| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"The Fool" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2006 03:53:30 PM |
| Object: |
Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
| User: "DTA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 04:30:30 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not represent
conservative thought. It was interesting listening to a conservative trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why. It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 04:37:33 PM |
|
|
DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not represent
conservative thought. It was interesting listening to a conservative trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why. It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
We agree on this, but don't think you understand me. While I have many
conservative views, NONE of them was from someone telling me what to
believe. I reach all of my conclusions on my own and would just as
easily disagree with a conservative or a Christian as with a liberal
or democrat. I hope you hold an equal level of independence of
thought. If so, this country might have more hope than I thought.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DTA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 05:06:18 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137191852.957894.85840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian
radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm
in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because
she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not
represent
conservative thought. It was interesting listening to a conservative
trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that
people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her
mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had
been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why.
It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a
shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize
the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not
the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few
conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
We agree on this, but don't think you understand me. While I have many
conservative views, NONE of them was from someone telling me what to
believe. I reach all of my conclusions on my own and would just as
easily disagree with a conservative or a Christian as with a liberal
or democrat. I hope you hold an equal level of independence of
thought.
I do, as evidence the fact that I am an UNBELIEVER (spooky music, screams,
muffled prayers start) and listen to christian radio stations.
But as an unbeliever I don't wish to change you mind about your faith,
though unbelief certainly makes you uncomfortable. You shouldn't be the one
telling me to have an open mind, despite the free thought you exhibit
regarding the Bush admin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 05:14:42 PM |
|
|
DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137191852.957894.85840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian
radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm
in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because
she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not
represent
conservative thought. It was interesting listening to a conservative
trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that
people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her
mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had
been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why.
It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a
shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize
the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not
the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few
conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
We agree on this, but don't think you understand me. While I have many
conservative views, NONE of them was from someone telling me what to
believe. I reach all of my conclusions on my own and would just as
easily disagree with a conservative or a Christian as with a liberal
or democrat. I hope you hold an equal level of independence of
thought.
I do, as evidence the fact that I am an UNBELIEVER (spooky music, screams,
muffled prayers start) and listen to christian radio stations.
But as an unbeliever I don't wish to change you mind about your faith,
though unbelief certainly makes you uncomfortable. You shouldn't be the one
telling me to have an open mind, despite the free thought you exhibit
regarding the Bush admin.
If I, or any Christian for that matter, was opposed to freedom of
thought, we'd take away the choice element for joining the church and
just force people to join or count every baby baptism as a full church
member. Also, I wouldn't be trying to convince you of my position.
I'd just condemn you and seek to force you to my will, as many on here
sadly do. The very reason that I take the time to discuss it all with
you should show you that I expect you to think for yourself in both the
political and religious realms. Everyone should have the opportunity
to hear about God in hopes of saving their soul, even if they choose
and are allowed to choose against Him to their detriment.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DTA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
14 Jan 2006 10:01:57 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137194082.935572.128760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137191852.957894.85840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
But as an unbeliever I don't wish to change you mind about your faith,
though unbelief certainly makes you uncomfortable. You shouldn't be the
one
telling me to have an open mind, despite the free thought you exhibit
regarding the Bush admin.
If I, or any Christian for that matter, was opposed to freedom of
thought, we'd take away the choice element for joining the church
But that's exactly what a major political christian conservative block is
trying to do.
and
just force people to join or count every baby baptism as a full church
member. Also, I wouldn't be trying to convince you of my position.
But you would happily push prayer and bible study in public school where my
kids and others like them would have no choice.
I'd just condemn you and seek to force you to my will, as many on here
sadly do. The very reason that I take the time to discuss it all with
you should show you that I expect you to think for yourself in both the
political and religious realms.
If that were true you would accept the positions of liberals and unbelievers
as valid and moral, but you demonstrate that you do not.
Everyone should have the opportunity
to hear about God in hopes of saving their soul, even if they choose
and are allowed to choose against Him to their detriment.
Don't you think that most people here, by this time, have heard the message
over and over and over again? Maybe that's why people have short tempers,
because they've had enough of the condescension and repeated suggestions
that we can't be moral because we don't believe. You need to take a hint and
at least pretend that people who don't believe as you are happy and well
adjusted. It's called respect, and some of you conservative christians need
to learn some for people who don't jump on the bandwagon as you.
