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.

 

The US Government Kills Americans - And You Love It

page: 12
72
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
reply to post by Onboard2
 


They didn't know every single soldier in that war... They would use generalizations just like physcis use to tell you your fortune. The Viet Cong did the exact same thing. It's called propaganda warfare. They would tell the soldiers that their generals don't care about them, that the war was over and they had lost, etc etc etc.

you are telling me that some North Korean soldier would get on a PA and know which soldiers were near by?? That makes absolutley zero sense!! Once again you are mistaken and it obviously got to your father if he believed that they knew every soldier....


No, it was much more than that in the Korean war. It was definitely not generalizations. They knew every intimate detail of each soldier's life from the number of siblings, names of the parents...where they grew up.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by crichton13
Don't really care about the bits he states about the american government killing it's own people but to say it allowed thousands of it's citizens to die in World War 2 just to protect trade interest is hardly anarchistic or informed.

The fact is that should Germany have successfully invaved the UK, they would've had time to perfect their heavy water experiments and would've produced nuclear weapons within a year/18 months.

V2 (and we now know via captured designs, the longer range V3) rockets would have reached the eastern seaboard of the USA, V3 maybe even further inland.

Many people have backed up the OP here on this particular thread of his but I see no reason to do so based on such inaccurate writings... [/quote


Your missing the point. Please see my post (for my opinion on the matter).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Had WW1 not happened (and if Germany had not been treated so shabbily for things EVERYONE ELSE had done at any given time) you would not have had WW2. The atmosphere was ripe to "breed" the likes of Himmler, Goebbels and their eventually drugged puppet Hitler.

You had the 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, and various other extended conflicts. When they were over, someone either lost land or hostilities ceased. WW1 and 2 are the points IMHO where League of Nations crap raised its head to set smouldering fires to be fought at a future date.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by romanmel
 



I am NE of Indy or Indianapolis,


Regardless of where you are positioned on the planet at this time, which we have established as near the capital and largest city in the state of Illinois, were you born there?




OMG...Illinois? Illinois? Did you say Illinois?

Check my post, child. I said INDIANA.

Indianapolis is in INDIANA. Indiana is in the USA, which is on a planet called Earth. What planet are you from??? Yes, I was born in INDIANA.



...
...
...


[edit on 28-8-2010 by romanmel]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AquaImage13
 


Well, I personally didn't call him un-American.

I just said his claim that....

The US Government Kills Americans - And You Love It

is pathetic.

Am I to be responsible for deaths from WW2?
My parents weren't even born then, let alone myself.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hypothetical:

You attend a peace rally downtown. There are about 10k people at this peace rally, and all are talking about how our Government needs to turn the other cheak when bad people do things to us. They argue its our policies that cause the world to hate us, and continue to preach appeasement, disengangement, minding our own business.

Once the protester is done with his lecture, you walk up to him, and as hard as you can, you punch him in the face. Caught offgaurd, the protester you just punched appears to be readying himself to fight. Once he does this, you lecture the protester that he should not fight back, but turn the other cheek. The lecture works, and the protester backs down.

When he does this, you walk back up to him, and as hard as you can, you jack him in the face. The protester again is taken off gaurd and appears to be readying himself to fight. You again lecture him about turning the other cheek. The protester stops, thinks, and backs off again.

When he does this you walk back up to him, and as hard as you can, you punch him in the face. When he appears to be getting ready to fight, you again lecture him about turning the other cheek.

Moral of the story - Eventually the protester will learn that there are times where one must stand and fight, to draw a line in the sand and say no more, never again.

War happens when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy fails because one party has intentions and goals they will accomplish at all costs. Even if it means saying you are at peace to get time to build up the military / operations.

Without a side that makes a stand, we would be singing God save the Queen. Without a side that says no more, we would be using deutch marks.

Appeasement never works, especially when one side wants to rule the world by force.



Agreed to an extent.

If the protester hadnt caused the situation for the aggressor to have cause to retaliate, it would be a non issue.

Example. Treaty of Versailles. The Germans were disrespected.

Result. The Germans (not being likely victims...ask the Romans) gather their strength and strike out.

No WW1, No Versailles Treaty, no WW2.

ALL of the blood of ww2 is on the hands of the allies ultimately.

Once again, I DO NOT PLACE ANY FAULT ON EITHER GI OR LANDSER. They both did their duty as asked.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by bad man incorporated
 


Having a State leads to more violence.

For example, the State has killed millions in violent wars.

