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.

 

Blood on Obama's Hands

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
On a side note, what is it with these families and their war-traditions?? Generation after generation of a certain family will have members that went to war. Almost expecting the next generation to be in a good war of their own so they can continue the tradition........I think that's scary!!


It's a tradition of serving in the military. Going to war is just a perk.


And why do you think it's "scary"? Not like you're going to be fighting....




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
OrionHunterX and nh_ee are most likely right this is not a war but a sort of occupation or attempted occupation being set up on both fronts occupier and insurgent, the politicians are the point men and they make the justification's for the attempt at the oil drugs and minerals in the ground. I don't think most of them care or even know why they are really in that part of the world, or if they do then they would be to busy arguing about stupid stuff, like what the left hand does that the right hand doesn't know about, dogs chasing there tail. The system seems to be set up so as it's easily guided by the tptb for whatever they need doing, so therefore predictable institutions, are predictably controlled.

So what is the point of this war when it's guided on all sides for profit from those in the armed forces to locally funded tribes out for a cut when this is all over the Taliban or whatever they call them selfs. Lets be serious here even if this is attempted controlled desert gorilla warfare , no one seems to really have a good plan American's cant really pull everything out and go, to much at stake in profits for the corporations that profit from wars, and the troops can't really stay there, not enough profit in it for them in this occupation or incentives, or a clear cut goal, and diminishing jobs and harsher unfavorable regulations in the homeland. So what do you do when you cant get out or go forward, it's a lost situation in the long scope of it, if it continues.

It seems bush and all those before him were put in place for one basic goal in mind to destabilize the workforce and get people in the army. As since multinational corporations are in control they don't really need to many Americans setting up on the land that could be under there thumb, when more and more jobs leave the land and it becomes more dependent on them, and as more and more rules and regulations are placed in there favor, the less people they need, or need to cater to, the more power they get and the richer they get. Seems to be attacking the infrastructure by long term goals, making certain things week, so as to make certain things in there favor.. stronger, the discrepancies of class and those who have versus those who have not, could with effort and in time reach a boiling point. Then the army or the disgruntled subsidiaries of the army the pmc's could come into play, for whoever can afford to buy them when the shtfn.


But since i am in america I guess I am an american, so therefore it makes no sense for the american army to fight under so many rules, that seems to do nothing for the troops, but put a good face on it, in the news back here, if even that, even with gorilla warfare. If this was really about freedom or even bringing a sort of peace in that land or stabilization, with the tech they have at there disposal it would be better to go all the way and eliminate any insurgents by all means necessary, it is in there power technically and they have the manpower, but not the will or clear defined goal since this is not about anything but profit. I would guess either way they are screwed with the fight with the tribes insurgents or whatever ideology is predominant in that part of the world, most likely same as in this part. And the civilians would bear the brunt of this no matter who wins, or how it goes down making softer targets helps no one. It really is a quagmire the elite thought that they would go in grab all they could and get richer, and put the bill on the taxpayers by saying that democracy has been spread, like in the past. But judging from the fact that they are still there, and will cost more money nothing is going as smooth for them as they would like. It seems to be a messed up situation for all, but those who are poorer will have to pay the most.

So for the army I think either way people will die, pretending that it wont, and not letting them go all the way just makes certain that it will at least look good on paper, but wont change much in fact making targets never did. So either go all the way, or go home, pretending things don't exist or wont blow you up is not going to work and wont serve anyone but a few who would own that land after its all done with. If this is a occupation then freaking occupy it better, or else its just the few who will profit from this. Or go home, either way cant turn back time only go forward.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


No the blood is in your hands and the people like you because you support the war. Going to history of your posts shows nicely how you supported the illegal Iraq war which resulted in over over 1 million Iraqi deaths or 8669 civilians in Afghanistan and now you are upset that 63 soldiers died or total 951 soldiers have died in Afghanistan or 4402 in Iraq. You cannot take the moral high ground since that will make you worse if not equally moron as you called the US President Obama.

reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Might change a few minds of the bastards about being so quick to send other peoples kids off to die.

