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.

 

Defend the real US

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
8,000 miles of ocean on the west. 3,000 miles of ocean on the east. Allies to the north and south. Why does the military ever have to leave our country? We stretch coast-to-coast, are self-sufficient in energy and resources, and only have to worry about another country invading us. Our military could cost $50 billion a year and no one could touch us.

Somehow, I don't think invading Iraq, which never threatened us and in fact has cooperated greatly with the US in the past, and lies 8,000 miles away, with no air force or navy, has anything to do with actually defending our country.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
The military isn't to defend you silly citizen.

It's for defending and pressing the rights of multinational corporations all over the globe owned by the elite targeted by Bush tax cuts.

It defends US interests, not US citizens. You and I are only good for fodder and paying the interest on the cost of defending the multinats interests.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
here's why we went to iraq. 9/11 had opened all our eyes to serious terrorism. bush was being told point blank by CIA director george tenet that iraq either did have, or is currently seeking out, weapons of mass destruction. he's also told that there is some, an unkown extent, but still SOME kind of relationship between saddam and al queda. he know's if saddam gives WMD's to al queda that the threat posed by al queda skyrockets. there's also months of suspiscious behavior being conducted by saddam's people when the weapons inspectors were there searching for WMD's prior to the iraq war. and saddam does have a history of killing thousands of innocent people. so bush err's on the side of caution and goes to war to remove saddam. it was perfectly legal beacuse prior to that saddam DID violate 17 United Nations sanctions, and under U.N. charter a single violation of certain specific sanctions constitues war. remember, bush did call for help in going to war from other countries, but none of the m responded, or they said to wait a little bit longer. the countries that come to mind that did this are germany and france. we NOW know that these 2 countries were probably being illegally bribed by saddam with oil. if you don't know, the U.N. is investigating what they're calling the oil for food scandal, in which money was given to saddam for the strict purpose of feeding his people, but he used it to live lavishly. supposedly france and germeny knew this was happening and were paid off with oil from saddam to keep silent.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Why, what's Al-Quaeda going to do, put a mustard gas bomb in a backpack and run across Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morrocco, then swim the Atlantic, infiltrate Boston Harbor, and let off the mustard gas?

Or were they going to fly UAVs across the Atlantic and drop a nuke on NYC?

Please tell me how Saddam's WMDs, which they didn't have, professed to not having, and have never ever been found, were going to threaten the US.

And even if they could, with our military within our borders and 200 mile ocean radius, how could they get to us?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
The UN inspectors were on the ground! I remember loading up HUMVEEs on a train at Ft. Bragg (on my birthday! I was picked at random for the detail) getting ready to go over there thinking, "What in the hell is the hurry? Why is Bush in such a rush to get over there? Let the UN do it's job!" I think he rushed over there because he knew if there was too much public debate or scrutiny, people would find out what an abomination to our troops it would be to send them over there for nothing but money.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
We stretch coast-to-coast, are self-sufficient in energy



Do you have any ideal how much oil we get from the middle east, and how dependant we are on it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by taibunsuu
We stretch coast-to-coast, are self-sufficient in energy



Do you have any ideal how much oil we get from the middle east, and how dependant we are on it.

Dependence is one step away from slavery.

We have plenty of oil in this country to suit our own needs.




posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
It's become a commonly held belief that, the US invading Iraq was the best thing to happen to UBL's agenda. His belief that this is a war on islam all along is solidified among muslims in the middle east.

So was 9/11 a green light for the hawks like Wolfawitcz, Rumsfeld(2 jews, gotta love that too)Chenney to proceed with their plan to demolish the Middle East. That's why they rushed into it, before they lost their window of opportunity. They were NEVER going to wait for the U.N. to come around and fully support them. Obviously Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S. but guess what......I agree with what we did in Iraq.

After 9/11, what were our options? We were hit by an enemy that exists in every country in the world, including ours. A war like no other war ever in history. Again, what do we do? Do we sit here and keep taking hits from Al queda like a piniata? This is not the typical, you attack our country, we attack yours. Now it's like, "you wanna knock down a bunch of buildings and kill thousands of innocent Americans...??? We'll take one of your f*&ckin countries!!!" Those bombs in Afghanistan weeks after 9/11 were a joke. We hit a bunch of empty caves but the whole time, we were just sending out our troops for the inevitable war.

After 9/11, what else could we have done?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
So invading Iraq is a good thing after we get hit by 19 hicackers, 15 of whom were Saudis, and none were Iraqis? 0_o

A lot of terrorists say that they are pissed at the Saudi and US governments for having US military bases in their holy land. They couldn't attack Saudi Arabia as well as the US so they came here. If we didn't have US military bases in any country besides the US, we probably never would have had the 9/11 attacks.

If we had our fighter squadrons based in the US conducting more CAPs, we could have probably intercepted those planes.

Isn't it odd that US military aircraft are a rarity over American skies, but not over foreign skies?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I planned to answer this thread, but I got beaten to it.
Thanks for that, RANT - I couldn't have said it better



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join