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.

 

War Mongering

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I was reading through some of the posts on ATS this evening, and I just couldn't resist posing this question...
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Bomb Iran, Nuke Syria, Invade North Korea... How much war and blood shed will satiate you people. Is american media propoganda so effective that you actually believe Iraq was a threat to the US? Afghanistan had to be invaded for BinLaden when we turned down NUMEROUS offers of his extradition from other countries? Bush himself said they aren't even concerned with capturing him any more. These aren't rogue terrorists, they are soverign nations, with people and cultures and histories. Have you seen what exposure to depleted uranium does to fetuses? Do you realize that some of the se people in Iraq haven't had electricity and clean water in two years? Look at some of those pictures and tell me we are righteous. I just can't believe how delusional some people are when it comes to 'spreading democracy'. Does it bother that UNOCAL and Halliburton are dictating foriegn policy? They hjad a map of Iraqi oil fields at the "secret' energy policy meeting long before any of this crap started, hello?!!? You can sit back and holler Sadaam this and Clinton that all day long, but war is NEVER in the name of righteousness, never has been and never will be. We supplied, funded and trained EVERY SINGLE THREAT we now face in this war on a noun (terrorism). I wonder how many german citizens were cursing the polish terrorists before Germany invaded them? Are you going to be waving the flag and shouting with glee when they draft your kids to go fight Syria? Who is paying for this war in face of the largest deficit in american history? Don't worry, you won't have to, your kids will. War is an ugly, violent, and shameful thing, and alot of you guys are sitting there singing it's praises like the US has some kind of devine right to police the world. We pay them to pave our roads and school our children. How much blood must be spilled to satisfy our 'democratic' world agenda? War is never righteous, if you think it is, then you are lost in a world of ignorace, nationalism and dellusion.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 02:33 AM
link   
amen to that!


the american peoples apathy towards government policy will be the end of us. we are in pretty darn deep too, this website is the only place where people actually come to terms with reality. every person i know is completely ignorant towards everything going on in the world. i believe media is the biggest culprit of dillusion, sadly media is all people are capable of ingesting these days. people in general are too cool to care, what with all the nice stuff we have.

our leaders are in the process of plundering the world, becuase of the upcoming population/oil/resouce crisis. they are taking their foothold which currently is very secure. getting ready to fight off the millions of people who hate us, becuase each and everyone of us fuels the greed by consuming what our coorperate manipulated leaders shove in our face.

somebody said in another thread "if the bottom(you and me) of the pyramid ceases to cooperate the top(government) fall." to cease the bloodshed we must end their ability to fight! stop the sensless consumption and they will have no reason to fight, we must find independance to regain our liberty. they depend on us more then we depend on them.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Wow no response to this post from the GOP junkies... figures. War mongerers scatter when the light comes on, or when the body counts roll in and pictures start circulating of burnt up kids and disfigured fetuses radiated beyond all recognition. They don't like to see torn up neighborhoods or wailing women, limbless kids, but they sure like to wave that flag and watch that tv. Ask any combat vet what war is like, then ask any politician or armchair warrior and see if you get the same answer.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
You could add also that most people hate America for disrespecting the other nations and not because we / Americ are better. There are fantastic countries out there, most people not only have never been to America, they don't care at all, as they firmly believe they live in the best place on Earth.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I am one of those "GOP" junkies and I will say this.

I don't think any one wants war for the sake of war. Obviously, war is not a *fun* or *good* thing.

However, there are times where war is needed because the alternative is not exceptable.

For instance - Iran CLEARLY has nuclear weapons ambition. Iran also CLEARLY has ties with terrorists. These same terrorists CLEARLY have the US as their main target.

So, I reason that Irans nuclear capabillity must be taken out from the US point of view. It is clearly unacceptable to allow terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons, would you not agree?

Now, there are alternatives to war. But Iran has rejected them. They continue with their nuclear ambition. So, the time will come (unless Iran changes it's stance) where the US is faced with a choice: Do we take millitary actions, perhaps a singe airstrike against specific sensitive targets or perhaps a full scale invasion, or do we sit back and hope for the best.

Personally, I do not want to sit back and wait for the temperature in NYC, Washington DC, or LA rise to 10,000,000 degrees - get it?

And by the way - it is not just the US that feels this way. The UK, and even France and Germany have stated as such.

If you wat to know my thoughts towards Iraq, check out some threads - I am sick of rehashing the same old arguments - on both sides.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I am one of those "GOP" junkies and I will say this.
I don't think any one wants war for the sake of war. Obviously, war is not a *fun* or *good* thing.
However, there are times where war is needed because the alternative is not exceptable.