And who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
I mean, how assumptive can you be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 04:49:17 PM |
|
|
In article <11sgagail8l4r2b@corp.supernews.com> "DTA" <DTA@nospam.com> writes:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not represent
conservative thought. It was interesting listening to a conservative trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why. It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
Nice post.
And while I don't want to commit the "true Scotsman" fallacy, I can
only observe that the current neocons are not, in their behavior, anything
like what "conservative" has meant throughout most of my
lifetime.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
14 Jan 2006 04:18:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:30:30 -0600, DTA wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Hmmmm, something we agree upon.
Can't choose your allies sometimes.
On a tangent, something you might find interesting.
When I lived in Portland there was a radio personality on a Christian radio
station named Mary Skerrit. I used to listen to her not only because I'm in
the habit of listening to the opposing views presented, but also because she
was a "true" conservative in every sense of the word and came to the
conclusion that Bush was a dishonest man and his cronies did not represent
conservative thought.
Bush43 is a "conservative" in the same way
that Al Capone was a "prohibitionist".
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business professor at
Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi,
recalls our President as,not just as a terrible student
but as
"spoiled,
loutish
and a
pathological liar".
It was interesting listening to a conservative trash
Bush and explain exactly why he was wrong and what he was doing that people
should rise up against. She had a rather large audience that agreed with
her, but there were callers who were not too happy with her saying her mind.
One day when I turned her on she was in tears, explaining that she had been
given notice this was her last broadcast and that she could not say why. It
wasn't hard to figure out from what she was saying that it was because of
her criticism of Bush during the aftermath of 9-11 hysteria. It was a shame
that someone so lucid (except for her religious views in some cases) was
bounced off the air by the powers at large because she dared criticize the
president.
Anyway, if you want to have an impact and make a difference, this, not the
god bothering, might be cause to champion. There are very few conservatives
willing to criticize the president and if there was any time that we need
critical conservative thought it's now. Or never.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 04:46:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Oh, I started considering that about a year ago or so.
But I'm going to give twenty-to-one odds that Bush would
not dare to try a unilateral invasion of Iran. He's
lost too much support for the current one to attempt
another.
A true international effort, UN mediated,
might be possible -- there is a GREAT deal of
global unease over Iran right now -- but nothing
like our current involvment which, for all
that other nations are involved, is truly
a U.S. show.
I'm taking secondary bets that Iran is doing a
Korea here: making everyone uneasy, then seeing
what it can get in trade for backing off.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
14 Jan 2006 04:36:12 PM |
|
|
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Oh, I started considering that about a year ago or so.
But I'm going to give twenty-to-one odds that Bush would
not dare to try a unilateral invasion of Iran. He's
lost too much support for the current one to attempt
another.
There is no way we would invade Iran no matter what the support for
the current operations in Iraq. Even if we had never gone to Iraq and
Saddam was still there, yet Iran was more pressing at this moment in
time, there is still no way we would invade Iran. It is a completely
different situation militarily from Iraq.
What would be much more likely is that there would be limited air
strikes as well as Cruise missiles used to try take out their Nuclear
capacity and most possibly but not necessarily their leadership as
well.
A true international effort, UN mediated,
might be possible -- there is a GREAT deal of
global unease over Iran right now -- but nothing
Iran is likely to be referred to the UN Security Council, but we need
to try and convince the Chinese that Iran is a threat to the World and
peace. That may be difficult because the Chinese get a lot of money
and business from Iran. They are probably a source of half their
weapons and technology anyway along with Russia.
like our current involvment which, for all
that other nations are involved, is truly
a U.S. show.
Truly a US show? Show is not an appropriate choice of words. This is
something that is also very disrespectful to all the other nations who
supported the war in Iraq and denigrating to their troops who have
also given their lives doing their duty. (People from my country have
also given their lives).
Here is a list and notice the country with currently the most troops
helping to secure the nation and fight the evil terrorists linked with
Al Qaeda!
