Why cut the military

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It switched when crazy idiots blow themselves up for their "god" crazy idiots but back on topic. I simply don't like john carry cuz his voting record shows that he has voted against every weapon system that helped us want the cold war. Plus john Kerry votes for the war then votes against the 80 billion dollars going to our troops. That to me doesn't sound like a man you can trust with the military.


Yeah but Congress didn't authorize the war, they authorized the US use of force in case Iraq wouldn't allow the UN weapons inspectors to do their job. Well, the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find any WMDs, so Bush invaded. Then, he couldn't find any WMDs. Then the spin started. So basically, we can't trust Bush to use the troops correctly either because he lies about why they're going to war.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I guess our Dept. of Defense should revert back to its old name, the Dept. of War. Westpoint I think the 80 billion your refering to wasn't going to our troops. It was going to rebuild the country we just demolished. But with the War on Terrorism now that were in this mess all we can do is see it through and make the best of it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Ok lets look at what bush did. Its post 9/11 3.000 Americans died the CIA is telling you saddam has nuclear weapons, the British intelligence is telling you saddam has them, russian intelligence is telling you saddam has them. Now this is what you are being told put yourself in bush's place you are being told this you dont know its false you trust the intelligence and you are telling me if you were bush you would have not gone into Iraq afar 911 with these circumstances?
And im not sure sure how much money there was but I know Kerry voted against a bill that would send our troops the is money to help fund the troops.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Well first off 9/11 wasn't caused by Iraq so no connection there. And the CIA reports were completly biased. Whether or not you want to believe that is up to you. Also invasion wasn't nessesary when the weapons inspectors were doing fine on there own. And we still haven't found WMDs. I don't like Kerry either but I prefer him over Bush.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok lets look at what bush did. Its post 9/11 3.000 Americans died the CIA is telling you saddam has nuclear weapons, the British intelligence is telling you saddam has them, russian intelligence is telling you saddam has them.


- LMAO, very funny westy. That's some story. But that's what it is, a story.

Now here's what Bush really did.

Within hours of 9/11 happening he was demanding of his intelligence service people that they link Iraq to 9/11.

So, seeing their protests that this was not true ignored and/or angrily dismissed, of course they went out and raked up every little scrap they could, gave it undue 'weight' and low and behold......

...... you get to come on here and now say 'the Brits said so, the Russians said so & the CIA said so'.

What a crock.

You can't possibly believe that, can you?!


Now this is what you are being told put yourself in bush's place you are being told this you dont know its false you trust the intelligence and you are telling me if you were bush you would have not gone into Iraq afar 911 with these circumstances?


- The neo-con agenda to establish Iraq as a future base of operations once the stationing in Saudi became untennable is well known enough. This was a war they were itching to start.....which is why Bush demanded the linkage right from the start in the first place.


And im not sure sure how much money there was but I know Kerry voted against a bill that would send our troops the is money to help fund the troops.


- The US is currently spending more money (it hasn't got....check out your deficit, so-called conservatives, lol) than it ever has done.

I'm not saying the world is completely safe, who is?

But I reject totally this idea that it is so unsafe that there is a need to spend more money than compared to the darkest cold-war days when the 'opponent' was an enormous, cohesive, technically advanced, hugely funded military alliance.

That IMO is insane and utterly unjustified.

The war-pervs have taken over the US economy and are wreaking it so totally and so massively you have utterly lost sight of it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok lets look at what bush did. Its post 9/11 3.000 Americans died the CIA is telling you saddam has nuclear weapons, the British intelligence is telling you saddam has them, russian intelligence is telling you saddam has them. Now this is what you are being told put yourself in bush's place you are being told this you dont know its false you trust the intelligence and you are telling me if you were bush you would have not gone into Iraq afar 911 with these circumstances?
And im not sure sure how much money there was but I know Kerry voted against a bill that would send our troops the is money to help fund the troops.

actually the british reports were sexed up
umm frankly i wouldnt of. going striaght in after 9/11 would be stupid.
there was no links like the man said between the two so why would they invade iraq over 9/11 thre diffrent.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Yeah it all easy to say now I wouldn't have gone in but im not saying saddam was responsible for 911 im saying you saw 3.000 of your peole get killed now would you take more aggressive action to prevent that from happening again that is what I mean its post 9.11

Plus Putin said it himself that russian intelligence told bush saddam had the WMDs. And today I was watching CNN and Tommy Franks writs in his book that the king of Jordan and president of Egypt both told Tommy Franks that saddam has chemical weapons and would use it against the US forces. If you dont believe me look it up or buy the book. Plus the claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material for an northern African country were confirmed in the report Lord Butler (sorry if I got the name wrong) gave a few weeks ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah it all easy to say now I wouldn't have gone in but im not saying saddam was responsible for 911 im saying you saw 3.000 of your peole get killed now would you take more aggressive action to prevent that from happening again that is what I mean its post 9.11

Plus Putin said it himself that russian intelligence told bush saddam had the WMDs. And today I was watching CNN and Tommy Franks writs in his book that the king of Jordan and president of Egypt both told Tommy Franks that saddam has chemical weapons and would use it against the US forces. If you dont believe me look it up or buy the book. Plus the claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material for an northern African country were confirmed in the report Lord Butler (sorry if I got the name wrong) gave a few weeks ago.

if i saw 3000 of my people die i'd go WTF ARE MY INTEL AND DEFENCE SERVICES DOING? and frankly i dont see how bombing the utter CR*P outa iraq has solved anything.
but i have to admit when i first saw the facts on the news i supported the war but as i had more info my view changed dramatically.
yeah and who inforemd russian,america and british intel forces? iraqi asylum seekers not exsactly top notch intel stuff i mean they could of at least checked it out a bit more,with the reasources of 3 nations i think they could of found out.
also where are these weapons he would use?
and yeah he was buying nukes every country is trying to.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Well, the US bombed itself on 9/11, is what I believe. That's what happens when a military-industrial complex grows so out of control that it's a lawless entity unto it's own.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
How can you even begin to think the US blew itself up its the same crap people said about pearl harbor and here we are 63 years after it happened an no evidence we new it was coming. but i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how wrong it is.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How can you even begin to think the US blew itself up its the same crap people said about pearl harbor and here we are 63 years after it happened an no evidence we new it was coming. but i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how wrong it is.


