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.

 

Coup d'Etat in America?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Finally bush got the heat and is telling that the war in terror can not be won, what a change of heart.




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Marge, what he means is it cannot be won right away. He means this war could go on for 25 years or so, about as long as he plans to be dictator.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Marg, here is the quote:
The president replied, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Let's face it...terrorism has been around for a long, long time. It's not something created by Saddam, OBL or Hitler.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
you guys fail to understand that no matter who gets elected the true powers that be will still go on with there plans to change the world as they see fit.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As for the passing of the Patriot Act, both Democrats and Republicans are culpible. It's pretty damn sad.


Your right about that one for sure. The only thing I can say for Democrats in their defense is that to have opposed it at the time of its inception could have alienated a large chunk of voters. That may be a lame reason but when was the last time either party showed true leadership. They both pander to the larger sentiment of voters.

Bush made the Patriot Act seem like the savior for American defense and at the time, with fear running rampant in this country it was hard for many to oppose it with out seeming almost traitorous. They knew as well that if they somehow got it defeated and an attack occurred soon after, the Republicans would have had ammunition for their weakness for years to come.

It was a no win situation based on politics, not leadership.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Weller,

I agree with you


Sometimes it comes to the point that for a candidate to look patriotic no amount of flags display behind the podium will make you more American.

When it comes to the patriot act after the tragedy of 9/11 anybody with a political career would have signed anything to look patriotic and pro US citizen.

But how patriotic you have to be? Now these candidates know the power of these decisions and they are using it against each other for political gain.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Marg, here is the quote:
The president replied, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

I agree Tread. I believe Bush is finally giving in and saying that terrorism can never be won. Although, I'm the least bit surprised saying he'll continue to fight. The same goes for the saying "Peac on Earth." We all know peace will never be complete.

As for the passing of the Patriot Act, both Democrats and Republicans are culpible. It's pretty damn sad.


At least not all Democrats and Republicans feel that the Patriot Act was a good thing. Take Republican Ron Paul (TX) for example. He was never in favor of it from the start.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
mrmulder,

Thanks for the post, you know I see this "war on terror" usage of the word misleading and misused, not matter how much this government truthfully would have though that the hatred of others against US can be change, first you have to see why US have been the target of hatred, and telling that is because our democracy and liberties does not justify it.

Perhaps this president was naive enough that he thought that you can win the "harts and mind" of the people that hate this country but with a war only this administration has reaped more hatred toward our nation.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
East Coast- if nothing else, protesters are letting the world know that some of us see things for what they really are.


I hope the world gets that message loud and clear!



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
mrmulder,

Thanks for the post, you know I see this "war on terror" usage of the word misleading and misused, not matter how much this government truthfully would have though that the hatred of others against US can be change, first you have to see why US have been the target of hatred, and telling that is because our democracy and liberties does not justify it.

Perhaps this president was naive enough that he thought that you can win the "harts and mind" of the people that hate this country but with a war only this administration has reaped more hatred toward our nation.



Your welcome Marge!
Here's how I see it. Terrorist hate us because we're a free country. Other countries, right now, don't hate us, they hate the way our government is running things. I too hate the way our government is running things.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This has been said before, but not here, apparently. We have now what is called a "war on terror," which I have always considered a mistake of nomenclature, which puts the current war in the same class as the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty."

Terror is a tactic and it can be used by almost anyone. Someone's mother here was probably pretty good at controlling children's behavior by employing the tactic of terror.

After the first World War, the civilized nations of the war convened to outlaw poison gas used as a weapon. Currently, the primary users of terror are in such a position that terror is just about the only method available to them as a tactic of war, which is of course not meant to condone the activity.

We would have done much better, I believe, to call this war what it is: the war against the global expansion of militant Islam. I guess the "war on terror" is easier to say.

But, when Bush states that the war on terror will probably not be won, he means merely that we are not fighting a war in which there are are likely to be declarations of surrender signed by terrorists. What he did say is that we can help to create a world where terrorist have fewer resources and allies to help them carry out their schemes.

When you take the time and use the intellectual resources available to most humans beyond the age of twelve and listen to his complete statement, his message is quite clear.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'll be so glad when George W's shown the door. He and his Neo Con-men advisors have so many bees buzzing around in their brains, it's crazy. But then again, maybe they see enemies all around b/c they, in fact, have enemies all around them. Enemies of their own making.

Wanna know how great Bush has done in Iraq? Let's see him walk down the street in Iraq. It'll never happen. Why? They'd rip him limb from limb for what he's done to their country and to them. Dittos with Afghanistan.

I'd be willing to say, George W. is the world's most wanted man.

Oh yeah, in answer to the last post, Bush has turned his back on the chem/bio warfare agreements we made. This administration is back in business and bigger than ever in the development of those deadly weapons. And we point our fingers at others? What bunk. We have no right.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join