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.

 

Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

page: 19
32
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Well ok since we are apparently now gifted with ability to tell others what they mhst do if they have a belief, I will try my hand at it.

Since I believe this corrupt government needs to be removed and replaced by one that seeks out and at least attempts to serve the people they are claiming to represent in a open and honorable fashion, and you claim I have therby be in favor of assassination etc....


Then on the inverse, the fact that you think there is somthing wrong with my biew means, you are completely in favor of therefore you must now wholeheartedly embrace capital pjnishment without a trial (drone strikes) and indefinite detention without trial or appeal or recourse, and every drop of innocent blood and every single tear shed by those innocents is on your hands.

Lets see who can live with themselves at the end.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

I'm going to ignore the glaringly hilarious remark about communist Presidents for now ...

Okay, so, here's my next question: Which Constitution?

Confused?

Well, there's The Constitution we had from inception on up to 1865.
There were a few little changes, revisions, etc, but, until 1865 that was the Original Constitution.

After 1865, there was that whole freedom of the slaves thing, um, the 13th Amendment?

Over time other little things like defining citizenship, allowing women to vote, establishing the age to vote and other things got added in.

Thus, WHICH Constitution?

Do you want to roll things back so you can own proper slaves, and women can't influence voting any more?
Granted, that's an extreme and crude example, but, it's a valid question.

Which Constitution?
We have 27 amendments right now. Stop there? Roll it back a little? Allow which ones on proposal, if any to pass?

If I'm so ignorant, and you guys are the mental juggernauts of Constitutional Law you claim to be, then, I expect you'd have all this worked out.

What Constitution is the real Constitution?

It's an important question. As was crudely illustrated, if you go back to the Original, suddenly slaves are legal property, women can't vote, and a host of other troubling things occur.




Are you joking? Is this serious?

The constitution has force of law, take in toto with all the amendments. They override or supplement the sections that are obsoleted or "amended" by them. It's really pretty simple.

Law scholars will have you believe it's more complicated than that, but it's not. They are the treasonous bastards that came up with the theory of interpretation, which allows one to disregard the literal meaning of the document and come up with all kinds of wacky stuff, which is fairly common today.

And yes, Obama's a commie. First, as I have noted, he says, in his own book, that his biggest three influences are Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers. Those three are all self-admitted Commies. Bill Ayers is also a convicted terrorist, who has been to the white house over a dozen times.

Anybody who does 5 minutes of research knows Obama's a commie. Here's another one for you to ponder - did you know where the Progressive democrats found their origin? Hint, they originally called themselves flat out Communists but that became unpopular so they joined the democratic party and changed their name to progressives. This is not up for debate, it is a fact and you can read about this in their own words, just like you can read about bama's sodomite-esque love for the three Commies I mentioned above.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


It seems we posted at almost the same time, so, you may desire to check my post immediately before yours (on the previous page).

As to mass murder, have you forgotten WWII?
We bombed entire cities to rubble and ash, including any and all civilians too stupid or too slow to leave, and that was BEFORE Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Dresden Before:


Dresden After:


That's just ONE city. A CITY! Not just one house, or one house next to the house that should have got hit, but, WHOLE CITIES.

Perspective.

Oh, and a quickie, for fun:
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


I support Commies. I think it even says so on page one, or page two, or maybe 3 of this thread ... ah, I found it: In THIS Post

I even speak some Russian



edit on 26-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm glad you are no longer attempting to claim that Barry's not a commie.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


I never made any claim that he is or isn't.
Personally, I don't care.

ALL politicians regardless their party are playing the political game. If you think the way you vote makes any real difference ...

ah, some of you are so totally adorable.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


31B is Military Police isn't it?

Yes.


Wouldn't part of your job involve tracking down all the deserters that might be trying to join the revolutionary traitors of the United States of America?
No.

My job would to protect and serve the post I was stationed. You sure have a twisted view of the U.S. .. don't believe all the posts you read on ATS.. try getting first hand info from people on this site.


