Israel Has A Year To Stop Iran Bomb, Warns Ex-Spy
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------
Israel has a year to stop Iran bomb, warns ex-spy
By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last updated: 10:42 PM BST 28/06/2008
The Telegraph
A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to
destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself.
He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the
US presidential election.
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence
and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was
running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.
Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned
that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the
capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.
"The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said
in an interview.
Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the
Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer
working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared.
We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive
side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work.
What's left is a military action."
The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon
within "somewhere around a year".
As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes,
Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop
Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the
range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of
the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such
that the Zionist regime cannot confront it."
More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the
35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf
at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments
were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the
nuclear dispute.
Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop
enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is
useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before
he leaves office on January 20 next year.
They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an
air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the
election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than
military action.
That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John]
McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If
it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in
his first term in the White House."
He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and
participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.
"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and
our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending
or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an
American agreement," he said.
BL5511
nuclear bomb. The U.S. and the spy systems often do not have
credibility and ability to spy.
Examples:
In the 1960s, Op Plan 34 A repeatly dropped South Vietnamese commandos
and supplies without knowing that DRV captured all of them and asked
for more drops for sophisticated communication gears and medicine.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack of the USS Maddox.
The Son Tay prison raid.
The Olympic bombing in Atlanta.
The anthrax case against Steve Hatfill.
The Iraq WMD.
For the Middle East, Valery Plame, Richard Clarke, and Scott Ritter
are more reliable than the government.
J A
and if neccesary, by war.
Israel should not ry to solve its problems by manipulating confused ignorant
people in the US.
J A
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Salih Speaks of Horizon for US Troops;
Chalabi in Tehran, Criticizes US;
Sistani rejects Use of His Name in Campaign
Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said that the al-Maliki government is
beginning to think about the "time horizon" of the US troop presence in
Iraq. That terminology is awfully close to a request for a timetable for
troop withdrawal. PM al-Maliki has repeatedly said that Iraqi militias and
army can handle the security problems themselves within 18 months.
Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali
Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by
the Bush administration with the Iraq government:
' The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel
from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority
of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as
contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty
is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is
a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq
whose UN mandate expires on December 31.'
Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism."
I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a
bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm
trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens
of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . .
Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own
Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .):
' McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress
(INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money.
When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi
opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to
“personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department”
that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year,
McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his
country at heart.” '
Peter Jason
Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt
equivalents in contentious parts of the
world.
That all parts of the world are clamouring
for "democracy" is another of their erroneous
mindsets.
"BL5511" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d500a66-1ab8-487f...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
BL5511
> This is a fundamental problem with the USA.
> Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt
> equivalents in contentious parts of the
> world.
>
> That all parts of the world are clamouring
> for "democracy" is another of their erroneous
> mindsets.
>
allows two corrupt parties to take turn to run the country. Each
party is controlled by lobbyists so the interests of people are
frequently ignored. Nations that can influence U.S. Congress through
their lobbying power control U.S. foreign policy and the decision to
go to war. Because of foreign lobbies the U.S. government would go to
a mutual destruction nuclear war or impoverishment of its people for
a foreign nation. Congress and government took money from working
Americans then give them to nations that have influence on Congress,
it robbed everyone to pay the foreigners.
This is a type of American democracy that the world don't like. At
state and city levels "democracy" is much better than the federal
level.
BL5511
that the U.S. is juts short of being a colony where soldiers must
fight and die for foreign mother land, the same way that people in
common wealth nations fought for UK during World War II.
During the past wars (WW I, WW II, Korean, and Vietnam wars) U.S.
presidential candidates never had to justify their view points to any
groups that lobbied for a nation before the election. All of them
never had to present their commitments at any organizations promoting
interests for French Americans, Korean Americans, or Vietnamese
Americans during these wars. And Prime Ministers or Presidents of
France, South Korea, South Vietnam never flew to Washington DC to
attend the visits of U.S. presidential candidates to these foreign
lobbying organizations. But that was what happened at the recent AIPAC
meeting when U.S. presidential candidates pledge their commitment to
Israel in front of Israel Prime Minister.
