Do you support Bush?

[canis582]

"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

"WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE."

We can do this without breaking the law. The consitution does not have to be a casualty in the so called war on terra.

"The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects"

They lie all the time.

"And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide."

Move to China if you like facsism so much.

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.



[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mean to be confrontational, but its common knowledge that EVERYONE in the middle east considered him a threat.

[canis582]

Sometimes common knowledge = propaganda in the US

The president of the United Arab Emirates described U.S. threats of military action as "bad and loathsome," and declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to its neighbors.

[chessforlife]

I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]Iran opposed the American invasion most clearly -- and repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Washington in going to war against a regime they were supporting in the Iraq-Iran War. Jordan opposed the invasion, as well, and tried to mediate the crisis.

Of course, Kuwait* and Saudi Arabia welcomed the invasion, a position which has destabilized the Kingdom, perhaps for good.

But I was surprised about Israel! Are you sure about that? I mean, Israel opposes the invasion of Arab countries, right?.. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

___________


* Note that Kuwait, in both geographical and historical terms, rightly belongs to the ruler of Mesopotamia. Saddam's original demands were very much justified, in the previous Gulf War! A fact which was tacitly recognized by the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad at the time -- or, at least, not contested. Check the history books : The ridiculous borders in the fertile crescent of modern Mesopotamia were drawn by the French and British --represented by a woman!-- colonialists in the early years of the 20th century, and were mostly dictated by the respective oil companies, in accordance to what they knew then about oilfields!

[canis582]

Divide and conquer, baby.

This is a gem:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

Noam Chomsky: In other words, suppose that the parliament, instead of being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis, quite the contrary. Just think for a minute. What would an independent Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq? Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US. Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East. Iran has pretty much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid based on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most significant oil refinery investment (or "downstream expansion" as the lingo would have it) of the last two decades has been the joint venture between Saudi Aramco and the Chinese.

link

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did we still have the No-Fly Zone in effect or the sanctions in place?

As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.



The Dem's are just "playing politics" with our national security once again. Al Quaeda members DO NOT HAVE PROTECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! Why isn't there an investigation into which official leaked this?

Why isn't there an outrage about President Clinton when he used the spy satellites to spy on Americans? Because the ACLU (all crazy liberals united or all crazy lawyers united) is a liberal activist group.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?