Coalition Members
In order of number of troops (estimated) committed to Iraq
Current Members
IRAQ 170,000
USA 130,000
United Kingdom 8,761
South Korea 3,600
Italy 3,085 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [3]
Poland 1,700 -- began to withdraw troops in October 2004
Ukraine 1,450 -- announced to withdraw troops by October 2005 [4]
Georgia 889
Romania 860
Australia 850
Japan 550 -- limited to non-combat zones only
Denmark 496
Bulgaria 450 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [5]
El Salvador 380
Mongolia 180
Azerbaijan 151
Latvia 122
Lithuania 118
Slovakia 105
Czech Republic 80
Albania 71
Estonia 55
Macedonia 33
Kazakhstan 25
Members With No Military Involvement
Several countries chose not to send military or combat troops to
support the invasion, but instead pledged their solidarity with the
Coalition
Angola 0
Colombia 0
Eritrea 0
Ethiopia 0
Iceland 0
Kuwait 0
Micronesia 0
Rwanda 0
Solomon Islands 0
Uganda 0
Uzbekistan 0
Members Who supported the war but Have now left
Nicaragua 0 -- withdrew 115 troops in February 2004
Dominican Republic 0 -- withdrew 302 troops in May 2004
Honduras 0 -- withdrew 370 troops in June 2004
Spain 0 -- withdrew 1400 troops in June 2004
Philippines 0 -- withdrew 51 troops in July 2004
Thailand 0 -- withdrew 443 troops in August 2004
Hungary 0 -- withdrew 300 troops in December 2004
Tonga 0 -- withdrew 40 troops in December 2004
Moldova 0 -- withdrew 12 troops in February 2005
Portugal 0 -- withdrew 128 policemen in February 2005
Netherlands 800 -- withdrew 1350 troops in March 2005
Singapore 0 -- withdrew its single amphibious transport dock deployed
in the Persian Gulf in March 2005
Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq and is not a Coalition
member but has 31 troops in the theatre as part of an exchange program
with the United States military.
Sources: Operation Iraqi Freedom - Coalition Forces, PWHCE, Global
Security
US Only affair??? I think not.
I'm taking secondary bets that Iran is doing a
Korea here: making everyone uneasy, then seeing
what it can get in trade for backing off.
Your bets are wrong. We can not appease Iran, and they are definitely
not doing a Korea!
Korea is a completely different situation. We can keep appeasing Korea
until Kim Jong II pops his clogs and hopefully they ditch communism in
favour of something that works.
If Iran gets the bomb "they will" use it, simple as that. They are
not using it as a bargaining tool in exchange for money if that is
what you are implying. Iran has enough oil and natural gas to keep its
own population supplied for 10 centuries as well as selling it to the
rest of the world in exchange for a shed load of money. As far as
trade goes, apart from oil, gas, pistachios and marijuana, what else
does the country produce in any quantities that the rest of the world
would want to buy? We certainly don't want their nut case mullahs, or
their terrorists!
Regards
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 05:03:09 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Oh, I started considering that about a year ago or so.
But I'm going to give twenty-to-one odds that Bush would
not dare to try a unilateral invasion of Iran. He's
lost too much support for the current one to attempt
another.
A true international effort, UN mediated,
might be possible -- there is a GREAT deal of
global unease over Iran right now -- but nothing
like our current involvment which, for all
that other nations are involved, is truly
a U.S. show.
I'm taking secondary bets that Iran is doing a
Korea here: making everyone uneasy, then seeing
what it can get in trade for backing off.
-- cary
That could be. However, I was thinking of the possibility that Bush
intentionally leaked the spy case to get America to say that he had
unlimited powers in a time of war. If so, he could use that to say
that Iran is behind the Iraq attacks and suggest an invasion there in
order to gain victory in that falsely founded war. I hope that is not
the case, but you will remember that Bush met with a lot of foreign
leaders before the Iraq invasion, and we saw him with the German leader
today (the most important figure to pursuade in a coming Iran
invasion). Also, Fox News, today, was putting Iraq and Iran in the
same boat in terms of Presidential power to go to war (at Bush's
suggestion?).
Recent turns of events has me questioning a lot in the political realm,
and I'm shy to make any absolute political statements. I've even
started to doubt if Alito is a good choice, even if it is too late to
think about it anyway. I like Alito on the surface, but recent events
make me wonder if Alito and Roberts was chose by Bush not for their
views on Abortion but for their views of Presidential power. If
so...where exactly is this country going?
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
13 Jan 2006 05:14:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1137193389.874797.243060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1137189210.200549.210610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false. There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Oh, I started considering that about a year ago or so.
But I'm going to give twenty-to-one odds that Bush would
not dare to try a unilateral invasion of Iran. He's
lost too much support for the current one to attempt
another.