And past U.S. presidential candidates did not have to travel to the
foreign lands France, England, South Vietnam before election. Today
both McCain and Obama mist travel to Iraq.
All American president today must act like members of foreign
government and work for foreign interests to be elected. They
betrayed their own people for the interests of foreigners. The U.S. is
celebrating the 4th July but the independence day is a hollow one,
because the U.S. is not an independent nation. It is just a colony of
another nation.
William Black
> The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed
> because the U.S. is not an independent nation. It is just a colony of
> another nation.
Which one?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Tiglath
> This is the same scam as in 2003 that the U.S. had a year to stop Iraq
> nuclear bomb.
Absolutely.
There is no country in the world -- or in the Axis-of-Evil -- ignorant
of the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel means national suicide.
The U.S. would retaliate massively and obliterate the attacker.
We tend to underestimate our enemies and brand them as crazy. It is a
mistake.
I didn't believe Saddam would commit a suicidal attack as the Bush/
Blair fear campaign made out to be imminent, and I don't believe now
the the Teheran leadership will.
If Israel attacks Iran, it will make Israel less safe for it will only
bring a bigger Arab tide upon itself, when it finally swells and
rolls.
We have to quarantine and segregate all those people who continue to
advocate war for peace's sake.
Tiglath
> On Jun 29, 4:55 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:> This is a fundamental problem with the USA.
> > Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt
> > equivalents in contentious parts of the
> > world.
>
> > That all parts of the world are clamouring
> > for "democracy" is another of their erroneous
> > mindsets.
>
> At federal level, US "democracy" is a hollow democracy. The system
> allows two corrupt parties to take turn to run the country. Each
> party is controlled by lobbyists so the interests of people are
> frequently ignored. Nations that can influence U.S. Congress through
> their lobbying power control U.S. foreign policy and the decision to
> go to war. Because of foreign lobbies the U.S. government would go to
> a mutual destruction nuclear war or impoverishment of its people for
> a foreign nation. Congress and government took money from working
> Americans then give them to nations that have influence on Congress,
> it robbed everyone to pay the foreigners.
> This is a type of American democracy that the world don't like. At
> state and city levels "democracy" is much better than the federal
> level.
>
Well said. On Election Day, stay home. Don't be part of it.
Don T
the whole world to laugh at; in message
news:91440d1c-8216-4072...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Yeah. Your kind would just love that wouldn't you. If everyone but asshats
like you, the kind who "think" they are better able to run everyone's life
than the person who actually lives that life and know better how to spend
peoples money than the people themselves stayed home, those asshats would
then vote in other asshats just like yourself. Sorry motherfucker, it don't
work that way. Keep pissing the people off with your kind of bullshit rammed
down their throats and you will have a Revolution on your hands. The people
will rise up in ALL their massses and VOTE the motherfuckers OUT.
--
Don Thompson
Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain
William Black
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:cfcd3138-8c42-4e39...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
If Israel attacks Iran, it will make Israel less safe for it will only
bring a bigger Arab tide upon itself, when it finally swells and
rolls.
---------------------
The Arab tide hasn't swelled and rolled since it broke on the walls of
Vienna in 1529.
Since then the tide hasn't stopped going out...
And that's if you're being charitable.
If you're being realistic about the people who did the fighting (and the
ruling) the Arabs collapsed in about 1260 or so when the Mongols sacked
Baghdad...
The rulers of the Ottoman Empire (and it's two predecessors come to think of
it) weren't Arabs, they tended to be what we'd call Turks.
Tiglath
>
> >Well said. On Election Day, stay home. Don't be part of it.
>
> Yeah. Your kind would just love that wouldn't you. If everyone but asshats
> like you, the kind who "think" they are better able to run everyone's life
> than the person who actually lives that life and know better how to spend
> peoples money than the people themselves stayed home, those asshats would
> then vote in other asshats just like yourself. Sorry motherfucker, it don't
> work that way. Keep pissing the people off with your kind of bullshit rammed
> down their throats and you will have a Revolution on your hands. The people
> will rise up in ALL their massses and VOTE the motherfuckers OUT.
>
Hmmmm. I touched one of the exposed nerves of a Princess Di fan.
