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.

 

Are supporters of the Santorum, Newt, Mitt, Obama just begging for War?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
So over the past week I've been visiting the Facebook pages of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney.
I read through some of the comments and sometimes I find what's said to be very disturbing. Its almost like watching forum of People being led to the edge of a cliff. I have a brother in the military and I don't want to see us go to another useless War.

Anyway....I feel compelled to somehow educate these People in an attempt to wake them up but I don't want to argue with them about things they don't understand.

So instead I just post Pro War comments on their pages and basically egg the candidate on to BRING US TO WAR!!!

My comments are usually accompanied by this video. Hopefully it makes People have a change of heart about Iran.



Do you think this is a good "tactic" to wake people up? I feel this gives them an oppurtunity to wake themselves up. They just need to presented the information.
edit on 26-1-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
Do you think this is a good "tactic" to wake people up? I feel this gives them an oppurtunity to wake themselves up. They just need to presented the information.


1. "Supporters of the 'other' candidates."
Your thread title seems to indicate your OP is incomplete, as you failed to qualify exactly who/what you're comparing the 3 GOP front runners against. Certainly cannot be Obama, as he has demonstrated himself to be clearly pro-war in his 3+ years.

2. I disagree with your tactic and, in fact, would go so far as to call it full fledged trolling/baiting. Remember, the majority of non agressive internet users tend to just pass right over comments that strike them as distastefull or disagreeable. The percentage of online users who will actually lash out is pretty small, thus it seems somewhat foolish to judge an entire group based on lack of reaction to a baited comment on a message string.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
In my opinion, anybody who supports any candidate is ignorant that they're just being used by the hidden powers that be to create an illusion of participatory democracy, when in fact the fix is already in, the outcome has already been determined (it's too important to leave to chance or the whims of the average moron), and they're just being fooled again. It doesn't matter who "wins" or "loses" any more than it really matters who wins or loses the Super Bowl or the World Cup. It's politics, and has very little to do with the real world.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
This thread is somewhat confusing. Your OP suggests you are anti-war (or at least anti-GOP president sanctioned war), yet your username is supportive of war.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Yes.

Either they are participating in group think or are ignorant to the the truth or are democrats wanting daddy er government to save them.

All 3 of which are ignorant.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
All I get is you think anyone not in lock-step with your beliefs is ignorant. I'm sure that will bring them to your side and ingratiate you with them.

Whatever your side is? You backing Obama or Ron Paul? Either way calling people ignorant is ignorant. This is a Democracy unless your idea is to elect a Dictator.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
"Freedom isn't Free" is not a Pro War user name.....you can fight for it peacefully. You can fight for it with words. Its called Freedom of Speech.

The reason I said "other candidates" is because I thought it was obvious that I support Ron Paul. He's the only Anti-War candidate running. I only pray that he is sincere.

The other reason I call the supporters of other candidates ignorant is because they are all being led to another War.......in Iran. A War in Iran is inevitable if said candidates are elected. So what I'm trying to say is why would you vote for War?
edit on 26-1-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
A War in Iran is inevitable if said candidates are elected. So what I'm trying to say is why would you vote for War?


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

A war in Iran is inevitable so long as Iran proceeds down the path of becoming a nuclear superpower with a religiously bent, derelict-led system of government. When the leaders of a nation endlessly talk about erradicating another country from the map, you set yourself up for repercussions. When the leaders of a nation talk about the same AND are on the cusp of possessing the means needed to make good on their goals, you set yourself up for a full blown war.

The man who says "America should never go to war again, end of story." is a fool and a piss poor candidate for the position of President of the USA. The man who says "War isn't a good thing, but is sometimes necessary... nothing is off the table." is at least grounded in reality in terms of nationalism and warfare. The USA has interests at stake in the Middle East... to take a no war for any reason approach at that without first fully divesting ourselves from those interests (as well as from any and all allies) and becoming wholey isolationist, is a joke and will only lead to America getting a boot jammed down her throat as happened on 9/11. This is an all or nothing game, regardless of whether the demilitarize the US crowd accept that truth or not. We either demilitarize, seal our borders completely, and withdraw from all international affairs (that includes political, economic, and trade) and prepare ourselves for full defense of America or we attempt to regain our previous status as king of the mountain in regards to economic, trade, and political sway and we keep the dogs of war at hand when needed. There is no in-between here which will work. It seems to me that Ron Paul tends to drift towards the middle on this and I think he's delusional in doing so... although his supporters seem to be punch drunk on giddyness over his policies to the point that they are effectively blinded from seeing the reality of Earth 2012.

On a side note, but still related. The USA and Israel are close allies. So long as that is the case, a direct threat to Israel is something we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand over. If we had a "leader" who was willing to flat out turn his back to our closest and arguably high profile ally, how do you think that "leader's" policies would consider the 320 Million or so John Q. Public no-names that they hold so much power over? Do you really think someone who takes a "screw 'em" attitude towards a close allied nation in danger is trustworthy when dealing with his own nation? I'm not sure I do...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join