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.

 

I am begging you to vote for John F. Kerry

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
you're right skank,

But he's been chased around so much his own shadow can't catch up to him.

At leaqst Bush will continue to hunt him down. Bin Laden knows Kerry would be much easier on him.




posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Gazrok


And I suppose (now proven) illegally invading....



I will not vote for a man who wanted to gut intelligence and weapons systems.


During peacetime...yeah, what a monster...


- The war in Iraq is NOT illegal. Just because Koffi Annan
(who is up to his eyeballs in 'illegal' with his participation in
the theft of billions from the Oil for Food program) says it
is illegal, doesn't make it so.

Hang on, yes it is. We went in saying lets get WMD. There are none, everyone admits it now. So how can it be legal? The stated purpose was a lie. Going in with out the UN condemned this war from the start.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Dude Bush stated in 2002 that Bin Laden was no longer a priority of his administration. Would you like a quote or are you informed enough to remember that? We turned down offers of Bin Laden's extradition



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I think we should just start over then if everyone feels this way. Hold on wait everyone doesn't feel this way just some retards. The people that would never be happy with anything. Yes, it has been 3 years after 9/11 and we still do not have any further terrorists that have done anything althoguh I PROMISE Bin Laden didn't have just 9/11 planed just to piss us off so we could look for him for 3 years. =-) ... You idiots ... Why did 9/11 happen. Not who let it happen but why did they do it ? WHY WHY WHY .. Innocent till proven guilty then why ... TELL ME PROVE IT THAT HE HAD REASON TO DO THAT ....



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
you're right skank,

But he's been chased around so much his own shadow can't catch up to him.

At leaqst Bush will continue to hunt him down. Bin Laden knows Kerry would be much easier on him.


Obviously, from the looks of Bin laden, he looked neither disheveled nor did he look "chased".

He is still alive making annoying films to irritate us during election.

The fact Bush has not bothered to really hunt for him is pretty damn obvious. if we wanted Bin laden, we would have had him.

Bin laden still drawns in gasps of Oxygen because Bush is a total failure, period. if Bush continues to "hunt" bin laden so dilligently as he ahas done for the past few years, the Bin laden can look forward to a long, comfortable life.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Come on, This man and his father got us into this mess and you want him to get you out. Please. Bin Laden was set up by the US; you are reaping what you have sown. Stop with the high minded patriotic bull #. You need someone to heal your stance with the world. There are a hundred people waiting to take BL place. We will not achieve peace by blowing people up. You need to ask why do they want to blow us up, what have we done?

I await my flaming but I speak the truth..

Spelling

[edit on 1-11-2004 by bigdanprice]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
What have we done?

Well, first off we are a free country, Bin Laden doesn't like that.

We are a capitalistic country, Bin Laden hates that.

We are a democracy, Bin laden hates that.

We are a world power, Bin Laden hates that too.

He hates everything that makes America great.

He hates everything we stand for.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 52).

George W Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000. Immediately he appointed signatories of PNAC documents to the top levels of the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

It has now been proven that once Bush had all of his top levels filled by the PNAC, that our guard against terrorist attacks was let down.

· Richard Clarke, whose position as terrorism czar was promoted to a cabinet level position under Clinton, was subsequently demoted from the cabinet and reassigned by Bush to other projects. Dick Cheney himself, has said that Clarke was kept “out of the loop”.

· Paul O’Neil, former Secretary of Treasury, has stated that the Bush administration did not treat Al-qaeda as an imminent threat.

· The Bush administration ignored and denied the existence of a presidential briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United Sates” until it was revealed to the public.

The Bush administration needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to implement the PNAC agenda and they let down their guard until it occurred.

The Aftermath

Knowing what we know today, the invasion of Iraq was based on falsehoods and was an unnecessary and dangerous diversion from the effort to reduce terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslim anger at the United States is at an all time high. Iraq posed no threat to us and the process of containment was working. Most importantly, Iraq is in chaos, on the brink of civil war, and now a breeding ground for a hundred new Bin Ladens.