These "Candle in the wind" guys are all sense and sensibility, only
that in this case is nonsense and sensibility.
Humpty Don T is quite happy being hostage to a corrupt two-party
system that habitually puts the interests of lobbyists and foreign
countries before our national interests.
A system where either party keeps promising and not delivering.
Let's see... Tort reform, so that we stop being the laughing stock
of the world with the kind of lawsuits our courts entertain...; tax
reform, so that even dim people like Humpty Don T can prepare their
taxes unaided...; an energy policy that anticipates fuel realities
rather than reacting to them...; and economy that can deal with the
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economic challenges (no relation
to the challenges Humpty Don T faces here for being thick as a
brick). Not to mention foreign policies, government spending, our
extravagant military, etc., etc.
How else can this change, but with a quiet revolution in which people
show no interest in the current system?
The concept is too advanced for this mental midget who thinks that
Canadians are unfree and at at the mercy of British royal decrees.
Your rudeness as an imitation of strength further underscores your
intellectual deficit Humpty Don T.
You do put on an excellent display of your Herd Mentality, though.
Hilarious.
deem...@aol.com
> On Jun 29, 10:28 am, BL5511 <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is the same scam as in 2003 that the U.S. had a year to stop Iraq
> > nuclear bomb.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> There is no country in the world -- or in the Axis-of-Evil -- ignorant
> of the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel means national suicide.
> The U.S. would retaliate massively and obliterate the attacker.
Why would the US do that when, unless the nukes totally
obliterated Israel, Israel would fry them?
>
> We tend to underestimate our enemies and brand them as crazy. It is a
> mistake.
>
> I didn't believe Saddam would commit a suicidal attack as the Bush/
> Blair fear campaign made out to be imminent, and I don't believe now
> the the Teheran leadership will.
>
> If Israel attacks Iran, it will make Israel less safe for it will only
> bring a bigger Arab tide upon itself, when it finally swells and
> rolls.
I don't know about an Arab tide.....the Arabs are really
pretty pathetic, but it would further isolate Israel.
torresD
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk
> The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed
> because the U.S. is not an independent nation.
>It is just a colony of another nation.
> Which one?
> William Black
"We are All Members of Likud Now."
http://www.counterpunch.org/sunderland0510.html
Tiglath
> On Jun 30, 4:52 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 10:28 am, BL5511 <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is the same scam as in 2003 that the U.S. had a year to stop Iraq
> > > nuclear bomb.
>
> > Absolutely.
>
> > There is no country in the world -- or in the Axis-of-Evil -- ignorant
> > of the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel means national suicide.
> > The U.S. would retaliate massively and obliterate the attacker.
>
> Why would the US do that when, unless the nukes totally
> obliterated Israel, Israel would fry them?
>
>
You have obviously not been in Israel and seen how little there is to
obliterate...
>
> > We tend to underestimate our enemies and brand them as crazy. It is a
> > mistake.
>
> > I didn't believe Saddam would commit a suicidal attack as the Bush/
> > Blair fear campaign made out to be imminent, and I don't believe now
> > the the Teheran leadership will.
>
> > If Israel attacks Iran, it will make Israel less safe for it will only
> > bring a bigger Arab tide upon itself, when it finally swells and
> > rolls.
>
> I don't know about an Arab tide.....the Arabs are really
> pretty pathetic, but it would further isolate Israel.
>
Good illustration of what I said, as Little Willie and this poster
continue to disdain Arabs for their lack of military skill and
organization, which apparently they stopped having in the Middle
Ages.
Were you guys in a coma on September 11, 2001?
You must learn to dislike a culture without underestimating it as an
enemy. The Arabs are a large group of people that encompasses the
good, the bad, the competent and the incompetent like any other large
group.
It takes only a gifted leader to motivate, organize, and drive the
willing masses towards a common goal, so don't count the Arabs out
just yet, white boys.
William Black
"torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xPqdnZ1GX9L9-PfV...@earthlink.com...
Ah.
So you're mad.
I thought as much...
torresD
dapra
> "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xPqdnZ1GX9L9-PfV...@earthlink.com...
>
>>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk
>>
>>
>>>The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed
>>>because the U.S. is not an independent nation.
