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.

 

United States Preemptive Strike imperative

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
I've said it before and I'll say it again; A pre-emptive attack is like having sex with someone to keep your virginity. It doesn't work. Going to war to prevent war?
There's still a war so you accomplished nothing. By staging pre-emptive strikes America is essentually commiting acts of terrorism. This is why the world hates the US right now.



a preemptive strike is not 'going to war to prevent war' its 'hitting them before they hit us'. you liberals... sometimes..

war is inevitable. to have peace, you must have war. it is the only way!




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by echoRanger

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
I've said it before and I'll say it again; A pre-emptive attack is like having sex with someone to keep your virginity. It doesn't work. Going to war to prevent war?
There's still a war so you accomplished nothing. By staging pre-emptive strikes America is essentually commiting acts of terrorism. This is why the world hates the US right now.



war is inevitable.

Yeah I already said wars will never vanish as every state and organization wants to maintain armed guards
The nature of humans is that they easily get into conflicts



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by echoRanger

war is inevitable. to have peace, you must have war. it is the only way!


Yeah Big Brother we know; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.... right?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
War is not inevitable, see what happens in Switzerland.

They have armed forces, and there are 332302 per 1 million people while in the US there are only 132732 per 1 million people.

The difference is that Switzerland was tired of wars and agreed with all the other countries of Europe that they would remain neutral.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by GDShow me a quote from the President, from a reputable source, stating that Iraq was responcible for 9/11


He didn't come right out and say it but he did say that al-Qaeda was responsible for 911 and he made statments about Iraq that tied them to Al-Qaeda so the public put two and two together.

Here's a list of misleading statement from a US government website (if that's reputable enough for you):

House.gov: IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ

President Bush:
In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat
operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: “The battle of Iraq is one
victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001
— and
still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al
Qaeda.”

...

In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein is
“a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing
our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by
Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

...

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated:
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help them develop their own.”

...

his statement on October 10, 2003, that
Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”

...

Dick Cheney:
On January 22, 2004, Vice President Cheney said in a National Public Radio
interview, “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection
between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. .


Colin Powell:
In his February 5, 2003, remarks to the United Nations, Secretary of State
Colin Powell stated: “what I want to bring to your attention today is the
potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda
terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama
bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.”



Part of the Global War on terror is preventing our enemies from obtaining the means of striking at us. This clearly fits that definition. Again, NOONE said that Iraq is responcible for 9/11. You can infer what you like, but if you fall for that old liberal shell game, well, I'll invite you over for a game of poker. Bring lots of cash. PLEASE bring lots of cash.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
War is not inevitable, see what happens in Switzerland.

They have armed forces, and there are 332302 per 1 million people while in the US there are only 132732 per 1 million people.

The difference is that Switzerland was tired of wars and agreed with all the other countries of Europe that they would remain neutral.


What he is trying to explain to you, is that without the threat of war, rouge nations would strike. BTW, without NATO presenting the threat of war, the Swiss would be distant memory by now



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Sigh....

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.



www.alternet.org...

and you can verify this in the Butler report and the Senate Intel Committee report.

-koji K.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Ok GD, what if we thought the same way during the Cold War???

How do you think that would have turned out?


This is a differnt animal. We could see what the warsaw pact countries were up to. We could see mass military moves. We had diplmatic ties with them. Al Qaida is way differnt from the Cold War. We have to "root them out"


Hmmm, a ubiquitous, invisible, all-seeing enemy who hates our freedom.

Yeah, the Emperor has really nice new clothes.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Preemptive strikes to defend against terrorism...
Woo ...
Do you liberal bashers honestly believe your own rhetoric?
Do you really think that"liberals" are a bunch of lily livered effete morons too mild mannered to be concerned about defending their country?
It really makes me sick and I find it offensive.

Terrorism is a tactic! get it through your thick heads you can no more win a war on terror then you can a war on drugs.
Lets apply the same tactics to the war on drugs and premptively invade colombia to stop them from smuggling coke into the country! yeah that will work.
And before you neocons start bashing me saying terrorism is nothing like drugs and that terrorism poses more of a threat to this country lets all just remember that more people have died because from drug related causes than from all the acts of terrorism commited in this country throughout its entire history!!



