Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by ColCurious

 

I question the methods of the pollsters, but even if they're right, it was well known back in 2007 and 2008 that most americans wanted the troops to come home, according to polls, but our government, composed of republicans and independents and democrats, was still strongly behind the war. How do you explain that? How can there be a divide?

BigGov obeys their masters (TPTB...ie: elite...ie: rich bankers and industrialists...THE OWNERS OF THIS NATION)

Not the citizen slaves

If this guy makes it, the world is going to change big, for sure. Let's just hope he ends up doing what he claims.
The video was awesome, it really touched me.

reply to post by Aprch

If he becomes president he'll have to confront reality. So he WILL change.

Candidates ALWAYS say BS when they're campaigning! ALWAYS!

Those who believe that Ron Paul is part of the blame America crowd will not be swayed by this logic from this video. If they are aiming at the Republican primary voters they will not get many converts with this reasoning. The war glory neo-conservatards are without any reason. They are programmed for conquest and empire. They have been fed fear and hatred and that is from where they operate on the political level.

I have donated hundreds to RevolutionPAC and I like their work but I think they have a long way to go to deprogram these moral majority, anything for Israel people in control of the party. They do not care that Israel is running our warfare for their own interests. They just want American exceptional-ism to run this economy and nation into the ground until there is nothing left but crumbling infrastructure and beaten down serfs.

reply to post by jonnywhite


What terrorists? The folks defending their own land from invaders and occupyers? First define a terrorist. Was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist when we trained him and armed him and funded him to fight the Soviets? Or was he a terrorist when he bombed our military barracks to drive us off his land just like he drove the Soviets off? Or was he a terrorist when he publicly denounced the attacks on 9/11? Or maybe you still believe he had something to do with 9/11, even though he was never wanted or charged for that attack and never took credit?

Please define what a terrorist is, and then we can move on with the discussion.

Was Saddam a terrorist? Ghaddafi? Because they were their rightful heads of state. If they are terrorists so are our own presidents. They make hard decisions where some people die and some people win benefits, and they do it every day.

The DC Sniper was a clear terrorist. No doubt about it, but we arrested, charged, and sentenced him. We didn't blow up his neighborhood! The agencies responsible for Ruby Ridge were terrorists. No doubt about it, but they just lost a civil suit and the government paid a few million bucks to get them off the hook. The population didn't start lobbing molotov cocktails at government buildings like they do overseas. So, why do we treat our terrorists at home this way, but overseas we use ICBM's and Predator Drones?

Far ...FAR to much playing "HomeFront"..... Very reminiscent of the old America . Fear Tactics.

reply to post by DreamerOracle

What you say is close to slander, in my opinion.

That video is not far from the truth. The soviets really were sending in agents for various purposes and trying to change american opinion and legislation in their favor. Were we doing it too? Yes. We're guilty of the same thing. But there's a difference. Americans stand for truth, justice and liberty. What did the Soviets stand for? Hmm? I thought so! That difference is key.

Many of these people saw WWII and knew how bad Stalin was and how bad war is. I wouldn't scoff or ignore. They experienced a harder side of life that most of us have never known.

IMHO, we've grown weary on our diet of xbox's and soda pop and TV. The enemy is not so complacent. This is why we have intelligence agencies and a military.

To do what normal citizens can't be bothered to do: CARE and ACT on this issue.

And, btw, if China really was in Texas on a military scale, I'd much rather have Mitt Romney as president than Ron Paul. Ron Paul would probably negotiate a settlement and give Texas to China on the condition that they leave us alone. He'd find some way to blame Texas. People who're supporting this video are the same cowards that would be rioting in support of China. Mitt Romney has hte balls to defy and do what we need to do. He'd kick China across the ocean back where they came from. That's the kind of man we need in our White House.

reply to post by InsideYourMind


Only a moron would think it's not misleading. There are other ways to write a thread other than fear mongering to get views. All it takes is a simple "imagine" or similar word in the front of the current title to make it right.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Your logic is upside down!

Perry has already deeded away portions of Texas to Mexican corps. Romney is a polished suit type, he won't challenge China on anything because it might hurt our economy.

Ron Paul is entirely against "foreign wars," but he is steadfast in his opinions, and if he decided to use force, it would be overwhelming force and it would be quick, decisive, and finished!

Laissez-Fairre (Paul's philosophy) doesn't stop one from defending their own borders. In fact, it brings all of our troops and resources home to do exactly that!! If China marched across Texas right now, we don't even have National Guard here to protect ourselves. Under Ron Paul, the majority of our military forces and equipment would be here ready to respond.

reply to post by getreadyalready

You think that in a modern world of nuclear and chemical and ICBM weapons that it's wise to take the war to our shores? WE CANNOT afford to let the war come to our shores!!

That's the point, sir. We have to fight them ELSEWHERE.

If and when they get here, they'll be beaten down enough that we got a chance.

Waiting for the enemy to get here is indefensible.

Paul's position is weak. And he consistently backs down on being strong on these issues.

This man explains it well:
www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul would have fit right in pre-WWII when we were still growing our manhood. Let the others take care of it, let them worry about Hitler! We don't want a part in it! We're peaceful!

reply to post by jonnywhite

Paul's position is weak. And he consistently backs down on being strong on these issues.

Wrong again.

Paul is often criticized for not committing to defend Israel, when in fact, his stance is to let Israel destroy its enemies! He has said repeatedly that the US needs to stop interfering with Israel's right to defend itself. He is a devout Christian and as such, he will always defend Israel, but his opinion is to take the leash off and let Israel handle business instead of constantly rewarding and bribing them away from what they want to do.