>>
>>>It is just a colony of another nation.
>>
>>>Which one?
>>
>>>William Black
>>
>>"We are All Members of Likud Now."
>>http://www.counterpunch.org/sunderland0510.html
>
>
> Ah.
>
> So you're mad.
>
> I thought as much...
>
It's a sad state of our democracy that only the Israeli opposition, and
the Iraqi insurgents can stop the neocons' insanity.
D. Spencer Hines
He's all of 16.
DSH
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2dlo64hfp92l67scc...@4ax.com...
> I bet you don't even know what a neocon is, just think it sounds
> disparaging so you use it.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> Yep...
>
> He's all of 16.
>
> DSH
>
>
> news:2dlo64hfp92l67scc...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:40:42 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>William Black wrote:
>
> >>>news:xPqdnZ1GX9L9-PfV...@earthlink.com...
>
> >>>>"William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
>
> >>>>>The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed
> >>>>>because the U.S. is not an independent nation.
>
> >>>>>It is just a colony of another nation.
>
> >>>>>Which one?
>
> >>>>>William Black
>
> >>>>"We are All Members of Likud Now."
> >>>>http://www.counterpunch.org/sunderland0510.html
>
> >>> Ah.
>
> >>> So you're mad.
>
> >>> I thought as much...
>
> >>It's a sad state of our democracy that only the Israeli opposition, and
> >>the Iraqi insurgents can stop the neocons' insanity.
>
> > I bet you don't even know what a neocon is, just think it sounds
> > disparaging so you use it.
> > --
> > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> > Moderation is for monks."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Higher in the thread, Tiglath stated that the U.S. would exercise
an overwhelming retaliation against any nation that uses nukes
against Israel. Is there an official treaty behind this remark ?
What if Israel makes a nuclear strike first ?
The problem with a Jewish first strike is that it makes future
diplomacy with
several other Middle East states more difficult if not impossible.
If the US has been drawn into a treaty that locks us into retaliation
if Israel
is the first to strike, then the treaty should be revisited by the
next president
in order to give us more wiggle room.
I don't think either France or Israel should react preemptively until
there is
a smoking gun, an actual Iranian atom bomb test.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Shirley
<davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think either France or Israel should react preemptively until
> there is
> a smoking gun, an actual Iranian atom bomb test.
I don't think that they'll test one. If they stick to the Chinese
1965 bomb design that was given to the Pakistanis, the bomb design is
already
tested and it's military characteristics are known. That means that all
they
have to do is to build them and then scrap and replace them when their
shelf
life is exceeded.
My guess is that they're never, ever gonna openly test. And there's no
way to prove or disprove whether they've got a weapon or not unless you've
got
eyes on the ground, and that's not going to happen, because attacking Iran
is
going to bring in China and Russia since it's a SCO ally.
The world's starting to strongly resemble Europe in 1913, and all you need
is for some Austro-Hungarian dope to go picking on some small power with
big power
connections and it'll be Katie Bar The Door, because all hell's gonna
break loose.
In this particular game, the only way to win is to not play.
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
"Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the
army." Lao Tsu.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact.
~~~~~~~~~
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm
Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran.
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-the-sco/
Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No
friends for anybody in that group.
BL5511
to their security, especially when the U.S. followed the footsteps of
the Nazis using false reasons to invade one nation after another
nation.
In the past they stepped in to arm the Vietcong with AK 47 automatic
rifles and in 1965 after LBJ sent Marines to S. Vietnam. After the
bogus Tonkin Gulf incident which the U.S. bombed N. Vietnam, China and
Russia sent jet fighters, SAM missiles, and volunteer pilots to help
DRV. Today with their growing dependence on in oil, Russia and China
may end up helping Iran the same way they helped the rag tag army of
Vietcongs to expel the U.S. out of Vietnam in the past.
If the Russians and Chinese supplied Islamic groups with their
weapons, Islam suicidal warriors would be even more dangerous than the
Vietcong. The U.S. economy today is on the verse of collapse so the
involvement of Russia or China to Islamic guerrillas will put the
final execution bullet to the head of America.
The Middle East people had been fighting among themselves for over
2000 years so the U.S. would not be able to stop their 3000 year war.