Perhaps if the bastards wouldn't have send the troops based on lies it wouldn't have come to this or the bastards who continue supporting these wars.

Oh and considering Bush who himself evaded draft had no military experience to speak of led two disastrous wars which are continuing till date.

Indeed it can be said there is lack of smart people

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Crimson_King]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimson_King
 



Illegal war? Really? Who declared it to be illegal? The UN? Congress? I really don't recall anyone officially declaring this war illegal.

And all those people dead? Who killed them. The US? Or maybe it was the insurgents. You know, the guys that intentionally plant bombs in places to kill civilians. Or did you forget about them?

Wait, I forgot! The insurgents wouldn't be killing innocent civilians if the US wasn't there! They're being forced to kill these people! That's right.

Tell me, how's that "striking a blow against the imperialist US War Machine?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by Crimson_King
 

Illegal war? Really? Who declared it to be illegal? The UN? Congress? I really don't recall anyone officially declaring this war illegal.


Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden

Yes they were illegal.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
[Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan


And what was done about it? Nothing. Sure, Annan said it was illegal, but it never went any further. Why? Probably because the UN was glad that Saddam got schwacked.


Originally posted by Crimson_King
Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden


And that has nothing to say about the war being illegal.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Semperfortis, your thread has caused some heated debate around a subject that is very emotive for the member base. Has your opinion changed since the opening post surrounding Obama and the allegation that he has blood on his hands?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


ha.

what if itss a genuine argument.

like say.

im not just posting this for LOL sakes.

no i actually believe this #. i think your president is actualy bin laden with a hair cut. i told you like the day i heard him being elected i was like beside myself. WTF OBAMA> is the president. his name is OBAMA? hahah and his name is BARRACK? hahahahah and your saying his middle name is HUSIEN? hahaha no way. your joking right? .. look's for myself. holy #. i cant write this myself. this is GOLD.lol. from there straight away ive always thought that. so. ha.

i just say.. "HANDLE THE JANDAL"

[edit on 4/8/2010 by Ashyr]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

Since I heard something similar, I will have to do some research myself. According to a few online and offline resources, that I have read, Obama told our troops to not fire back on insurgence. Our troops were ordered to not defend themselves.

We will need to find more information.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ashyr
 


English.
Grammer.

Learn it.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I felt like my hands were completely tied when i was in Iraq, and that was in 2006. I can only imagine how these troops feel about it now. i know how i felt then, i felt betrayed by my own country. Its friggin rediculous, politicians know nothing about the war, they only see numbers.

I think he needs to put in on himself to visit 2 families a day at his current rate to apologize for americas arrogance (jk) for his own insolence and arrogance.

He also needs to apologize for keeping them over there still.
I remember during the election, how he promised and PROMISED that "i will pull the troops out immidiatly. as soon as i get elected, they are coming home"

paraphrasing abviously, but thats what he had been saying.

I dont know why we have leaders still in office which are elected into positions for the purpose of progressing with what they say, when they just lie about it, I kinda see that as voiding a verbal contract they made with america and all those who elected them.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


No because US holds veto power and would veto any resolution against itself. It's quiet simple actually and doesn't change the fact the war was/is illegal. About the Afghanistan thing, Bush (with no millitary background..yes I'm repeating it) rejected Taliban offer and still invaded Afghanistan to capture the same Osama Bin Laden that Taliban offered while killing thousands of people in the process. It was war of aggression.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Exactly so. And I do believe this administration and it's erm backers are trying to get us out of this. The point remains, though...we all have blood on our hands. You can't separate it out...whether you made it happen or let it happen or didn't pay attention or didn't care. We are our country.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
Indeed it can be said there is lack of smart people


Funny thing about a pendulum... it swings both directions. I quoted the portion of your post I completely agree with, but I have a hunch that my evidence of a lack of smart people probably differs from yours.

The United States does not answer to Kofi Annan or the UN. Any blurring of the lines between the UN and the USA's role in regards to the UN are the fault of the United Nations, itself. If you wish to play which came forst, the chicken or the egg? over this issue and attempt to blame all the deaths of Iraqis on Bush and the US for being there in the first place, then let's go back a bit further, shall we? We'd have never been involved with Iraq in the first place had it not been for the UN pissing and whining about how we were needed to enforce UN policy and sanctions on Hussein. The UN started the fight, worked both sides, tucked tail, and then ran straight to the principal's office to squeal when punches were thrown between the US & Iraq.