A true international effort, UN mediated,
might be possible -- there is a GREAT deal of
global unease over Iran right now -- but nothing
like our current involvment which, for all
that other nations are involved, is truly
a U.S. show.
I'm taking secondary bets that Iran is doing a
Korea here: making everyone uneasy, then seeing
what it can get in trade for backing off.
-- cary
That could be. However, I was thinking of the possibility that Bush
intentionally leaked the spy case to get America to say that he had
unlimited powers in a time of war. If so, he could use that to say
that Iran is behind the Iraq attacks and suggest an invasion there in
order to gain victory in that falsely founded war.
He could. I just think he wouldn't dare. There's an election coming
up, and the last thing most Republicans want is to be associated
with a President even more unpopular than Bush has become lately.
I suspect if he tried that, then you would see your impeachment starting
to fire up.
I hope that is not
the case, but you will remember that Bush met with a lot of foreign
leaders before the Iraq invasion, and we saw him with the German leader
today (the most important figure to pursuade in a coming Iran
invasion).
Well, presidents meet with a LOT of foreign leaders during
their second terms. Traditionally they cannot get
the domestic things they'd like accomplished during
a second term -- Congress will not fall over and
play dead for a second-term president like they
would during his first -- and so you see presidents
turning to foreign affairs then. They have more
control in the area of foreign affairs.
Also, Fox News, today, was putting Iraq and Iran in the
same boat in terms of Presidential power to go to war (at Bush's
suggestion?).
Really? Whatta bunch of maroons. That IS disturbing.
Recent turns of events has me questioning a lot in the political realm,
and I'm shy to make any absolute political statements. I've even
started to doubt if Alito is a good choice, even if it is too late to
think about it anyway. I like Alito on the surface, but recent events
make me wonder if Alito and Roberts was chose by Bush not for their
views on Abortion but for their views of Presidential power. If
so...where exactly is this country going?
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
15 Jan 2006 01:57:08 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dq9c84$j9i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article
<1137193389.874797.243060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Thoughts on this thread:
Also, Fox News, today, was putting Iraq and Iran in the
same boat in terms of Presidential power to go to war (at
Bush's suggestion?).
Really? Whatta bunch of maroons. That IS disturbing.
Especially since I now believe that Fox News is nothing more
than a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and the
administration. I think that the deliberate (and yes, this
was planned) development of a large conservative newsspeak
and windows-dressing "intellectual" establishment to serve
as a Ministry of (Mis)Information is a big reason why
the Repubs (hence the conservs) control the government today.
Nor do I credit those who say "these enthusiastic big-
government neocons aren't real conservatives" because I
think it was inevitable that once the conservatives got
the reins of the government, they would want to use it, ALL
of it, to push their agenda.
Sure, today there are isolated conservative individuals
now who complain about the turn things have taken. But what
were they thinking?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQ8g/AT/rA6+b3AyhAQEm2Qf9GJjf5rI0WsttnLNHFaL06X52HxteAqoV
p4mTLfnyyd/XGmLZPIhSk17TyFaOaTrfr/uAjd2+leVsqVM6NW9Z0kpDEs2GxfY1
byY0Wp7TZ8Hfck74ZPE5jf7lTp/B8gZimhHgWFYNJVS7SN5r7iMWSyNGtlYAkg01
HgeXqH8hFHYq2WY7CDTfymsfBS6uNv4/J+fD7n6TDsE3x456lMfpGWrZV39INO5a
d4t8k+uYk4q0ggVVrKw2Pjdu3+emV7AXkQcTlfUoN2Xnuko9qhkoH+/j8uGg8irn
fPBbHsdAMlFvDGA+GMVDKzKAMZgvLFP4KynP41m22PIMnkTzd2U8fw==
=qqrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
15 Jan 2006 11:25:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:03:09 -0600, The Fool wrote:
I'm taking secondary bets that Iran is doing a
Korea here: making everyone uneasy, then seeing
what it can get in trade for backing off.
-- cary
That could be. However, I was thinking of the possibility that Bush
intentionally leaked the spy case to get America to say that he had
unlimited powers in a time of war. If so, he could use that to say
that Iran is behind the Iraq attacks and suggest an invasion there in
order to gain victory in that falsely founded war. I hope that is not
the case, but you will remember that Bush met with a lot of foreign
leaders before the Iraq invasion, and we saw him with the German leader
today (the most important figure to pursuade in a coming Iran
invasion). Also, Fox News, today, was putting Iraq and Iran in the
same boat in terms of Presidential power to go to war (at Bush's
suggestion?).