He is not weak on Iran either. He is just honest. Iran has a failing economy, even though they have oil, they have no refining capacity and they have to import Gasoline. They are entirely dependent on foreign sources, and they don't pose a threat to anybody. Their missiles can barely reach Israel, but they know that would be suicide. They want Nuclear electricity to stop being dependent on Western Fuel, but our sanctions are stopping that. Paul just wants to open up trade and negotiations. They will voluntarily stop their nuclear program if we lift our sanctions and open trade. There is a clear win-win strategy, we don't have to be the world's bully. We can be nice and strong at the same time. It isn't weakness, it is intelligence. That is something lacking in the Oval Office for a very long time!

I've always question why the US would be in other countries. Then it came to me...Wars! It's big business for the greedy. When I saw the headline I was ready to go down to Texas and become a "Rebel"!
I fully understand how people feel in other countries that we're in "fighting a war." I say bring home every troop worldwide and put them on our own streets. Our streets are not safe. Soon many of us will walking with our own streetsweeper.

Well thanks for the scare tactics..... Where is the proof? I love how they snuck Obama's campaign logo in there...nice, however, if you're going to post something so damning.. SHOW US THE PROOF!! NOT a campaign promo.. Very disappointed in this post.reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

reply to post by getreadyalready

A REAL man does not sit idly by as a nation enriches uranium on the one side and on the other supports terrorism against the US and Israel and claims that Israel does not have the right to exist. A REAL man steps up and surgically strikes the uranium enrichment facilities. He does not waste time with the idealogues or the sympathizers. This is the lesson we're increasingly forgetting. WWII will happen all over again, and when it does, it'll be with nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, a war for which there is no precedent. If we ACT responsibly and swiftly we got a chance. But the worst thing we can do is let the problem grow!!!

Intellectualism is not the answer to this problem.

Just watch this, it's a good rough take on what I think about things:

I have to question the wisdom of having Forum Moderators that have a political agenda here on ATS. I can't see how a Mod can effectively be objective and fair while promoting their own political agenda. It seems to me that this will eventually lead to a conflict of interest. This whole thread has turned into a political debate, and a promotion for a particular candidate. The title was misleading. This is a political ad, nothing more, and yet the thread hasn't been moved to a more appropriate forum. Perhaps even ATS is not immune to conspiracies.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Fair enough.

So which president has done that? Ever in our history? Just name one.

Where have we ever pre-emptively struck with success or even failure?

Not before 9/11, and the after effects of 9/11 were completely misplaced. We didn't hit Iran or Pakistan or Saudi. Iran was the money, Pakistan did the training, and Saudi was the nationality, but we attacked Afghan and Iraq?

Not before Pearl Harbor? Sure, we used nukes on Japan, but only after they attacked our homeland.

What about our Revolutionairies? Did we pre-emptively strike? NO. We waited until British troops were commandeering our homes and eating our food and harassing our villagers, and even then we only fought here, we never attacked Britain.

Have we never had a President up to your level of "manliness?"

Nice video, although the title is misleading. also if it weren't for the Ron Paul campaign ad at the end I'd share it all over the web. I just don't wan't to get into political arguments with everyone I know. But as far as the message of the film, that I wouldn't mind arguing with my friends and family, and the video is pretty eye opening. Sure it's predictable, but for most of the sleepwalking working Americans today, these are things they just don't think about and it would be really shocking for many of them I believe.

As for Ron Paul, I just hope that if he does get elected, he doesn't do an Obama 180 degree turn around about getting our troops home.

At this point it wouldn't suprise me.

These guys say whatever it'll take to get elected, then once elected, either they do what they want then, or the real people pulling the strings make the POTUS do what They want (much more likely).

I want to believe Ron Paul and all the things he says he WILL do IF elected. But time and time again we see Elected men just go in a total opposite direction than hatthey "advertised" once they get in.

Paul is the last chance imo, and if he pulls the same bait and switch that we've seen so many times, THEN I think it's real time for a complete overhaul of the government.

and I wish it would just come to that sometimes. This slow crippling death of democracy and the constitution is painful to experience. Better if we ripped it off (overhauled it from the ground up) like a bandaid, One motion really fast. Instead of this slow bleeding out. I don't know what it's gonna take though, many Americans are so controlled...." metally" at this point. An actual physical action is beyond most people.

reply to post by moonzoo7

I have to question the wisdom of having Forum Moderators that have a political agenda here on ATS. I can't see how a Mod can effectively be objective and fair while promoting their own political agenda. It seems to me that this will eventually lead to a conflict of interest. This whole thread has turned into a political debate, and a promotion for a particular candidate. The title was misleading. This is a political ad, nothing more, and yet the thread hasn't been moved to a more appropriate forum. Perhaps even ATS is not immune to conspiracies.

Mods are members first, Mods second, and Mods never Moderate in threads where they are participating.

Mods are People Too
Mods are not above the Terms and Conditions
Mods are not Gods

If you have a problem with any of my Moderating, please alert to it, and staff will discuss it.

If you have a problem with my political views, please debate them, not my personal affiliation. If you have an intelligent or factual response to anything I have posted, feel free to dispute it. If your only defense is, "but you're a Mod," well, I guess that just means my points are infallible.

reply to post by getreadyalready

We know from our intellignece sources that Iran is supporting insurgents in Iraq and funneling money through organizations that support the palestinian right for statehood. This money eventually finds itself in the hands of terrorists, some of whom launch rockets onto Israel soil and blow themselves up on Israel streets. If that wasn't enough, Iran does not recognize Israel.

So, striking their facilities would not be a pre-emptive strike. It would be a proper response.