The State has managed to kill far more than the number of people killed in private crimes during the same period.

Since the State can not prevent citizens from murdering each other, we can say that the State simply adds to the number of citizens killed.

If we got rid of the State, less citizens would die violent deaths.





I'm gonna have to partially part ways on this one bubba. Dang it!


It depends on what you consider "the state". There is a need for some government (just for organization). In my opinion, small local governments in confederation with others (disasters, trade, ect.) are good.

Like the USA was originally set up?

No matter what we do, people are going to fork it up royally. If you have a room with more than 2 people (strangers), you have the potential for trouble.

Voltaire said that Democracy worked fine so long as you had it spiced with an occasional assassination. Kinda like Jefferson and the "Tree of Liberty" watered with the blood of tyrants.

Keep it going bro. You may be an anarchist (by others words) but I think you and I could easily sit down with a couple of beers between us.

If your not an anarchist, dont sweat it. They call me a nazi!



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Wow. A whole lot of blowhard, quite little substance. Great post mnemeth1, star and flag. I've read the whole thread. The OP makes a very simple argument and a very philosophical one. All of of replies hold fundamental assumptions that drive this whole thread off topic. TheDevil likes to argue, but constructively. So first, I will devote energy positively, toward building this discussion.

mnemeth1: Xcathdra's response on page 9 intrigued me the most of any of the replies. He obviously is still operating under the assumption of states. But, you as well as I believe America has come the closest to the elusive concept of freedom. With all the Hummers and fantasy football picks and willful ignorance we still have a fire of individuality that world can only resent. So, what is your response to his hypothetical while states do exist? This is the number one reason people don't support anarchy--fear of losing what's theirs (even if we both know it's not really theirs). The second reason is related to this next question i pose to you: let's imagine Xcathdra's hypothetical under an anarchist system--how would society arrange itself that is different from what's been going on since the dawn of time to defend against all of its perceived and real enemies? I like to think we live in a more anarchic world than most are willing to admit.

Now just a couple detractors i feel like giving attention to:

For(Home)Country: First of all, motives for bothering to reply to this thread are suspect when I read your name and see your logo. Your assumption that the OP believes the US sends people to war to encourage them to pay taxes and to kill them is a assinine premise upon which to enter this thread. Please read and reread next time and think before you write. Another good example of this comes from your title of anti-libertarian, future politician. HA! The future scum politician wants to know how anarchy and politicians are any different (even though none of us have ever seen an anarchic system in our lives) and thus concludes the OP to be delusional. So the best way is clearly to continue with the Platonic system we have now in which enlightened and selfish rulers like you pave the way for our social contract of destruction of all things creative and free. OP simply stated the facts that nations go to war and contribute to your destruction and you've whimsically said there is no other way when he is clearly offering one. Great contribution.

Which brings me to Section31 who is a libertarian heart and soul but completely disagrees with mnemeth1's philosophies, one of which is libertarianism. Hmmm. Seems to think that we are all paving the way together to greatness! We are learning things! May I ask you Section31, what have we learned? Perhaps you should take a more ironic view of history, no?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Why bring up other creepy leaders? We are talking about the nation we live in and the government you worship. This needs to be dragged into the light and looked at over and over until we change our government into OUR government.


"Government you worship". Geez, you're funny.


Why not bring up "creepy leaders"? People need to see that while they are whining about BS and revisionist ideas, that real tyrants have walked the earth.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison
There are soldier out there (at least in australias armed forces) that put their lives on the line to save the civilians of the country they're deployed too...(instead of killing puppies & waterboarding their kids..) obviously he was right and I learnt a valuable lesson.


Yeah, that's all US troops do, kill puppies and waterboarding kids. Time to pull your head out of your fourth point of contact.



Originally posted by B.Morrison
Interesting that according to MSM americas pulled out without finishing the job while australias been left to finish training the troops, building schools, etc...we always get pulled into americas bull#....


"We" always get pulled into America's BS? What's this "we" stuff? Are you there? Sounds like you aren't, so you might want to amend your statement.

And by the way, the US still has about 50,000 troops in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDevil
The OP makes a very simple argument and a very philosophical one.


No.

The OP went to far by accusing Americans of loving wars and death that they weren't even alive to witness or change. Sarcasm is no excuse.

Perhaps you should reread the topic title.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I've read many of the OP's topics and he constantly portrays the US government, or government in general, as some big evil 100+ year old immortal monster out to kill everyone and enslave them.