Recent turns of events has me questioning a lot in the political realm,
and I'm shy to make any absolute political statements. I've even
started to doubt if Alito is a good choice, even if it is too late to
think about it anyway. I like Alito on the surface, but recent events
make me wonder if Alito and Roberts was chose by Bush not for their
views on Abortion but for their views of Presidential power. If
so...where exactly is this country going?
Apparently to a federal (and state) government(s) that can - not
only permit - but mandate - for example - that idols of stone be
placed not just anywhere but everywhere and that acquiescence to
government control is not just philosophically grounded but is
important to the preservation of one's family and one's life
itself.
This is your country. (Show Country)
This is your country under god. (Show Ayatollah)
Any questions?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Vicksburg, MS US
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
14 Jan 2006 03:32:26 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2006 13:53:30 -0800, A strange species called "The Fool"
<kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false.
The evidence wasn't false and they never admitted it was. The evidence
was all there. It was the proof that appears to have been wrong.
There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his "intelligence"
was telling him.
It wasn't just American intelligence, it was intel from every major
intelligence agency in the world. It also included intelligence from
key members of the Iraqi Baath party who defected to the West, as well
as key Iraqi Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons scientists who
defected from Iraq at great risk to their own lives as well as the
family members who they left behind.
It was clearly not a lie. At that moment in time with all that
evidence telling them one thing, it was the correct thing to do. If
you were the leader of a country could you afford to take the chance
that all the mass of evidence might be wrong? Would you wait until you
had absolute conclusive proof? Don't forget that by then it may be too
late!
Now, he is telling us that "intelligence" is telling him the same thing
about Iran. A year ago, he might have convinced me that this intel was
as true as Iraq's intel. However, that intel is now proven false. You
know the saying...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
The evidence on Iran is there for all to see, it is live on the
television pictures you watch! It is absolutely undeniable. Iran has a
Nuclear programme that is firmly underway. Did you not see the broken
UN seals on their nuclear facilities? With Iran it is not just
evidence it is conclusive proof. They "do" have a nuclear programme,
and they "are" a short period of time away from having a Nuclear bomb!
There is also conclusive proof that if they obtained Nuclear weapons
they would more than probably use them, given some of the hate filled
statements that their current leader has come out with lately, and the
fact that the country is also run by religious nut job mullahs.
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony from those
inside Iran that something is actually occurring, we need to tell the
President "NO" to his ability to start a war there. Of course, since
Turn on your television and get a clue mate! It is not a big secret!
The proof is there for all to see! It is happening right now and if we
can't stop them diplomatically then some sort of military action (not
necessarily a war) would be a last but absolutely necessary resort.
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on terror gives him
unlimited power, there may be little we can do to stop him from
starting a war and drafting (forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
How is the president forcing citizens to fight in any war? Please
explain this to me?
even if it is just a false war to gain more power and authority in the
world.
What power and authority? You can't get any more power and authority
than being the president of the United States. It is impossible.
It could be that the only power to stop the President from doing this
is impeachment....something to consider.
Impeachment? What would you impeach him for? He hasn't done anything
wrong.
Ken, with the deepest of respect, do me a favour! Learn what the words
evidence and proof mean, and also what impeach means, and get a clue!
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
15 Jan 2006 04:44:57 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
John <krugerr@nd.com> wrote in
news:3aris11dsq35ihsakfca6bo9957c40j39s@4ax.com:
On 13 Jan 2006 13:53:30 -0800, A strange species called
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD
or was in the process of making it, I was convinced, as was
most of Congress. Now, Bush admits that all of that
"evidence" was false.
The evidence wasn't false and they never admitted it was.
The evidence was all there. It was the proof that appears
to have been wrong.
There was no
WMD program. He went to war based upon a lie that his
"intelligence" was telling him.
It wasn't just American intelligence, it was intel from
every major intelligence agency in the world. It also
included intelligence from key members of the Iraqi Baath
party who defected to the West, as well as key Iraqi
Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons scientists who
defected from Iraq at great risk to their own lives as well
as the family members who they left behind.