Actually the U.S. cannot even survive another 10 years of war. If Iran
bombed the oil fields, the U.S. would enter a great depression as
early as 2010. Half of the population would be at soup kitchens or
garbage dumps for foods. And American people may start a revolution
like the French revolution.
> http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-th...
Jack Linthicum
Tell your floor attendant to increase your meds. If he/she questions
why show them the above.
BL5511
Red, white and mostly blue: Americans mark unhappy birthday, with 'too
much wrong right now'
By PAULINE ARRILLAGA AP National Writer
July 5, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5314608
On Jul 6, 8:04 am, BL5511 <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:38 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 6, 6:21 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm
>
> > Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran.
>
> China and Russia always saw military actions in the world the threats
> to their security, especially when the U.S. followed the footsteps of
> the Nazis using false reasons to invade one nation after another
> nation.
> In the past they stepped in to arm the Vietcong with AK 47 automatic
> rifles and in 1965 after LBJ sent Marines to S. Vietnam. After the
> bogus Tonkin Gulf incident which the U.S. bombed N. Vietnam, China and
> Russia sent jet fighters, SAM missiles, and volunteer pilots to help
> DRV. Today with their growing dependence on in oil, Russia and China
> may end up helping Iran the same way they helped the rag tag army of
> Vietcongs to expel the U.S. out of Vietnam in the past.
> If the Russians and Chinese supplied Islamic groups with their
> weapons, Islam suicidal warriors would be even more dangerous than the
> Vietcong. The U.S. economy today is on the verse of collapse so the
> involvement of Russia or China to Islamic guerrillas will put the
> fin
<cut>
But then talk turns to the state of the Union, and the Optimists
become decidedly bleak.
They use words such as "terrified," "disgusted" and "scary" to
describe what one calls "this mess" we Americans find ourselves in.
Then comes the list of problems constituting the mess: a protracted
war, $4-a-gallon gas, soaring food prices, uncertainty about jobs, an
erratic stock market, a tougher housing market, and so on and so
forth.
One member's son is serving his second tour in Iraq. Another speaks of
a daughter who's lost her job in the mortgage industry and a son in
construction whose salary was slashed. Still another mentions a friend
who can barely afford gas.
Joanne Kontak, 60, an elementary school lunch aide inducted just this
day as an Optimist, sums things up like this: "There's just entirely
too much wrong right now."
Happy birthday, America? This year, we're not so sure.
The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism
palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or
struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they
are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.
These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears —
concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show
consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more
folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but
also in conversations happening all across the land.
"There are so many things you have to do to survive now," says Larue
Lawson of Forest Park, Ill. "It used to be just clothes on your back,
food on the table and a roof over your head. Now, it's everything.
<cut>
eatfastnoodle
>
if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why
such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with
Iran, they have oil they need to sell, the west has stuff they west
wants to sell. So just sell it and buy from them, everybody is happy.
Iran is crazy, Iran wants to do this, Iran wants to do that, blah blah
blah, right, fact of matter is Iran hasn't been willingly a
participant of a armed conflict ever since the revolution while the
US, on the other hand, has been involved in 6 wars during the same
period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the
threat to world peace?
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
Fast Noodles,
Doing "business with Iran" is dandy when they are dealing
conventional
arms to deserving Islamist militants. But don't you know that
nuclear
weapons create mass destruction and thus cannot be possessed by many
smaller nations with unpredictable central authorities ?
We don't want the bigger nations to be set up by the assassination of
one or more Archduke Ferdinands of the 21C.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why
> such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with
> Iran, they have oil they need to sell, the west has stuff they west
> wants to sell. So just sell it and buy from them, everybody is happy.
> Iran is crazy, Iran wants to do this, Iran wants to do that, blah blah
> blah, right, fact of matter is Iran hasn't been willingly a
> participant of a armed conflict ever since the revolution while the
> US, on the other hand, has been involved in 6 wars during the same
> period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the
> threat to world peace?
I think that there are other things in play. First off, Iran has been
threatening Israel a lot. The Israelis can't take out Iran. They're too
big, too bloody minded and too capable once you take size into account.
