The US should abandon the war on terror.

a reply to: Greathouse

I have nothing against fighting a war against an aggressor (in other words defensive wars), but we haven't fought one of those in 70 years or so.

a reply to: Greathouse

What makes you think they want the dollar to crash??? Plus it hasn't happened yet has it. So they're still making money. Maybe they don't think it will ever crash as long as we keep having war and keep borrowing money. Maybe they plan on simply jumping ship before the crash. Maybe they don't think it will ever crash. There could be a million reasons.

Even if they knew it was going to crash eventually, why wouldn't they still take the money now??? At least they'll have something when it does. But most likely they either don't think it will happen or don't bother looking that far ahead.

a reply to: Greathouse

I held/hold almost identical views as you.

The only drawback to 'waiting' as you say breaks down to two points.

Like WWII, we waited. If we had gone in at the same time as the British Empire, we would have probably avoided the holocaust and finished off Germany far faster. In the case of the middle east, a consolidated and organized Isis, or whomever, would be easier to eradicate now rather than later.

The second point is the nuclear factor. Iran is too close to having them. Others like N.K. could give them a few just to mess with us.

If one knows there's a cancer growing, one doesn't delay getting rid of it. pay me now or pay me more later.....

It should be winding down after all WE HAVE RUSSIA back to play with and China as a back up,in case they go all PEACEFUL in Europe.

a reply to: Greathouse

I beg to differ there is things we can do to convince the government. Have you ever heard of the antiwar movement in the 60s and 70s that worked.

There were many things that seemed to work back in the 60's/70's that subversives have nullified .Protesting has become a very hard thing to do because of the lack of coverage on msm or because of covert operators that sneek into the movements .The G20 summit in Canada is a very good example or you can go to the protests in Ukraine and find subversive people (neo-nazie's ) and using snipers to pull off a coup .They (TPTB) never let a opportunity go to waist and will jump all over a situation in order to spin it to their advantage .

a reply to: rickymouse

That antiwar movement didn't work that welI. I remember that movement. I had to listen to all the bitching about deserters or draft dodgers. I listened to the people cutting down vietnam vets saying they were a bunch of druggies. Half of it was all made up.

I remember it well also. But if the anti-war movement hadn't been so bold and ongoing. We would've been in Vietnam longer than we were.


I also see a stunning similarity between the last part of your statement and what is going on now.

The main difference between the two movements in my opinion is. The antiwar movement in the 60s and 70s got out on the streets protested and used the vote. The current anti-war movement sits at home on their computers uses the same ideology from their comfortable chairs and refuses to vote. ( this statement should bring on more canned lines about your vote doesn't count)

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I disagree. It was largely due to public backlash that Obama didn't enter Syria when he desperately wanted to.

a reply to: mOjOm

What if, but, maybe somehow I knew those would be your responses.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first Gulf War, as I recall Saddam moved into Kuwait. Besides that I agree with you the last war that involve aggression on a national scale was Korea.

a reply to: Greathouse

If war is so profitable why is the US going broke?

The US is not going broke , the middle class is going broke. The top 5-20% are doing just fine.

a reply to: Greathouse

Oh no no. You are missing my point. I'm talking about someone attacking the US. Not another country that we go in to "save".

Again the way most of the replies have gone on this thread. Apparently everyone on the sites disagrees with my opinion and we should continue the "war on terror" ?

After all it's obvious by the replies everyone is taken offense to parts of the OP instead of agreeing with the message.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well then your opinion is flawed. WE didn't act on our own interest The united nations security council did.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Lybia?

a reply to: Greathouse

ONLY AFTER our state Dept said they had no issue aka SET HIM UP.
They wanted to knock down the 4th largest army on earth so he couldn't position to hit Saudi.

a reply to: Greathouse

If it does they'll most likely bail out before it does because they'll know it's coming. Plus the CEO's of those companies have most likely diversified and have wealth built up in other money besides just the dollar. Besides that, what else would they do, not take the money for the contracts?? It's not like they money hasn't already been borrowed by the Gov. So if they don't take it someone else will.

I don't get the point you're trying to make or why you seem to be against what I'm saying. Rather than just make a bunch of snarky comments about what I'm saying why don't you put up some kind of argument instead. In other words, "Put up or shut up!!" Why would anyone bother answering your questions when all you do is talk sh*t when they do??? You seem to want to make me feel like a dick just for answering your question. If you don't like my answer counter it or suck it up but don't blame me because you can't accept it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It could of had other legalities at the UN that made a bigger difference .That whole p5=1 group carries a lot more weight then we might consider . On the Libya deal , Putin was not calling the shots ..big difference I think .

a reply to: Greathouse

So be it, but that is the only war I want to participate in.

I have to admit in all my time is on the conspiracy boards this is a first for me.

The OP is a message of peace yet I am met with nothing but attacks about it. You people don't even know what you want.

I got to go but I'll be back when the attacked settles down from 8 to 10 on one to a little more even odds concerning a message of peace.

a reply to: mOjOm

it does they'll most likely bail out before it does because they'll know it's coming. Plus the CEO's of those companies have most likely diversified and have wealth built up in other money besides just the dollar. Besides that, what else would they do, not take the money for the contracts?? It's not like they money hasn't already been borrowed by the Gov. So if they don't take it someone else w

Your whole opinion relies on "most likely" . There is absolutely no reason to refute a "most likely" because there is nothing to counter there except a opinion.

Now, as my OP was a opinion piece. Do you concur with it or not should the US stop the "war on terror" ?