Further, your OATH is to the United States of America, the Constitution and President of the United States

Yes. If unrefuted proof arises and I were given an order that went against The Constitution I defend I would join the rebellion. You can take that to the bank.



edit on 26-2-2013 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


This same argument was almost surely used against the revolutionary war, against the civil war 1. I find it tired and stale. But if the choice is to continue to live as a slave or fight for a chance to be free in a war against a superior foe, yes the US govt is my foe, I will fight everytime. If biological/nuclear weapons the people will never recognize another govt. or their authority at least as it is conceived now. Our current system is a prison.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by th3dudeabides
reply to post by sajuek
 


This same argument was almost surely used against the revolutionary war, against the civil war 1. I find it tired and stale. But if the choice is to continue to live as a slave or fight for a chance to be free in a war against a superior foe, yes the US govt is my foe, I will fight everytime. If biological/nuclear weapons the people will never recognize another govt. or their authority at least as it is conceived now. Our current system is a prison.


How do you feel about getting your legs and all your boy parts blown off, and surviving?
How about just one arm, and just some of your face?
What about both arms?
Your eyes?
How do you feel about wearing a fake plastic nose for the rest of your life to cover the hole where your real nose use to be?

Instant death isn't always an option.
In fact, a popular tactic in Asymmetrical warfare is fighting to wound and maim, but not kill.
It wrecks havoc on enemy morale when all their friends are but pieces of screaming meat still alive, but mutilated, out of action, but entirely survivable.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


31B is Military Police isn't it?

Wouldn't part of your job involve tracking down all the deserters that might be trying to join the revolutionary traitors of the United States of America?

Further, your OATH is to the United States of America, the Constitution, and the President as Commander in Chief, right?

"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Tell me if there's something wrong with this picture.


edit on 26-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


What is wrong is that the order of importance it is written in you conveniently ignore.......

1. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

2. President and superior officer's are secondary to the Constitution. They do not get obeyed over the Constitution.

That is the flaw in your logic and is what is wrong with your picture.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I don't mean to be nekulturny tovarish ,but that was a world war against a really bad guy who hid important manufacturing among the civilian populace,much like our current enemies who equally have the same opinion of human life. Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima were regrettable but better than invasion and decimation of Japan as a whole.
My lungs are screwed as a result of my service...not fun,changes nothing.
edit on 26-2-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: Finished my point



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I don't mean to be nekulturny tovarish ,but that was a world war against a really bad guy who hid important manufacturing among the civilian populace,much like our current enemies who equally have the same opinion of human life. Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima were regrettable but better than invasion and decimation of Japan as a whole.
My lungs are screwed as a result of my service...not fun,changes nothing.
edit on 26-2-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: Finished my point


I think that was kind of my point in reply regarding all the talk about tears, blood, drone strikes, innocent lives.
Regrettable, but ...
Now days, it's just a house; sometimes, sadly, the wrong house.
Use to be, we level the whole city.
Seems more like an improvement than something to complain about.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

I'm going to ignore the glaringly hilarious remark about communist Presidents for now ...

Okay, so, here's my next question: Which Constitution?

Confused?

Well, there's The Constitution we had from inception on up to 1865.
There were a few little changes, revisions, etc, but, until 1865 that was the Original Constitution.

After 1865, there was that whole freedom of the slaves thing, um, the 13th Amendment?

Over time other little things like defining citizenship, allowing women to vote, establishing the age to vote and other things got added in.

Thus, WHICH Constitution?

Do you want to roll things back so you can own proper slaves, and women can't influence voting any more?
Granted, that's an extreme and crude example, but, it's a valid question.

Which Constitution?
We have 27 amendments right now. Stop there? Roll it back a little? Allow which ones on proposal, if any to pass?

If I'm so ignorant, and you guys are the mental juggernauts of Constitutional Law you claim to be, then, I expect you'd have all this worked out.

What Constitution is the real Constitution?

It's an important question. As was crudely illustrated, if you go back to the Original, suddenly slaves are legal property, women can't vote, and a host of other troubling things occur.




Don't be obtuse, you know damn well everyone means the one up to the time our rights started getting usurped with the Patriot Act. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but I can't believe you honestly think anyone means anything different than what I just stated.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Don't be obtuse, you know damn well everyone means the one up to the time our rights started getting usurped with the Patriot Act. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but I can't believe you honestly think anyone means anything different than what I just stated.


Okay, so, if we're going to rewind back to when Dubyah was in office, let's play it out like you were Prez back then.

