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.
Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
Campaign propaganda with a totally misleading title. What a joke. If you want to get the people's attention, point to the heavily armed Mexican forces crossing over onto American soil "accidentally". That is real.
Originally posted by johnnygamble
so as far as your question of if i would go to arms....I'm just waiting for an opportunity..i look forward to it to a point actually
Originally posted by BadNinja68
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by kyred
Perhaps you should watch it and find out.
Perhaps you should summarize the video, instead of posting coy replies.
I do not just click vid links on message boards that do not at least have a summary of the topic.
I reserve the right to decide whether the video is worth my time or not.
Summary would be nice rather than trying to bait readers into clicking randon vid links.
Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
Campaign propaganda with a totally misleading title. What a joke. If you want to get the people's attention, point to the heavily armed Mexican forces crossing over onto American soil "accidentally". That is real.
Originally posted by NightGypsy
I am quite aware that many people "took up arms" with American troops. I don't need your help in this regard, but thanks anyway.
Why is it America's job to make sure that foreign countries elect "good leaders?" Do other countries occupy our soil to ensure we do the same? Get off your soapbox because I am very tired of hearing this rhetoric from those who keep supporting our need to impose our "views" on other nations with the use of the military.
..
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripolis envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [12]
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.(13) The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[citation needed]
Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.
...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Obviously you are not because you seem to believe that "Iraqis don't want us there"... It is the Islamic extremists from other countries, and the remaining forces of Saddam's socialist Baath party who have been attacking Iraqis and U.S. as well as allied forces...
Second of all, Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups which have even attacked Americans including in our soil...
Just like the founding fathers did against the Islamic extremists/pirates during the Barbary Wars 1801-1816 we should make it clear that if any country harbors, trains, and or funds terrorist groups that attack us we will respond in force.
Maybe you should be reminded...
But I guess "Islamic terrorists have never existed and they were made up by the CIA"...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by NightGypsy
I am quite aware that many people "took up arms" with American troops. I don't need your help in this regard, but thanks anyway.
Why is it America's job to make sure that foreign countries elect "good leaders?" Do other countries occupy our soil to ensure we do the same? Get off your soapbox because I am very tired of hearing this rhetoric from those who keep supporting our need to impose our "views" on other nations with the use of the military.
Obviously you are not because you seem to believe that "Iraqis don't want us there"... It is the Islamic extremists from other countries, and the remaining forces of Saddam's socialist Baath party who have been attacking Iraqis and U.S. as well as allied forces...
Second of all, Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups which have even attacked Americans including in our soil...
blahblahblah
But I guess "Islamic terrorists have never existed and they were made up by the CIA"...
Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
You're right when you say he can't get anything done with the current congress. However, IF he got elected, two years after that election, congress gets some new folks in through their elections and we'll be right as rain.
Can you see the revolution starting to happen here? A little here and a little there will turn into a little more and a little more and then a lot more...as our folks lose their jobs and have no where to go. Positive thinking my friend.
And it doesn't matter about his domestic policy right now. We need to shore up the foreign affairs as that is what is sinking us. Later we can worry about domestic.
You gotta give it to him on his economic policy and health care as well, guy.
And the left-right paradigm is not all there is as quite a few believe. No one in either camp wants to be constitutional except Paul
and he's only joined the Repubs to get heard.
It isn't we repubs. It's all Americans.
What many have failed to see is that we have a system in place that we tend to follow in order to bring about any change. But seldom do we realize that this political system by which we enforce and live by, is no different than any other pyramid scheme whereby power resonates from the top down.
The rest of humanity in this context, is quite frankly oblivious, and thus work within the confines of this so called political system.