The PNAC members of our government told us that it would be “a cake walk”. That we would be greeted as “liberators”. That we’d see parades in the streets. Terribly undermanned, our military is in the middle of a quagmire where only the best case scenario was planned for.

The museums, the hospitals, the munitions depots, the nuclear facilities were left unprotected at the onset of the invasion. The ministry of oil was securely guarded.

Who has benefited from all of this at the expense of over a thousand US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives? The very arms and energy industries that funded the PNAC:

· Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney

· Bechtel, once headed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

· Trireme, a defense company started by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle shortly before the invasion

And finally, one last question:

Where did the first oil tanker to leave Iraq after the invasion go?

www.oldamericancentury.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I if I was an american I would Vote for Bush.
he is firm and steady but my mean reason is
a better space policy and exploration vision.
hydrogene act. and more new weapon systems
so a quicker disclosure of current black tech is
imminenter which is better for us all



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
What have we done?

Well, first off we are a free country, Bin Laden doesn't like that.

We are a capitalistic country, Bin Laden hates that.

We are a democracy, Bin laden hates that.

We are a world power, Bin Laden hates that too.

He hates everything that makes America great.

He hates everything we stand for.

What you have stood for is futhering American interests at anyone's expense, sponsoring wars world wide for financial and political gain. Giving military assistance to Israel. These things are irresponsible and lead to the nation being hated. I do not justify any terrorist action, killing can never be justified but these people are replying in Kind to what the US and western nations have done.

'Liberating Iraq' IF anyone for a minuite thinks that GWB liberated Iraq for the Iraqis they are fools. It was done for oil, political dominance, and to finish what his father failed to do. He has retarded world peace for another fifty years.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
When it comes down do it ... any country in the world voting for thier own nations leaders are not going to vote for a person who is openly voted against every vote that has had any influence on National Defence. Noone in thier right ming woudl vote for a leader of thier nation. If he said hey ... forget being able to take care of ourselves lets put our lives in the hands of people overseas. Because we can't trust our own people to run it lets go out of country and get people that are Non-Partisan ... Well you .... got it yeah lets get someone not from here and let them lead our nation. That way they wouldn't think like us at all.... B/c really thier home country is waiting their return. =-0992394084t08onaljdsnfkjqnwieufb qujnwepourhj12083yh5 c9puqhgiunbawlkjef -- That's about how much sense this make.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
We went in saying lets get WMD. There are none, everyone admits it now. So how can it be legal? The stated purpose was a lie. Going in with out the UN condemned this war from the start.


Even though we didn't need it -
UN Resolution 1441 gave us authority to go in.
The UN didn't condem the war. France, Germany,
and Russia did ... but we now know that they
didn't condemn it because of any moral reasons,
it was because they had their own illegal $$$
making scheme going on ... the oil for food
program for one (stole billions from the Iraqis).

Iraq was a grave threat. Saddam was paying
homicide bombers in Palestine. He was providing
weapons and $$$ to terrorist entities.

'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists'

We don't need UN permission to stop something
that we see as a threat to America and our
interests. The UN doesn't run the world. It
wants to ... but it doesn't.

Koffi Annan can claim it was illegal all he wants. He's
wrong, and he's upset because he got caught in the
biggest white collar crime in the recorded history of
the world. He wouldn't have gotten 'outted' on this
if America hadn't liberated Iraq and put an end to the
stealing of billions and billions from the Iraqi people.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
World Peace?

Keep dreaming man, its a great idea but will never happen. I'm a realist and as long as people like Bin Ladden exist. People whp don't want peace exist. World Peace cannot happen. There will always be people who don't want world peace.

People like saddam didnt want world peace, they wanted oppression and fear. WOMD or not im glad hes not in Iraq anymore. I hope we go to North Korea next.

these are my right wing radical nut job opinions. Deal with them.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Hey LostSailor,

NEWSFLASH!

Osama Bin Laden is out there able to make a film,
Precisely because Bush didn't get him.
This is 3 years and two wars after 911.

Let's get some effective action going on and not go kicking over hornet's nests needlessly.
.


