It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"New" With An Old Concern

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM
Apparently being a member since the dark ages (my typewriter is so old it only types in clay cuneiform) doesn't permit me to post on a more appropriate forum unless I have personally contributed more, so forgive me if I begin with a slight attitude. I will be over it before I'm finished, I'm sure.

My question is straightforward: how does the US political machine defend it's actions when (insert name of hostile, belligerent, and/or just plain old overly aggressive nation) declares war and marches on our cities, farms, and other properties in the name of human rights? Even though this particular motive would always be subject to speculation as pertains to it's sincerity, what happens if ((insert name of hostile, belligerent, and/or just plain old overly aggressive nation again) was genuinely concerned and they were attempting to assume the role of "world police"? Clearly, our leaders are no longer in any position to lecture anyone on the ethics, morals, or legal rights of citizens and they obviously believe somebody has to be the world's guardians.

Of course we know self-righteousness will reign supreme in Washington, but there is still the "what if"? I'm hoping for a short, non-nuclear war followed by tons of restitution from every nation on earth we have been pouring dollars into.

I'm sure it will happen this way, don't you agree (hint of sarcasm)?

I will dutifully try to participate more in the future if you guys will have me.

Thanks for reading,


new topics

log in