So, the Israelis want us to do it. They're banking on two things. First
off in some elections in certain states like New York, the Jewish vote
represents a cohesive voting block and failure to genuflect to Tel Aviv
can get you a loss in an election. Secondly, they know that emerging
countries with nukes is the red flag in Washington. So Israel whispers
nukes and our politicians react accordingly. Down here it's called "The
tail wagging the dog." Furthermore, Bush II is an alleged Born Again
Christian, and some of them have parsed this oddball idea out of the Bible
that there is a religious obligation to carry Israel's water for it.
Whether he actually believes that or whether it's election year posturing
is anybody's guess.
I'm a Christian and I'm pretty well versed in the Bible, and I don't
recall seeing any passage saying that we're supposed to subordinate our
national security to Tel Aviv. And I've looked hard and haven't found it
and nobody I know who has made the claim, has been able to show me that
passage either. So when some alleged Christian starts waving that
particular flag, I put it squarely in the Bullshit column. IMHO, Israel is
strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests.
(Too many people, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, all figure that they can
lead God around by the nose anyway. Look at all three and you'll find
significant minorities in all of em who want to base national policy on a
perception of religious eschatology. That's crazy, wanting to bring about
the end of the world, but every group of people have people who want to
bring about the end of everything and religious communities aren't any
exception to that.)
Now post Iraq, that nuclear claim is increasingly a dog that won't hunt.
More to the point, Israel's manipulative behavior leaves a really sour
taste and situations like the Pollard Affair, their industrial espionage
and thefts, and their transfer of sensitive technology to China, is
convincing some of us that they're really in SCO's corner and not ours. To
put it bluntly, many of our enemies treat us better than this alleged
friend does.
So, from where I sit, Israel can go do whatever they want to to the
Iranians and it's perfectly okay with me if the Iranians pound the
Israelis to a pulp in another nice long war. And if my congressional
delegation tries to vote them so much as one more jet fighter, I'll walk
neighborhoods getting people to vote for their opponents and this is an
election year.
For my money, the best pick for an ally in the region if they're willing
is Syria. Bashar Assad is a rational guy and as a general rule, he doesn't
go looking for trouble. And I'd rather rent bases from him than rely on
the Israelis.
In the end, I regard the whole Israel/Iran thing as an internal matter
within SCO and that's something in the Sino/Russian sphere of influence
and not ours. When the Israelis started handing over our technology to the
Chinese and suborning our holders of classified information, they lost
whatever right to any consideration they might have had from us. Americans
will eventually die in combat because of the tech that the Israelis
transferred and of late that includes a variant of their Popeye submarine
launched cruise missile, the HARPY, a bunch of electronic warfare stuff,
advanced Sidewinder, AIM-120, I2R Mavericks, the electronic suite from the
F-16 and the Lavi which eventually was developed into the J-10. I've got a
pic somewhere of a J-10 on display with AIM-120s, Pythons and what looks
suspiciously like a Shrike missile under it's wing and another that has a
half dozen Mavericks mounted. We didn't give the Chinese any of that and
the only place they'd have gotten it is from our former "Favorite son",
Israel.
I'm willing to be that I could service the RHAWs installation on the J-10
from the US Air Force Technical Order without having to contend with any
design changes.
So when it comes right down to it, given the current correlation of
forces, I think that it's prudent to get out of Iraq, I think that it's
prudent to cut off Israel from any more technology that might come back
and hurt us, I think that we should also cut their economic support since
I don't pay taxes to subsidise SCO. If we want to cut a deal with anybody,
I'd rather deal with Dr. Assad.
I also would be looking forward to seeing how China manages to settle
problems between their newest defacto member in Tel Aviv and their major
ally in the Persian Gulf, Iran. Either way it's fast ceasing to be any of
our business and whatever else happens there, regardless of what Israel
wants or does, we need to keep our nose out of it.
I firmly believe that there's a war coming, but I don't think that
Israel's is ours. They seem to think that rules apply to everybody but
them, so since they got themselves into this mess, they're cordially
invited to get themselves out of it-- without us.