The United Nations plays a high level game of "distract people away from seeing just how ineffective and worthless the UN is by villifying and finger pointing towards one of the Western nations." They are a yapping dog which sorely needs to be kicked squarely between the ribs yet, grievously, are pandered to by the current administration to an absolutely sickening degree.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


With respect, I am left quite taken aback by your suggestion that the UN are ultimately responsible for the war in Iraq. Your hypothesis is entirely new to me and would like to explore this further. It almost reads that you are exonerating Bush because of the UNs perceived inadequacies on the world stage and America were the only ones to resolve the situation.

Are you really blaming the UN?

Edit: Wasn't the political rhetoric within the Bush administration suggesting the UN was holding war up due to red tape. Great efforts were made to convince the UN that WMDs were present by Bush & Co. which all proved to be a fallacy.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LarryLove]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
About the Afghanistan thing, Bush (with no millitary background..yes I'm repeating it) rejected Taliban offer and still invaded Afghanistan to capture the same Osama Bin Laden that Taliban offered while killing thousands of people in the process..


From your bin Laden link in a previous post:

Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."

But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. "When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations," Mr Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt."


The article itself should have had the word "conditional" and "to a third party" in it and then at least it wouldn't reek of bias.

Simple, easy to understand FACT: Afghanistan would have never occurred had the Taliban handed bin Laden over directly to the usa. Instead they attempted to save face by placing conditions upon turning bin Laden over and only turning him over to a third party nation... likey a European country. Sorry, we saw what Europe does with the terrorists they convict... they release them back to their country of origin where they get a hero's welcome. (Lockerbie terrorist). There would be no justice at all in imprisoning bin Laden. The only justice for that animal is a bullet between the eyes or a long ride on the lightning express. Bottom line.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


You summed up my post pretty well. I am of the mindset that most of the modern day wars we have fought have been created largely thanks to the UN's stunning abillity to stir the pot, but complete unwillingness to serve the soup, so to speak. They lay down sanctions, they place "peacekeepers," yet time after time they demonstrate a lack of testicles which are required to add any teeth or enforce any policy they issue. They called on America to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq, then loudly ripped our military for firing on Iraqi jets violating the sanction. They called on our military to help enforce sanctions based upon Hussein's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, then were "outraged" when we actually carried through on promises of action if cooperation wasn't granted.

To be perfectly honest and accurate, the WMD issue in Iraq has never been much of a big deal to me. I do wish that they had never even brought it up. In my mind, all Bush really needed to say was "Hey, Saddam Hussein has been a royal pain in America's ass for years. He refuses to obey the requirements placed on him following the last war he started. Let's stop playing footsie and end this." I'd have been playing Outkast's B.O.B. before he was done speaking had he simply taken that route.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


And yet you are happy with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was supported by American administrations? As you assert, all of Europe treats terrorists with kid gloves and yet the CIA was financing Osama and Saddam until they were of no use or became problematic.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by Ashyr
 


English.
Grammer.

Learn it.


English.
Grammar.

Spell it
Sorry that was too good to pass up.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
The sad fact is politicians have no business trying to run combat operations from their safe little offices. It horrifies me no end that our boys and girls are risking their lives while some incompetent moron tries to manage something he knows nothing about. A war can not be run from D.C. Let those that know what they are doing handle it.



The pampered elitists in their roman architecture in DC are just
repeating history as the US does hang the roman fasces in the US
senate and many other places.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just like they did in WW2 Italy.

Some time in the future ppl will figure out the full extent of the lying,
but even now most do not fully "get it" when it comes to the
evidence from "able danger", "sibel edmonds", and John O' Neill.

When you start putting all the info together you see it is willful
incompetence at best, and something else likely at worst.

As the founding founders warned the country would be destroyed
from within, and so it goes....

Good Luck to all the good ppl !




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join