Since nobody has been found guilty or responsible for committing an act of war against the US, obama is continuing national policy in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty that outlaws war as an “an instrument of national policy,”

Wait, unless we are not at war... its "enhanced happy fun time"

If obama was standing tall before Nuremburg, he'd be told:
“.....any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the (Kellogg-Briand) Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing.”

and that

To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


www.changingtimes.org.uk...



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
"So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."


I am serious when I say this. TPTB version of "peace" is using force to make others submit to them. Once everyone on the planet has submitted to them, then there will be peace. That is exactly how they view it, and I am not being sarcastic.

Given that, maybe he does deserve this prize?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Ron Paul couldnt be anymore right, what in the hell is this country coming to. I hope at least fifty-percent of our citizens see the truth in which Mr. Paul is ellaborating on. Its a complete shame and slap to the face for every westerner as this disgusting Dictator walks down those steps.

It cant possibly be mainstream to have your country completely angry sick and twisted on starting war on foreign countries who they seriously know nothing about. Much less have not very many means of reaching outside media sources that arent so big on sugarcoating the small cycle of truth.


I must be wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...........



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Representative Ron Paul is about the only real statesman we've got. The Nobel peace prize is obviously a farce, but Congressman Paul calls it on its face value.
Our entire legislature, except Ron Paul and his ilk, should be impeached for defrauding the American public with the bail out. He is the only one with the guts to take a stand against this illegal and totally out of bounds government. Nobody calls them out, although they are totally illegal because they've got the courts and the justice system and the cops and the military not to mention DHS and HAARP backing them up. The American people themselves have to stand up and say no.
Right now the weather's too cold, but it is time to hit the streets with "peaceful" protest. Any anger or threat could bring the military down on us, even though that would be unconstitutional, because they are all ready to attack the citizens to spark a military coup and the ptb are looking for an excuse to depopulate the country. This sounds way out there but it isn't. They can plan it and talk about it and get away with it, but if we say it out loud that makes us a fringe element

[edit on 12-12-2009 by m khan]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by m khan]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Obviously the word "peace" in the Nobel Peace Prize is taking a new meaning. Define the word "peace" Use the Iron Mt Report where peace means the absence of resistence due to the locked-down condition of the country in an iron-fisted totalitarian absolute despotism where the slaves are barely alive and totally grateful to be alive, or maybe peace as in the peace of the lambs who ARE dead. Obama has won a prize that means peace as in the defeat of freedom, the end of humanity as we know it, the survival only of the monsters.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join