I'm all for military intervention when it is justified and absolutley nessecary and unavoidable. The Invasion of Afghanistan was not. The invasion of Iraq was not. Bush MANDATED the intelligence that led us to war with these countries. As I have said before, terrorism is not a soverignty, its a noun. You cannot defeat terrorism by conquering foreign countries. What you are doing is creating a breeding ground for more problems. Also, your dellusional if you think the reasons we went to war were about terrorism. That was the plot of a really good fiction story. The war in afghanistan was mandated long before 9-11 when the taliban backed out on UNOCAL and Halliburton. The invasion of Iraq was planned in a sealed energy policy meeting chaired by DICK Cheney prior to 9-11. Your own GOP has changed their justifications around for the invasion of Iraq so many times some people are still running around spouting Hussien was responsible for 9-11, while others are still trying connect the dots with Alqeada and Iraq. Wasn't the war on terror about capturing BinLaden and bringing down the Alqeada network? Who the hell said anything about occupation or installing UNOCAL consultants as governing bodies? The man we put in charge of Iraq is literally wanted in other arab nations for embezzlement. If stopping terror is our objective, then lets fight terror, not nations. Nobody wants war? BULL, last I heard defense contractors and oil companies were making out like bandits.


For instance - Iran CLEARLY has nuclear weapons ambition. Iran also CLEARLY has ties with terrorists. These same terrorists CLEARLY have the US as their main target.
So, I reason that Irans nuclear capabillity must be taken out from the US point of view. It is clearly unacceptable to allow terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons, would you not agree?

Allowing terrorist to get their hands on nuclear weapons is one thing, preventing other countries from developing equal or at least comporable military weapons is frankly none of our damn business. Who are we to police the world? Who are we to sell nuclear capability to Israel then bomb Iran or Iraq for the same thing? The US has supported countless terrorist organizations, but we can't won't tolerate it when somebody else gets in on the game. Israel won't even let the UN asses their nuclear capability, but Iran is somehow more of a rogue nation for even demonstrating a desire for a nuclear arsenal? You seem intelligent enough to realize that this sort of opinion can be translated to nationalism. You probably don't need a history lesson in US foriegn policies so I will spare you the ugly truths here and suffice it to say that the US is the largest exporter and manufacturer of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the world many times over. What are we so afraid of? That some 'rogue' nation will develop the ability to tell us to kiss their arses and mean it?


Now, there are alternatives to war. But Iran has rejected them. They continue with their nuclear ambition. So, the time will come (unless Iran changes it's stance) where the US is faced with a choice: Do we take millitary actions, perhaps a singe airstrike against specific sensitive targets or perhaps a full scale invasion, or do we sit back and hope for the best. Personally, I do not want to sit back and wait for the temperature in NYC, Washington DC, or LA rise to 10,000,000 degrees - get it?

Uh no, we leave them the hell alone and respect their soverignty like we do any other sufficiently armed nation. Give them a seat on the security council, you know, respect their interests rather than imposing ours. Chances are, if we leave them the hell alone we won't have to worry about Iranian ICBM's heating up NYC. Do you know how many Iranians died in clouds of US made chemical weapons while we duped them into thinking we were supporting them against Iraq? We had no business there then, we have none there now. If they won't to develop a nuclear arsenal, fine, let them. Hell if the US was selling my enemy neighbors nukes and weapons, I'd want to develop some myself. Don't try to hand me this terrorism garbage, ISOLATIONISM is the cure for international terrorism. When is the last time any Dutch interests were hit by terrorists? Why? Because they don't get involved.


And by the way - it is not just the US that feels this way. The UK, and even France and Germany have stated as such.

Oh, that explains the world wide protests against US foriegn policy.

Dude, the countries that supported us after 9-11 are not the same countries that supported a preemptive invasion of two soverign nations. Britain is the only exception, and even that is rubbish when you read past the statements of Blair and actually look at news and statements from their parliments. This is a corporate war, corporate mandated, corporate funded, and coporate compensated. War on terror is a joke. No soverign nation is a terror threat. Regimes and factions are terrorists, not nations, not civilians or municipalities. If you truly want to fight terrorism, you don't let corporate interests dictate your foriegn policy, and you sure as hell don't occupy an already hostile reigon to do it.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I am one of those "GOP" junkies and I will say this.
I don't think any one wants war for the sake of war. Obviously, war is not a *fun* or *good* thing.
However, there are times where war is needed because the alternative is not exceptable.

I'm all for military intervention when it is justified and absolutley nessecary and unavoidable. The Invasion of Afghanistan was not.


Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? I mean, it is about the one thing that everyone can agree on as far as the US war on terror goes. Please, explain your thoughts. But, if you are going to pull forth some radical idea, back it up with facts from reliable sources.




The invasion of Iraq was not. Bush MANDATED the intelligence that led us to war with these countries.


