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.
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by dariousg
I don't think anyone in this thread has breathed a word of opposition to that, but the past administration isn't the topic.
Do you have anything to add about the topic? Otherwise, this just isn't a thread I would wish to see turn in to a bash one side or the other type of thread.
The real question comes down to, regardless of "who started it", what are we going to do about it now? And do two wrongs make a right? So Bush started it, I guess now it is okay for Obama to keep it going under the same agenda?
Originally posted by die_another_day
Every president we've had in the past should have been impeached for their crimes.
I had a thread about how there hasn't been 1 president that left no conspiracies.
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by GovtFlu
((snip))
So then, after they get paid, they shoot at them anyway? Is this why they have the orders not to shoot unless shot at? No matter which way it is summed up, it all reverts back to the undeniable fact that we are indeed funding the insurgency against which we are proclaiming to fight.
We are leading our troops to slaughter, and this is ok to anyone... why?
The more I think about this, the more angry that I become. Why won't they just bring our troops home, instead of sending 30,000 more to their deaths? Death we are funding, and when I say we, I mean us, the taxpayers, this is our money... and the government is doing this.
I feel about this much like I do government funded abortion. I don't wish my tax dollars to go to funding this, because the outcome is the same no matter how you look at this. Our troops are dying, quite probably from our own money, and we have their blood on our hands. Moreso now, with these revelations.
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by piddles
It isn't a remnant when Obama signed the bill to insure it being done, and allotted funds specifically for this.
It isn't a remnant anymore, this is his war now.
Edit to add: I also do not see how you can justify those remarks at all about Fox, other than just being the Hate Fox propoganda, because the article is from the AP. Guess you missed that part. And the part that it is the democrats investigating Obama, too.
[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]
Tierney said his staff has been told by credible informants that security guards hired by the trucking companies funnel money to the local warlords or the Taliban to ensure the convoys get to their destinations unscathed.
Originally posted by mahajohn
Look, impeachment morons,
this is the way it is: the only allegiances folks in Afghanistan have is to their tribe, and within that parameter, whoever can pay them and keep them and their families fed. There are few so-called extremists, sure, but the huge amounts of Taliban fighters are really just local hicks who are being paid to do what they do. Everyone's gotta eat.
The foundation of this story, that Defense Dept. funds are going to the Taliban has been an "open secret" for years and years. You can read a good article about it from "The Nation" of a few weeks ago. The point is that to get ANYTHING moved around the country, it is absolutely necessary to pay for "protection" from locals, be they warlords or whatever. Only one company doesn't pay this extortion, and they lose gobs and gobs of supplies and men. Essentially, we have to pay the enemy to let us get our supplies through so that we can more efficiently kill the enemy. This has been policy for years and years.
Further, it's really defense CONTRACTORS who are paying for the protection racket.