The intel from "every major intelligence agency in the world"
was mostly ignored by the neocons, because it was tentative
and inconclusive at best. UN inspectors complained that the
Bushies didn't want to hear *anything* from them, what they
got was "we'll tell you want's really going on in there".
If Bush cannot provide actual, physical proof and testimony
from those inside Iran that something is actually
occurring, we need to tell the President "NO" to his
ability to start a war there. Of course, since
Turn on your television and get a clue mate! It is not a
big secret! The proof is there for all to see! It is
happening right now and if we can't stop them
diplomatically then some sort of military action (not
necessarily a war) would be a last but absolutely necessary
resort.
"Proof"? Coming from the same people who said that there
was "proof" of the same in Iraq?
You have to excuse me, there is a credibility problem
here.
the President thinks the War Powers act and the war on
terror gives him unlimited power, there may be little we
can do to stop him from starting a war and drafting
(forcing) citizens to go fight in that war,
How is the president forcing citizens to fight in any war?
Please explain this to me?
Considering that Bush *has* claimed that he has a right to
invade another country and oust its government by offensive
military action falling under his perogative to "defend
America", if need be without a declaration of war or even
authorization of Congress, yes, that would be "forcing
citizens to fight".
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQ8mQgT/rA6+b3AyhAQEDcwf/Z6k5vIrjCzcEiJzKddAJ+Uc2Oz25CUnz
fbaap2En9pF6R476wrWUDxHOoZFKm43SfqE1buy3Mxrob9gWTzf05aVg2D6oZyol
Y09AR7A4uLRcvsy3bNfao01nJWBDXKIWp4LCmriCeRZRTFt6ElmLyLLQ020SsOVH
Qp8W1MBYtisrBhmOVb/8KZAEa6XP1e11j36Vwgxrd2RMVXdU2qKS6FazNprOFryq
hPTxe0uG2RzBMn8uXcVUhOUO7YxjT1MyZoxR46BgAGafnftwgrZzp5ip1IpgM2S1
XRt86UhoXCOzn7SEcooWCJ23I9S9m352yWCuJ2HVfWDCDn5hgpfOdA==
=fm8w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
14 Jan 2006 10:59:26 PM |
|
|
I seldom support the Fool, but here is one place I will:
John <krugerr@nd.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 13:53:30 -0800, A strange species called "The Fool"
<kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false.
The evidence wasn't false and they never admitted it was. The evidence
was all there. It was the proof that appears to have been wrong.
....
Ken, with the deepest of respect, do me a favour! Learn what the words
evidence and proof mean, and also what impeach means, and get a clue!
Now I don't know what YOU think that "evidence" and "proof" mean. But
to me, outside of formal mathematics, proof consists of the compendium
of the evidence. So if the proof is wrong, then ipso facto the
evidence is wrong.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
15 Jan 2006 03:44:21 AM |
|
|
On 14-Jan-2006, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
I seldom support the Fool, but here is one place I will:
John <krugerr@nd.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 13:53:30 -0800, A strange species called "The Fool"
<kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm a bit concerned. When Bush told us that Saddam had WMD or was in
the process of making it, I was convinced, as was most of Congress.
Now, Bush admits that all of that "evidence" was false.
The evidence wasn't false and they never admitted it was. The evidence
was all there. It was the proof that appears to have been wrong.
...
Ken, with the deepest of respect, do me a favour! Learn what the words
evidence and proof mean, and also what impeach means, and get a clue!
Now I don't know what YOU think that "evidence" and "proof" mean. But
to me, outside of formal mathematics, proof consists of the compendium
of the evidence. So if the proof is wrong, then ipso facto the
evidence is wrong.
They will lie about anything.
--
Jay ClarK http://www.cafepress.com/fartotheleft.36556282
Far To The LEFT.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlexanderHamilton-III" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush going to use false evidence on Iran? |
15 Jan 2006 10:02:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:44:21 GMT, "J Clark" <Jay@clark.net> wrote:
They will lie about anything.
that's right. To them, life is all about amassing money and power.
They couldn't care less if their dollars are soaked in blood.
I pity Iran, because they see this big, notorious bully - the USA
acting like a teenage bully on steroids, that has the nerve to suggest
that Iran should not be allowed to have potent weapons to defend
itself from the ***** war criminals in the pentagon & white house.
Bush is the #1 menace to the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