THen why is it that Russia, France, Isreal, the UN, the UK and the US all had there own info telling them the same thing? I mean, Russia and France agreed with us. They were the biggest anti war nations against going into Iraq. Yet their intel said the same things ours did - that they had seeked to get WMD's that they were supporting terrorism (don't you dare say he wasn't - it is well known that he offered 10,000 cash to suicide bombers). It is also well known now that France Germany Russia and China voted against action in Iraq because they were getting Billions from Saddam in the form of illegal trade agreements involving millitary equipment and illegal kickbacks in oil and cash from the OilFor Food scandal. Iraq was aquiring material not legal to the peace treaty agreed on in '91, and he was stealingmoney from the UN (aka the US).



As I have said before, terrorism is not a soverignty, its a noun. You cannot defeat terrorism by conquering foreign countries.


If countries support terrorism you can, by denying that government power and money.



What you are doing is creating a breeding ground for more problems. Also, your dellusional if you think the reasons we went to war were about terrorism. That was the plot of a really good fiction story. The war in afghanistan was mandated long before 9-11 when the taliban backed out on UNOCAL and Halliburton. The invasion of Iraq was planned in a sealed energy policy meeting chaired by DICK Cheney prior to 9-11.


Proof please!




Your own GOP has changed their justifications around for the invasion of Iraq so many times some people are still running around spouting Hussien was responsible for 9-11, while others are still trying connect the dots with Alqeada and Iraq.


No, the reasons for going to war with Iraq were the following:

1) He knowingly broke the GWI pece treaty in which he was to have allowed weapons inspectors (or did you forget that part) and refused.

2) US, French, Russian, UK, Isreali, and UN intel told the US he was trying to get WMDs. Remember, it wan't just US intel, it was by and large everyones intel - including nations on the take from Saddam.

3) Saddam has been proven to fund suicide bombers. $10,000 to the bombers wife/parents. I would say that is a link to terroris,

There are more reasons I can type but to be honest, I doubt you would be fair enough to consider the evidance that the reason many countries did not back the US is because it they had trade that was supposed to be illegal as so far as the UN was concerned (thats right - not only was the US supporting the UN policy concerning Iraq, but those that were against us were on the take).





Wasn't the war on terror about capturing BinLaden and bringing down the Alqeada network? Who the hell said anything about occupation or installing UNOCAL consultants as governing bodies?


When you remove a government it is generally a good thing to replace it one rather then leave it in anarchy. Look at afghanastan - they had 75% voter turn out. They reelected the man we put in charge because the country was improving (don't even try to say that the US rigged it, because we did not control the voting boths).

BTW - Al Quada is still a prime target - and we have fared well, bringing in over 75% of known members.




The man we put in charge of Iraq is literally wanted in other arab nations for embezzlement. If stopping terror is our objective, then lets fight terror, not nations. Nobody wants war? BULL, last I heard defense contractors and oil companies were making out like bandits.


Flawed logic - the military would make MORE money if it didn't have to spend it all on going to war. As far as D contractors go, they make their money in different ways (such as developement and R&D ) when not at war.





For instance - Iran CLEARLY has nuclear weapons ambition. Iran also CLEARLY has ties with terrorists. These same terrorists CLEARLY have the US as their main target.
So, I reason that Irans nuclear capabillity must be taken out from the US point of view. It is clearly unacceptable to allow terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons, would you not agree?

Allowing terrorist to get their hands on nuclear weapons is one thing, preventing other countries from developing equal or at least comporable military weapons is frankly none of our damn business.

So, I guess you would not mind if Hitler had invented the nuclear weapon first. Or Stalin. Get real - IT IS OUR BUSINESS! WHO DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE USED AGAINST!?




Who are we to police the world?


Police the world!? More like protect the world! Honestly, do you think the world would be a better place if Saddam had nukes. Or Iran had nukes. Or Afghan had nukes. Or Syria had nukes.

Do you really think that this is an acceptable thing? Think about it.



Who are we to sell nuclear capability to Israel then bomb Iran or Iraq for the same thing?


Isreal was mandate by the UN. They were then attacked by every neighbor they had, because they were Jewish. Isreal needed the nukes just to stay at peace (as a deterent). You seem to forget, Isreal is a nation surronded by enemies - ones that have attacked them before. We gave them nukes because they would not use them unless they had to, where as Iran, Iraq, etc would give them to terrorists to use against the US.





The US has supported countless terrorist organizations, but we can't won't tolerate it when somebody else gets in on the game. Israel won't even let the UN asses their nuclear capability, but Iran is somehow more of a rogue nation for even demonstrating a desire for a nuclear arsenal? You seem intelligent enough to realize that this sort of opinion can be translated to nationalism.


