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.

 

Liberal America is now put to the test

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
The UN is already criticized for not taking enough significant measures, removing the “force of action” component would make it more efficient in helping resolve these complex and delicate world affairs and problems how?


Because it would return responsibility to the nations instead of having the UN scape goat to continually blame when a travesty occurs. Humanity, and that includes how nations govern themselves, needs to grow up. We find ourselves as a whole, in the same stagnant position we have been in for centuries because some group gains power and then manipulates the populations and always has some group to point the finger at in order to stay in power. Putting such authority in a massive centralized group gives the real puppet masters a source they can point to in order to distract their people from seeing their internal problems.


This is where I disagree with preemptive action. I agree that nations should take unilateral action in defense, and the United Nations Charter already contemplates such situations. Preemptive wars result in the mess we have with Iraq.


I disagree with preemption also. But I do see it as a nations right. I don't think it is in-line with American values and principles though.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So when do we start also showering Yemen and Syria with "humanitarian" missiles?


If you'll notice, I gave mention to that in my post. It's one of the reasons I suspect this action.



really, a "bad man"? Sounds like a description a child would use.


Yes it does. It's a phrase MANY people used to describe Saddam during the Bush years. It's not my phrase. That's why I put it in quotes. Google it. Saddam is a very bad man. You'll get many, many hits.



Yeah, some liberals now claim not to be obama supporters, you just can't tell it from any of their posts.


I don't know what you're talking about here. I have NEVER claimed not to be an Obama supporter. Is that what you're implying here? That I'm a liberal and that I NOW don't support Obama?

I know it's hard for some to wrap their brains around several ideas, but let me just let you in on a secret:

1. Not all people who voted for Obama are liberals. Some of us are quite conservative.

2. Not are liberals are anti-war. I'm not, for example.
3. Support of a president does NOT mean 100% support of ALL of his policies and actions. I've been clear on this from the very beginning.

I know it's difficult, but perhaps if you read those sentences several times, they'll start to sink in.

.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


really, a "bad man"? Sounds like a description a child would use.


Yes it does. It's a phrase MANY people used to describe Saddam during the Bush years. It's not my phrase. That's why I put it in quotes. Google it. Saddam is a very bad man. You'll get many, many hits.





Is that some elitism showing through - that you think you have to talk to us like you are talking to a child?

At least use much more accurate child terminology for Gaddafi. This guy isn't just a "bad man", this guy is an "in the closet", "under the bed", "monster".


edit on 3/21/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is that some elitism showing through - that you think you have to talk to us like you are talking to a child?


No, it's not elitism and I was only talking to you. You seemed to be confused or concerned about my use of the phrase "very bad man", so I was explaining where I got it. If you act like a child, I will speak to you as if you are a child.



At least use much more accurate child terminology for Gaddafi. This guy isn't just a "bad man", this guy is an "in the closet", "under the bed", "monster".


If you don't like my choice of words, that's really not my problem. How about this? You choose your words and I'll choose mine, OK? Sound like a deal?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Secularist

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Secularist
I really cant believe how stupid some people are and how they get so many stars writing stupid things. Really, no matter what it is, to some of you people theres some backwards meaning behind it always, all the time. If you payed any attention to the news in the past three months you wouldnt be so dense to whats going on.

Lets get real with the situation and stop with the stupid smear campaigns against the U.S.

This is nothing like Iraq. Pay attention.


They won't because all they see is A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH MEANS ITS DRIVEN BY RACISM.

The right will use any oppourtunity to attack the nation it is sickening and not to mention shades of Anti Americanism.

Star for you for being for being firmly grounded in reality, logic and common sense!!
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


If they just turned on the TV and watched Obama address the nation 1 out of every 4 times he does a week then it would be obvious that not only he but EVERYBODY in the U.S. wants really nothing to do with this but what most of these people have no clue about is that ignoring things like this, even if the perpetrator is a shi.t country like Libya, that it opens the doors to 'every man for itself'. Its that freight of thought that leads to hell on earth. If the United Nations doesnt make a stand here and now with the genocide starting in Libya, then other countrys will begin slaughtering their protesters by the thousands, and then NATO would have multiple countries to suppress.


The White House, Pentagon, Joint Cheifs has already said we will be in and out in a month and people on the right do not listen nor pay attention. NATO and The European Union is directing this campaign and will take it over once we leave. The right lost thier right to complain about going to war when they stayed silent and allowed $14 Trillion to be put on the card.

I will take a page out of 43's playbook, "If you're not with us, you are with the terrorists!" This phrase sums everything up quite clear.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Use Russia and China's money.


You mean their combined contributions of a whopping 3.8% of the regular budget of the UN? How can that replace our 22% and the amount Japan will not be able to afford in the coming years, of their usual 16.62%?
www.un.org.../ADM/SER.B/755


You... ARE aware that pretty much every iota of power the US has in the world is dependent on our position in the UN, right? Now personally I don't mind if the US isn't "top dog" in the world, but I think you might start, once our military bases are getting bulldozed, our trade agreements fall apart, and our 51st state on the East Mediterranean no longer has us vetoing everything.


You mean it has nothing to do with the rest of the foreign aid we supply? Or what we "pay" those countries for having our bases there? How much more "good will" could we "buy" with the money we're giving the UN, by cutting out the middle man?

I would certainly say the UN is much more indebted to us, than we to them.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Vizzle
 


I am deceptive in my tactics...you'll note I never said we weren't involved, but those tomahawks went in after a French warplane blew up a Libyan military vehicle.

From your own article a few paragraphs down:


Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle Saturday, the first strike against Gadhafi's military forces, which earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.


The French fired first.
edit on 20-3-2011 by links234 because: Extra info.


Isn't that like saying "It isn't rape because the other guy put his hands on her first"? The U.S has its hands in the bloody pie again...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparky11

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by sparky11
reply to post by Wolf321
 


The entire right has been salivating and foaming at the mouth for the last decade in hopes of going to war with Iran and Syria yet both events will not occur.

The right also wanted and pushed through an illegal war in Iraq but have the audacity to complain now as the right remained quiet then and should remain quiet now. Can you say double standard?


To be fair, I should have pointed out that Neocons (fake conservatives), what you mistakenly call "the right", are just as bad as fascist minded, pro-war Liberals. Yes, I can say, "double standard" for sure!


$14 Trillion on the card and no one on the right complained then and have forfieted your righ to complain now. he right, TPTB caused this mess financially and no one else.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Good point...to his credit, the slob, director Michael Moore, has come out against the war(s)....going against the liberal stream in doing so.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Text Black

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Good point...to his credit, the slob, director Michael Moore, has come out against the war(s)....going against the liberal stream in doing so.


Look at how watered down "Capitalism" was and you will see how in bed he is wth TPTB and he is their willing pawn.

Find a video during the 04 RNC in NYC whereas Alex Jones tries to interview him and he refuses. Corporate sheep is all Moore is. Someone who needs to seriously get out of the way as he is nothing more then a distraction and threat to this movement.
edit on 22-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


What blatant hypocrisy? You jump in as the third poster and then say that the left is not against this war? How can you determine this before you give anyone a chance to reply? In fact, in at least two other threads, posters who seem to be on the left are against this war.




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join