Hee....Hee.....heeee!!!:mj07: :mj07: :com:
For argument's sake, just say "Anchovies!" in a crowded pizza parlor and see how many folks flinch.
Russian leak, Iran sneak attack Apr 6th
- Thread starter Dead Money
- Start date
Hee....Hee.....heeee!!!:mj07: :mj07: :com:
For argument's sake, just say "Anchovies!" in a crowded pizza parlor and see how many folks flinch.
Yeah, I mean, it's not like they would do anything like steal a receipt pad and forge a paid receipt for yellowcake uranium, ya know? It's time we all stopped wondering when these people will do underhanded things to forward their agendas and just accept their word as being in our best interests.
For the record, I don't think Bush and Cheney are behind this, but the sad thing is this administration has put the entire world in the position of questioning things like this - at least in a small way.
Up above when I said I was very much against a strike on Iran, I think the word very is a bit much. I am against it, based on what I know about where our country sits right now. I am not absolute against our country attacking other countries, in all cases.
chad..
i find it funny that some people think that the bush administration are the only ones on the political landscape who are capable of doing dubious things...every politican is capable of being crooked....it's just that some people do it better than others.
I agree with you, AR, I think. I agree politicians and officials are capable of doing dubious things - both sides, as well as libertarians, independents, communists, etc. My comment was contained to this issue (Bush/Cheney), and in response to your post.
The thing is, this particular group (and republicans in general) made accountability, truth and personal ethics its primary selling point, or at least one of the top selling points. When you ask to be held to a supposed higher standard, you have to stand up to the measure of the standard, don't you?
The thing is, this particular group (and republicans in general) made accountability, truth and personal ethics its primary selling point, or at least one of the top selling points. When you ask to be held to a supposed higher standard, you have to stand up to the measure of the standard, don't you?
agree with you 100%.
as somebody who voted for bush in 2004 i am very disappointed with his performance in iraq, immigration, & his administration's questionable behavior...actually i find it depressing.
Dad,
A wise father of mine once advised me not to harp on the things and people and I cannot change - that I would live a happier life if I learned to not let these things get me down. I would be very happy to pass that advice along to you...
Sincerely,
Saul
I have to add, since you are so objective on this issue, that I may be developing my own issues with some democrat behaviors since taking over. This war funding thing is becoming an issue for me...I would prefer, personally that they DO stand up and vote for defunding...to do what they seem to be doing is keeping the political gamesmanship going. But I know how politically difficult that could be, becoming an immediate soundbite to be hammered mercilessly during the election cycle. Tough stand to take, but I would be happy with it.
actually son i don't harp on this..i was answering my good friend chad's post....
i am somewhat depressed with today's politics...that is why i very rarely watch the news anymore or read political web sites...but i do leave my room occasionally.....
and call home once in awhile...it won't kill you.
why are you against "defunding" ?
we disagree on this...
i'm for giving the troopps whatever they need...in fact ( i don't know if you remember this) i think there should be a separate tax just for the military
it will be political suicide for congress to vote against funding the troops......
i'm against the pork that was added to that bill just to get a politicans vote...that gets me sick !
Actually, I fear it might. Dad, I took your retirement money and "invested" it. ....Unfortunately....well...I just wasn't Jewish enough to make things work out and now it's gone. You might have to get a job until I can pay you back.
AR, I am actually for the current bill, more or less, that funds the troops in battle, but puts a timeframe on withdrawing. I am sick and tired of this administration telling us to continually just give in to their every request without reservations or constraints, because I see what they do with no constraints. Bush is going to veto this one because of the timeframe, and Cheney attacks the timeframe, and says pass it without reservations. Well, what are legislators to do? If the only choice is blindly support Bush and Cheney, or vote for complete defunding to put a stop to (what I consider) their madness and unwillingness to entertain any other options, then I am for defunding.
It's time to stand up to this cabal. It would take courage to do it, and I think even the general public is starting to see through the party line. I think common sense tells most sane people that a vote to defund the war is to put a stop to it, and not put soldiers at risk. A couple people here would spin it otherwise, but I think they are the minority now.