What I don't think the OP realizes, is that he/she is ultimately complaining about "people killing people". In reality, the government is innocent, and it is the PEOPLE who made the decisions for the government who are guilty. The government is just a large collection of WE THE PEOPLE... humans. The government is not some single immortal monster.

I don't know about you, but I have a love for my fellow people. I don't always love their decisions, and actions, but I have a love for them. Since they are the government, I guess I am guilty for loving the government.

Until you alter the human, the humans which make up the government will never change. So you are ultimately complaining about humans, not government. The government can never be guilty, it's the people that are guilty.

So start naming names, or just stop labeling the entire government as a whole, evil. The government was created for the benefit of humans, for security and order, and I LOVE that idea.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrongStuff
 



Originally posted by TheWrongStuff
reply to post by DOADOA
 


Soldiers go where their country commands and do as they are ordered. The world is not perfect. America is not perfect. Other countries are not perfect. War sucks. Anybody who makes it through can deal with it any way they f'n way they choose as far as I am concerned.
...
Same question to every other finger pointer on this board; what is your equitable solution. I don't care what your complaints and perceived grievances are; if you're talking like that then you never served and it's time to cough up your share.


Since you directed the question to everyone, can I just ask a question or two in turn?

Is it ok if I just go out into my local community and randomly kill a few innocent people or does it only count if I do it in a country that the USA is invading or occupying? I want to be seen as doing my part.

Does it really matter whom you're fighting if you just see yourself as a paid mercenary who's not responsibility for your actions?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Maybe some countries get together to figure out how to eliminate the population control problem?Maybe war is just another way to control it.

Think about it people,if there were no war or diseases there would be too many people to handle.People that could rebel would be a threat.That's why you have rebels.The rebels are people who stand up against the government.Now if you are outnumbered a hundred to one or a thousand to one the odds of them turning against you rise,especially when you kill them .



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


The people are not to blame.

The mass killing of the 20th century is a product of centralized government power.

To illustrate my point, imagine if the US had no central government and only had state governments.

Do you think Kansas would have decided to pick a fight with Japan?

Do you think Wisconsin would have decided to wage war against North Korea?

No.

The State is to blame - specifically the federal government.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Remember that we have 65 million gun owners in America right now. It is utterly impossible for any country to invade us and stand any chance of success.


Another point to present is along with 65 million gun owners the vast amounts of persons that serve or have previously served in the military. Even having basic rifle training presents an enemy with not only a well armed force, but one that at least knows the general mechanics of firing a weapon.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Speaking of the State killing American citizens.

Chuck Norris actually just released an article on this very topic:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

August 26, 2010 "Human Events" -- Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the cover-up ops of spy novels? Well, it's reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.

It's not an extremist belief or theory of the far right. It's a fact that has been confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC and even documented by the far-left online magazine Salon.com.

And it's the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: a presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as the branch defines it.

Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But tragically, Obama is expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You bring an excellent point that the centralization of government is a major problem. What specifically happened in this country, after the Civil War, was the Federal Governments plans to consolidate power and strip the States of as much power as possible. As seen in Reconstruction, certain acts such as Prohibition and the Federal Highway Act and even more recently in regards to immigration.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


I don't think that really matters; the OP certainly didn't decide on those rules. However, if it does to you, I'll again ask: of all the wars that the US has undertaken in the last 50 years, which at least older generations were a part of, if not everyone, which of these justified the loss of one American life? Beyond that, sticking to the simple point the OP was making, did these wars not result in a lot of extra lost life? And were they not publicly supported, or was consent not manufactured for them? So we love it!



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
show me one government that doesn't kill their own for profit, in vain, or for fun?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


The people are not to blame.


Sir or Ma'am, I think you need to rethink this statement. Until then, it's quite obvious you are not in touch with reality.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The mass killing of the 20th century is a product of centralized government power.


A product of humans, the people.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
To illustrate my point, imagine if the US had no central government and only had state governments.

Do you think Kansas would have decided to pick a fight with Japan?


Kansas is not a person. Japan is not a person. They are both groups of many people. People fight and kill people for their own reasons. So YES, I do think the people of Kansas would pick a fight with the people of Japan if they felt it was necessary.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you think Wisconsin would have decided to wage war against North Korea?


Same answer as above. Yes, the people of Wisconsin would probably decide to fight the people of North Korea if they felt it was necessary.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
No.
The State is to blame - specifically the federal government.


The State is not a person or entity. The federal government is not a person or entity. It is a group of people.

What you are doing is blaming the gun, and not the shooter. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I think you need to rethink your reality.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join