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
lol... lotta good laughs off ATS today... 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are just nonsense labels that armchair politicians apply to any poster that seems to fit parameters pre-installed in their minds from pundits and propagandistas. Cute, really.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Attacking Iraq has accomplished nothing in the war in terrorism. Nothing beneficial at least.
How many billions of dollars have we squandered that could have been better spent on reinforceing internal security?
Does any one here honestly think that Iraq is going to be a stable nation anytime in the next five to ten years?
Heck we havent even finished the war in afghanistan...
You remember afghanistan right? small mountainous country in asia, actually had provable ties to terrorism? sound familiar at all? we were fighting a war against terror there before we got distracted by Iraq remember?
Last I checked that place was still no where near to being a stable nation.
Yet these people actually think that opening this other can of worms was a bright idea.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I think some people are forgeting or simply do not know who the real terrorist are.

Let start with operation Mongoose,launched by Kennedy right after the failed Bay of Pigs invation, which definately holds the prize as the worlds leading international terrorist campeign.

Im mean come on, this terrorists opperation had a budget of $50 million a year, it involved blowing up hotels, sinking fishing boats, blowing up industrial installations, bombing planes ect, ect, not to mention the eight known assassination attempts on Castro. Remeber all this was going on right in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis. Their was one instance were the C.I.A blew up a cuban factory, which resulted in 400 deaths(according to the Cubans), imagin if that would have happend in the US, we would have nuked the whole country.

Moving right along, I don't think I even have to mention the illegal bominbs of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, thats pretty much a given.

The 80's saw its fair share of US terrorism, and at the controlls were almost all of the same people who are now in government. Immediately upon entering office, Reagan declared his "War On Terrorism" against those nasty Nicaraguans, which amounted to a ratio of what would have been 20, 000, 000 American deaths had the same scale of devistation happend on our soil. Don't forget El Salvador, and the rest of the Central American countries destroyed by the US. And for all of this the US became the only country in history CONVICTED BY THE WORLD COURT FOR, WHAT AMOUNTS TO INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. The UN resolutions and general assembly hearings were basically the same, the only difference being we have the right to VETO those, so they don't count.

Panama is another good example of US terrorism. We invade a country, kill hundreads if not thousands, to take one man(Noriega) for crimes he commited while on our CIA payroll, sounds logical to me.

What about support for Tyrannies. We overthrow Allende in Chile, give them the millitary dictator Pinochet. We supported the massmurdering, genocidal Cambodian leader Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge Party, because he is an enemy of Vietnam, and he'll help us make Vietnam suffer as much as possible. From '79 to '89 we support the Taliban, Osoma Bin Laden, and many other fanatical Islamic extreamists, setting up CIA "terrorists training camps, supplying arms and funding to help expell the Russians. I guess nobody thought to dismantle this structure once the Russians had fell. We supported Saddam for many years, including the one's he was busy gassing the Kurds, up untill the first gulf war and then imediatly after the war was over imopsing sanctions on the country which in effect only harm the civilian population, strengthen Saddam's power over the county because of his peoples increased relience on the dictator. We directly supported the Indoneasian in their Slaugther of East Timor. Their was something like 60,000 deaths in the first month of the invation, with aid of US weapons and military training.

The examples I have stated are only a fraction and I could go on and on all night, but the plain and simple fact is that America has been the worlds major exporter of terror for a long time, and will most likely continue to be in the future, given their new doctrin of pre-emptive strike enabling them the power to attack targets at will.

Don't get me wrong, Im not blaming these atrocities on the American public, only those who have been in leadership for the past 60 or so years, who have continued their plans for American global domination. But next time you wonder why their is so much hatred for America, do some research on some of the Terror that has been inflicted by the US, in the name of the American public and you will come to realise the reason for that hatred.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by ArMaP
War is not inevitable, see what happens in Switzerland.

They have armed forces, and there are 332302 per 1 million people while in the US there are only 132732 per 1 million people.

The difference is that Switzerland was tired of wars and agreed with all the other countries of Europe that they would remain neutral.


What he is trying to explain to you, is that without the threat of war, rouge nations would strike. BTW, without NATO presenting the threat of war, the Swiss would be distant memory by now


What is a rouge nation?

Switzerland is neutral since 1815.
World War 2 ended in 1945.
NATO was created in 1949.