Why would I not consider my own government a suspect? Who benefits most from the bombings? Arabs? Arabs haven't benefitted at all. The US government and the military-industries have benefitted greatly. That makes them a prime suspect in my view.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
No the extremis benefit lol I guess Enron and the other big companies that fell because the economy went down after 911 really gained a lot huh
Plus I guess the tapes of UBL saying how proud he was of 911 and all of his crap is the US government to right?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well the idea of our own goverment attacking us does seem far fecthed. But I wouldn't rule it out all together. For all we know Osama Bin Laden doesn't even exist. But yeah if I were in power and I saw the great inteligence failure that accured on 9/11 I would beef up my intel. Not tell them to produce biased reports so that we could produce a scape goat.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Yeah I guess osamas 25 brothers and 50 children must be dreaming then right CD or was osamas bin laden created when bush took power oh wait he bombed 2 of our embassies and the WTC in 93 under Clinton.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah I guess osamas 25 brothers and 50 children must be dreaming then right CD or was osamas bin laden created when bush took power oh wait he bombed 2 of our embassies and the WTC in 93 under Clinton.


UBL has been working with the CIA since the early 80s. Who's to say he has no contact with the intelligence services of our country even today? Or if he's not working for us, al-Qaida is the ultimate CIA blowback, since they were created by the CIA and ISS to fight the Soviets. What goes around comes around, what you reap is what you sew.

UBL is 6'6" and requires a dialysis machine. Somehow I doubt he's huddling in a cave somewhere.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No the extremis benefit lol I guess Enron and the other big companies that fell because the economy went down after 911 really gained a lot huh
Plus I guess the tapes of UBL saying how proud he was of 911 and all of his crap is the US government to right?



Well for one UBL was created by the CIA and ISS. So at best 9/11 is blowback, at worst he's still working for some Americans.

Who benefits from the war? Hmmm, let's see, certainly not Arabs - they have the US occupying a country and tens of thousands dead. They do have a nice training ground for future terrorists and Jihadis though. But who benefits from war? Well, certainly not all the arms manufacturers, armorsmiths, vehicle producers, reconstructionists, contractors, ammunition manufactureres, aircraft manufacturers, everyone getting big fat no-bid government checks for billions, heck, I'm sure they're doing all the work at subsidized costs out of patriotism.


Westpoint read this and get back to me:
lexrex.com...

Keep in mind it was written by a Marine who earned 2 medals of honor and served in five wars, going from private to major general and commandant of the Marine Corps.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I did read the article first I want to say it was very old. Now the companies or people that get rich do not start the war they benefit form it sure, but they don't go and say hey you know I'm running a little low on cash can you declare war for US. We funded osama in the 80's against the soviets cuz a the time defeating the soviets was our main concern. Also people never said that Clinton bombed the two embassies or the WTC but they say bush is behind 911 this screams anti bush to me.




[edit on 31-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I did read the article firs I want to say it was very old. Now the companies or people that get rich do not start the war they benefit form it sure, but they don't go and say he you know I'm running a little low on cash can you declare war for US. We funded osama in the 80's against the soviets cuz a the time defeating the soviets was our main concern. Also people never said that Clinton bombed the two embassies or the WTC but they say bush is behind 911 this screams anti bush to me.


[edit on 31-7-2004 by WestPoint23]


The book 'War is a Racket' is very old, but what makes it interesting in that respect is that it's still relevant to today's situation.

Of course GW Bush isn't directin Al-Quaida. Neither is Clinton. However, are they entirely in charge of everything that goes on? If you would believe Bush, he had no idea that Iraq had no WMDs because the CIA gave him bad information. Well, what other kinds of bad information is he not even getting?

George Bush Sr. is a member of the Carlyle Group. Dick Cheney still recieves money from Haliburton. The executives of all the major defense industries are closely tied with the DoD. Their employees spend a lot of time with the military and at the Pentagon, and military officers are in liasion with them constantly. Where do the DoD and the industries merge or differ? It's difficult to say.

The best position from which to earn (or steal) money is one of authority. Mil-Industrialists embed themselves with the government tightly because of this. War is a profitable business. To start a foreign war you need to make a racket.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
.............I guess Enron and the other big companies that fell because the economy went down after 911 really gained a lot huh


- er, hang on, just a minute there Westy.

Those companies (Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia etc etc) 'fell' because they could no longer sustain the lie that they were operating anything other than a massive fraud....and the most massive record breaking frauds ever perpetrated on the US customer and stock holder at that....naturally the 'little-guy' portfolio holder got shafted the worst.

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with these business failures. The greed and criminal activity of their senior staff did. Totally. 100% and beyond any doubt.

- Where do you get your info from?


Plus I guess the tapes of UBL saying how proud he was of 911 and all of his crap is the US government to right?



- You do realise that a lot of people believe that supposed bin Laden tape to be fraudulent? It looks nothing like him. Go check it out for yourself.

[edit on 31-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
What I was trying to say was that the economy went down and not that many companies, if any profited form 911. Also they did a voice analysis of the tape and it matched Osamas voice.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join