Bin Laden would have loved to attack the US right before the election but he couldn't because of Bush. All he was able to do was release the video.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bet555
When it comes down do it ... any country in the world voting for thier own nations leaders are not going to vote for a person who is openly voted against every vote that has had any influence on National Defence. Noone in thier right ming woudl vote for a leader of thier nation. If he said hey ... forget being able to take care of ourselves lets put our lives in the hands of people overseas. Because we can't trust our own people to run it lets go out of country and get people that are Non-Partisan ... Well you .... got it yeah lets get someone not from here and let them lead our nation. That way they wouldn't think like us at all.... B/c really thier home country is waiting their return. =-0992394084t08onaljdsnfkjqnwieufb qujnwepourhj12083yh5 c9puqhgiunbawlkjef -- That's about how much sense this make.

What? Kerry is not against national defence, please dont believe spin. He will do it in a less atogonistic way, he understands the world an essential quality in a world leader, a leader who is on the UN security council. America will be top of the tree for years to come in terms of defense. No army of today could fight your army of ten years ago. You are leagues ahead. SO what if you spend a bit of money bettering the country you are protecting.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
IF anyone for a minuite thinks that GWB liberated Iraq for the Iraqis they are fools. It was done for oil ...


The old 'America went to war for oil' thing doesn't work. We went to
war in Kuwait and liberated it. We gave all the oil fields back to the
Kuwaities after we liberated them from Iraq. If we wanted oil fields,
we would have kept them. If we wanted oil fields, we would invade
Mexico and Venezuela. Those countries are right next door to us.
We could invade them and take them overnight. We could do that
without any Muslims getting all worked up about it and it would cost
a lot less $$ to do that.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Even though we didn't need it -
UN Resolution 1441 gave us authority to go in.
The UN didn't condem the war. France, Germany,
and Russia did ... but we now know that they
didn't condemn it because of any moral reasons,
it was because they had their own illegal $$$
making scheme going on ... the oil for food
program for one (stole billions from the Iraqis).

Well you are wrong for action to be taken in the name of the United Nations then a majority vote of the security council is needed.

@ LostSailor: World peace will never be achieveable whilst nations break laws that they themselves institute. And ride rough shod over the freedom of people around the world. If I am dreaming, I dare to dream, this is how ideas have become reality. Anyone that said to the founding fathers that breaking from Britian is an impossible dream, had a similar approach to you. They did it so can we. With George Bush in Power Hope is all we have left.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by bigdanprice]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Giving military assistance to Israel. These things
are irresponsible and lead to the nation being hated. .


Islamic countries hate the west anyways. We are all 'infidels'.

Giving military assistance to Israel is irresponsible? Israel is
a soverign nation that has nations surrounding it that are
blind with hatred towards it. They all want to destroy
Israel. Supporting a soverign nation is not irresponsible.
It may not be popular among anti-Jewish bigots, but it
is not irresponsible.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Giving military assistance to Israel. These things
are irresponsible and lead to the nation being hated. .


Islamic countries hate the west anyways. We are all 'infidels'.

Giving military assistance to Israel is irresponsible? Israel is
a soverign nation that has nations surrounding it that are
blind with hatred towards it. They all want to destroy
Israel. Supporting a soverign nation is not irresponsible.
It may not be popular among anti-Jewish bigots, but it
is not irresponsible.

I am not antiJewish or a bigot, what I meant was that it destabilises the region. Why do the surrounding countries hate it? Why were you involved in the first place. Let me tell you its not to protect freedom.
Supporting a soverign nation is not irresponsible. But supporting a nation that has caused three wars and innumerable deaths, that then perpetuates a circle of hatred and violence.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Well you are wrong for action to be taken in the name of the United Nations then a majority vote of the security council is needed.


I don't think G.W. took action 'in the name of the UN'. He always
referred to this as 'The 45 Nation Coalition of the Willing'. I
don't ever recall him saying this was a UN operation. However,
if he had said it was ... Resolution 1441 covered it and there
was no need of any further security council vote to decide
to do something. Resolution 1441 covered that.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join