Are suggesting that the countries from the Warsaw Pact would invade Switzerland if NATO was not a threat? I don't know what interest could the Warsaw Pact had in Switzerland, but if they had any, they first needed to invade other countries, Switzerland does not had borders with any Warsaw Pact country.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
If this is true, then it looks like the war on terror is not to be won, so maybe we have to start thinking in different terms:

Bush: 'War on terror cannot be won'



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

War is not inevitable, see what happens in Switzerland.

They have armed forces, and there are 332302 per 1 million people while in the US there are only 132732 per 1 million people.

The difference is that Switzerland was tired of wars and agreed with all the other countries of Europe that they would remain neutral.


What he is trying to explain to you, is that without the threat of war, rouge nations would strike. BTW, without NATO presenting the threat of war, the Swiss would be distant memory by now

What is a rouge nation?

Switzerland is neutral since 1815.
World War 2 ended in 1945.
NATO was created in 1949.

Are suggesting that the countries from the Warsaw Pact would invade Switzerland if NATO was not a threat? I don't know what interest could the Warsaw Pact had in Switzerland, but if they had any, they first needed to invade other countries, Switzerland does not had borders with any Warsaw Pact country.

Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland? It might have been because the Swiss have proven their neutrality in war over generations and generations and there is no possible way he could propagandize Swiss as belligerants. Besides that the Swiss are people who love their freedom very fiercely and way too many Huns would have died trying to attack Alpine glaciers for the Fatherland.

Give every adult in the US an automatic rifle, make this the most free country the world has ever seen, then withdraw all US forces from abroad and take complete neutrality for now and ever. Nothing could ever touch us and US and the Swiss could chill out and laugh while the rest of the world rips itself apart over oil and infinite human stupidity.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority derives...
Naked force has resloved more issues than anything else in history.

Starship Troopers



[edit on 30-8-2004 by rustiswordz]


"Power grows from the barrel of a gun" Mao

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp23

Don't get me wrong, Im not blaming these atrocities on the American public, only those who have been in leadership for the past 60 or so years, who have continued their plans for American global domination. But next time you wonder why their is so much hatred for America, do some research on some of the Terror that has been inflicted by the US, in the name of the American public and you will come to realise the reason for that hatred.


Well stated argument. I agree 95%. America is no doubt the world leader of state sponsored terror. If you check the Army Field Manual Definition of terror I think you might find it very interesting, and at the very least rather disturbing..

Where I disagree is when you say that you don't blame the American Public for these atrocities. All of this information is out there. People can find it. Sure, it's not on the cover of a magazine or aired during American Idol, but it is there. We are ALL responsible for what our government does. We have to stop thinking of government as a seperate entity that is beyond our grasp. It's our responsibilty to learn about these things.

Knowledge is power.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by LukeNYC]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
LukeNYC,

It's kind of scary to know that we forget just how much damage, destruction, and suffering we are capable of causing the world.

I am not condoning what happened on 9/11, but let's face it, America is capable of doing far worse. And we have done far worse.

Although I disagree with your statement that we the people are responsible. We the people don't have any say in the government. We can say what we want, but it's all expression, nothing we say or do means anyhting. It's more of a redundancy rather than commodity. We can say whatever we want, but they don't care.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
So then what you are saying is that we are completely powerless to control the government that WE elect. We are complteley helpless in terms of learning for ourselves what is happening and taking action to correct it if we think it is wrong. I know it's a tough struggle, but that doesnt make it hopeless or impossible.


GD

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LukeNYC

Originally posted by sp23

Don't get me wrong, Im not blaming these atrocities on the American public, only those who have been in leadership for the past 60 or so years, who have continued their plans for American global domination. But next time you wonder why their is so much hatred for America, do some research on some of the Terror that has been inflicted by the US, in the name of the American public and you will come to realise the reason for that hatred.


Well stated argument. I agree 95%. America is no doubt the world leader of state sponsored terror. If you check the Army Field Manual Definition of terror I think you might find it very interesting, and at the very least rather disturbing..

Where I disagree is when you say that you don't blame the American Public for these atrocities. All of this information is out there. People can find it. Sure, it's not on the cover of a magazine or aired during American Idol, but it is there. We are ALL responsible for what our government does. We have to stop thinking of government as a seperate entity that is beyond our grasp. It's our responsibilty to learn about these things.

Knowledge is power.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by LukeNYC]


You were out there marching this weekend, wern't you?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join