The difference here is that Isreal has no conection to international terrorism, and has thus far PROVEN to be nuclear responsable as far as their weapons go. Iran and the rest of the bunch have PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, to have links to international terrorism as far as suplying and funding them goes. Why should we trust them to have nukes? They have not given us a reason to trust them.




You probably don't need a history lesson in US foriegn policies so I will spare you the ugly truths here and suffice it to say that the US is the largest exporter and manufacturer of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the world many times over. What are we so afraid of? That some 'rogue' nation will develop the ability to tell us to kiss their arses and mean it?


What we are affraid of is that these same nations would give these weapons to terrorists. Why would they do that? Its obvious - we are their mutual enemy. The nation doesn't take the heat because "terrorists" did it, and terrorists don't care, as you can see by examples such as suicide bombers an the WTC. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that nukes are safer in the hands of the US, UK, Isreal, and France then Iraq and Iran.





Now, there are alternatives to war. But Iran has rejected them. They continue with their nuclear ambition. So, the time will come (unless Iran changes it's stance) where the US is faced with a choice: Do we take millitary actions, perhaps a singe airstrike against specific sensitive targets or perhaps a full scale invasion, or do we sit back and hope for the best. Personally, I do not want to sit back and wait for the temperature in NYC, Washington DC, or LA rise to 10,000,000 degrees - get it?

Uh no, we leave them the hell alone and respect their soverignty like we do any other sufficiently armed nation. Give them a seat on the security council, you know, respect their interests rather than imposing ours. Chances are, if we leave them the hell alone we won't have to worry about Iranian ICBM's heating up NYC.


It's not Iran missles - ot's a bomb made by Iran given to terrorists. Blow that thing up in NYC and the civilized world would collpapse.





Do you know how many Iranians died in clouds of US made chemical weapons while we duped them into thinking we were supporting them against Iraq? We had no business there then, we have none there now. If they won't to develop a nuclear arsenal, fine, let them.


Far too many - I freely admit that. As far as our support for Iran/Iraq goes, we witched sides when we realized which was the lesser of two evils. Honestly, I understand that this is *lame* as far as reasoning goes, but one must also understand the cold war and the implications that this geo-political situation had.





Hell if the US was selling my enemy neighbors nukes and weapons, I'd want to develop some myself. Don't try to hand me this terrorism garbage, ISOLATIONISM is the cure for international terrorism. When is the last time any Dutch interests were hit by terrorists? Why? Because they don't get involved.


Why make nukes - if you are anything remotly close to a decent nation you won't need them. If Saddam hadn't tries to make WMDs and hadn't supported terrorism and hadn't broken his own peace treaty, we would not have had to go in.






And by the way - it is not just the US that feels this way. The UK, and even France and Germany have stated as such.

Oh, that explains the world wide protests against US foriegn policy.



If you knew your politics, you would note that 3 nations are on a UN resolution to make military action against Iran - I'll give you 3 choices who tose countries are, and heres a hint: THE US AINT ONE.

(answere: UK, France, Germany - thats right - FRANCE AND GERMANY)

As far as Afghanastan goes, almost every country in the world supported the US. Iraq was a situation where the UN said we should go in, intel said we should go in, and countries on the take from Saddam said no.


It's late and I'm tired, I'll try to finish this up later....



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Rule of law is not a bad concept.

For it to work everyone has to agree on the guidelines, and then stick to them rigidly. The whole concept behind the UN and the Geneva convention is to stop lunatics like Saddam and Bushie from going completely feral.

It is no good saying obey me or I will attack you suddenly without warning or provocation.

This can only really end one way now. Germany tried it, Japan tried it, and America is trying it now. Eventually America is going to pick a fight with Russia, China, Europe, or the whole Muslim world. While America can probably beat any one of them, it could never stand up to all of them together at the same time.

That is what it is coming down to. America will try to steal oil away from the rest of the world by force rather than pay for it with a rapidly shrinking dollar. That will start WW3. America against the whole world. America is weakening itself with little phony wars, while the big guys get ready for the main event.

Unfortunately many misguided Americans are saying, bring it on we can nuke anyone and everyone. Regrettably America is no longer the only nuclear power, and the obvious final outcome of this is now pretty clear.

Technology can only win short wars fought from a distance. This is now fully understood. Technology cannot fight and hold ground in a protracted ground war against a determined and numerous aggressor. Vietnam showed that, and Afghanistan and Iraq are proving it even more. When you have six billion people mad at you, and the oil has run out and the power grid is down, and all the missiles have already been fired, what are you going to do ?



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Why make nukes - if you are anything remotly close to a decent nation you won't need them.


Interesting statement - remind me, how many nukes have the U.S. got at the moment?

[edit on 16/10/2004 by Deckard_BR26354]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join