The towers fall. You're Prez. Show us how to make paradise on earth. You've got 12 whole years to work with!
Go!



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Don't be obtuse, you know damn well everyone means the one up to the time our rights started getting usurped with the Patriot Act. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but I can't believe you honestly think anyone means anything different than what I just stated.


Okay, so, if we're going to rewind back to when Dubyah was in office, let's play it out like you were Prez back then.

The towers fall. You're Prez. Show us how to make paradise on earth. You've got 12 whole years to work with!
Go!






It's hard to believe that you have any desire to be serious here with such a ridiculous assertion. The idea that, because somebody disagrees with Obama that they must also be pro-Bush is a colossal logical fallacy. I think you know this by now, though, and so do the people watching this thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Your statement about wounding and maming is correct, but your reasoning is off.

It has little to do with the psychological factor, though it does play a small role, and more to do with practicality.

I was a 13 - E cannon fire direction control specialist, the mission of the artillery is to destroy suppress or neutralize the enemy through rocket cannon and missile fires, and to coordinate all fire control assets into a unified firing battery.

Destroy suppress or neutralize the enemy, lets take a look at the 3 and the difference between them, as this is key here to understanding the reasons behind wounding and maiming, vs killing, and why one is preferable to the others.

Destroy. Eliminate the enemy utterly, for all intents and ourposes to the last man.

Suppress. Really only looking to keep them low in their holes while our guys make a move, or distraction, allowing for flanking and or other force related movements and or preperations.

Neutralize. This is what we are looking for most of the time, if I kill you, you buddies go oh no they got mikey! And keep coming. If I wound or maim you, it takes 2 of your buddies to carry away. That means I got. 3 guys with 1 bullet. To effectively cause a unit to be combat ineffective, one needs only wound or maim 1/3 of the unit, as now the remaining 2/3 will be unable to fight as they are busy trying to save their buddies lives.

To cripple any army one doesnt have to scorch the earth, one need only maim a third.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I would have jumped on Bin-laden when the ABLE DAGER unit had him by giving them the Rangers they requested,I would never sign ANY document usurping the Constitution.
I wouldn't be controlled by by Dick Cheney and I sure as hell wouldn't have invaded Iraq when I was already engaged on another war because of my underlings hearsay.
I would never have let Shinseki take the Rangers black beret...
We could be here awhile if I go on.
Suffice to say it all started under Clinton and just when down hill from there.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
I would have jumped on Bin-laden when the ABLE DAGER unit had him by giving them the Rangers they requested,I would never sign ANY document usurping the Constitution.
I wouldn't be controlled by by Dick Cheney and I sure as hell wouldn't have invaded Iraq when I was already engaged on another war because of my underlings hearsay.
I would never have let Shinseki take the Rangers black beret...
We could be here awhile if I go on.
Suffice to say it all started under Clinton and just when down hill from there.


Remember that Regan called the Taliban "The equivalent of our founding fathers" during the Taliban's visit to the White House in the 1980s.

Our problem is that we are happy to make buddies with any evil SOB as long as he advances our short term interests. A short list here would include the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


Reagan was the best speaker I've seen in the white house,but I know what he did down in South America from a Ranger who shot his self 2 years ago for what he did there.
I always wondered what the hell a "no eyes" mission stood for as a wet PSYOP.
Real ugly stuff.
We don't have saints for politicians.
edit on 26-2-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


Are you serious? Are you familiar with Operation Northwoods? Before you blindly believe something you should look at historical precedence... read what the government tried to do but Kennedy rejected it!




All it takes is one sleeper secret service agent correctly placed at the opportune moment when key players are all together, then execute.....the powers that be would simply be powerless, and the joint chiefs would side with the constitution and all would be quickly back to normal


en.wikipedia.org...




Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


Reagan was the best speaker I've seen in the white house,but I know what he did down in South America from a Ranger who shot his self 2 years ago for what he did there.
I always wondered what the hell a "no eyes" mission stood for as a wet PSYOP.
Real ugly stuff.
We don't have saints for politicians.
edit on 26-2-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled


Well Reagan was no saint but he was better than Bush the First, Clinton, Bush the Second, and Obummer put together times a thousand.







 
32
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join