It's time to stand up to this cabal. It would take courage to do it, and I think even the general public is starting to see through the party line. I think common sense tells most sane people that a vote to defund the war is to put a stop to it, and not put soldiers at risk. A couple people here would spin it otherwise, but I think they are the minority now.
my working days are over....if my money runs out me & the wife are moving in with you...
chad..
thanks for your response...
pertaining to withdrawing the troops....i don't like anything with a time frame.
U.S. launches show of force in Persian Gulf
U.S. launches show of force in Persian Gulf
Aircraft carriers, warplanes feature in maneuvers off the coast of Iran
Updated: 5:17 a.m. MT March 27, 2007
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.
The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.
The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran?s capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors ? nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.
He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises.
Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.
Simultaneous French operations
A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said.
Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.
?What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it?s for regional stability and security,? Aandahl said. ?These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there?s a destabilizing effect, it?s Iran?s behavior.?
U.S. launches show of force in Persian Gulf
Aircraft carriers, warplanes feature in maneuvers off the coast of Iran
Updated: 5:17 a.m. MT March 27, 2007
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.
The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.
The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran?s capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors ? nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.
He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises.
Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.
Simultaneous French operations
A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said.
Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.
?What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it?s for regional stability and security,? Aandahl said. ?These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there?s a destabilizing effect, it?s Iran?s behavior.?
and the democratic congress...after swearing off earmarks....turned around and loaded the defense spending bill with pork.....actually bribed congressmen with pork for votes....
the door swings both ways,dontcha think?....`
I wonder whats going on in the minds of the minds of the top dogs of iran--
--You can bet your ass they know they dictate measures for 444 days again--
--They have to take in consideration the consequences of last person that said fck you-
--You can bet your ass they know they dictate measures for 444 days again--
--They have to take in consideration the consequences of last person that said fck you-
That is whats really bothering the hell out of me on this. How could the main ship not have known there were other boats heading for there guys?
It looks like they just let the Iranians take there guys.
Its like they didnt want to piss off the Iranians so they let them have the troops. I never would have expected that from the Brits.
The worst case scenerio would be there would be a stand-off in the ocean right now.
That would have been better than letting there guys get taken....now they have to negotiate with Iran on there terms.
Has everyone forgot back in February when General Pace, Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff raised eyebrows when he insisted he had no information indicating Iran's gov't was directing lethal weapons to shite militias in Iraq, even tho administration officials were implying the opposite?
This country is about to hang Ahmadinejad for his economic and diplomatic blunders and if we bomb them and the Iranians people are as dumb as us, he will be again up in that 80 percentile with support. Why all the sudden everyone believes These two liars we have in office gets to be very confusing.
This country is about to hang Ahmadinejad for his economic and diplomatic blunders and if we bomb them and the Iranians people are as dumb as us, he will be again up in that 80 percentile with support. Why all the sudden everyone believes These two liars we have in office gets to be very confusing.
AR not really. BUT Would it surprise me that the Brits and US are trying to get Iran to take some bait. It's strange three day's after the Brits go wondering. A US Carrier group moves with in 60 miles of Iran. At least the story or coverage Bush has to love. Its helping get his failed policy off front page. And the good news about his Attorney General and Scooter and the four Generals who lied about Tillman's and death.
By the way anyone see any of FOXs fair and balanced reporting on Tillman's findings now public. Not hardily a word. AR would Bush like a war with Iran?? I don't think your wrong if you say yes.
By the way anyone see any of FOXs fair and balanced reporting on Tillman's findings now public. Not hardily a word. AR would Bush like a war with Iran?? I don't think your wrong if you say yes.
We can't afford another war (can't afford the one we're in right now) so I think we have two options if they pose a serious threat.
1. Leave them alone
2. Split an atom in Tehran
1. Leave them alone
2. Split an atom in Tehran