Our big threat on the horizion is China and given our weakness in several
areas, I think that it's more prudent to carefully marshal our resources
and play a defensive game rather than a forward policy. We can't beat
China in a production race and we can't beat em in manpower or in
logistics, so the prudent move is to see to our own defense and let the
rest of the world take care of itself.
If you were to put up the idea of us being the world's policeman to a
national plebicite, my guess is that the proposition would lose massively.
--
William Black
"Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
IMHO, Israel is
> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests.
The problem here is international relations..
In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with each
other.
US foreign policy is based around that fact.
The US knows that a representative democracy will not attack them, it also
knows that it has, in the past, been attacked by just about every other
form of government.
So the US backs representative democracies wherever it finds them knowing
that what they want is peace and prosperity.
It attacks tyrannies because it knows that tyrannies attack the USA.
In the Middle East there is a single representative democracy, so the USA
is allied to it.
It doesn't trust the assortment of degenerate sultans, military monsters
and religious loony tunes who run the other countries in the Middle East
because, pretty obviously to everyone with a mind, they're not to be
trusted.
John Briggs
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>
>
> IMHO, Israel is
>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>> interests.
>
> The problem here is international relations..
>
> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with
> each other.
War of 1812?
--
John Briggs
Peter Skelton
Canada wasn't, but at the beginning of both BM's one could
certainly argue that Germany, France and Britian all were.
.
Peter Skelton
William Black
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_cnck.253453$M63....@newsfe13.ams2...
That's the one that always comes up.
It is usually argued that in 1812 Great Britain (Is that the 'correct form'
for that date?) was not a representative democracy.
William Black
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:r22474dv5gfl3jff0...@4ax.com...
Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II
Neither Russia nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in BM I, and they
started it.
Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate.
The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German parliament,
but had no part in government.
Peter Skelton
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:r22474dv5gfl3jff0...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:36:08 +0100, "John Briggs"
>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>William Black wrote:
>>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, Israel is
>>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>>>>> interests.
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is international relations..
>>>>
>>>> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with
>>>> each other.
>>>
>>>War of 1812?
>>
>> Canada wasn't, but at the beginning of both BM's one could
>> certainly argue that Germany, France and Britian all were.
>
>Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II
>
That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every
step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support
from the public.
>Neither Russia nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in BM I, and they
>started it.
>
What has that got to do with the claim?
>Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate.
>
>The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German parliament,
>but had no part in government.
So?
Peter Skelton
John Briggs
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:_cnck.253453$M63....@newsfe13.ams2...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, Israel is
>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>>>> interests.
>>>
>>> The problem here is international relations..
>>>
>>> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with
>>> each other.
>>
>> War of 1812?
>
> That's the one that always comes up.
>
> It is usually argued that in 1812 Great Britain (Is that the 'correct
> form' for that date?) was not a representative democracy.
United Kingdom. Surely it was as much a "representative democracy" as the
USA?
--
John Briggs
Michael Shirley
Shanghai Cooperative Organization. It is a mutual defense pact,
and also an economic cooperation organization. It was formed to provide
a counter balance to the United States.
Michael Shirley
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact.
>> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm
>
> Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran.
Or at least do the Spanish thing and provide troops and equipment
that operate under Iranian colors of convenience. The Chinese are giving
them the same sort of favorite son status that they give Pakistan.
>
> http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-the-sco/
>
> Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No
> friends for anybody in that group.
Maybe not. The current set up still makes it inadvisable to invade
Iran. We know what the public agreements are, but there are probably secret
agreements as well.
From our perspective, I don't think that the risk is worth the gain
for us.
--
William Black
>>Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II
>>
> That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every
> step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support
> from the public.
You could say exactly the same about Pakistan and Iran.
It doesn't change things.
>>Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate.
>>
>>The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German
>>parliament,
>>but had no part in government.
>
> So?
Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a
representative democracy.
William Black
I don't think so, but I'll leave it to the usual suspects to prove how free
the USA was in 1812...
BL5511
On Jul 7, 5:40 am, "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:47:20 -0700, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com>
Well said. Amen.
William Black
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:38:09 -0700, Jack Linthicum
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm
>>
>> Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran.
>
> Or at least do the Spanish thing and provide troops and equipment
> that operate under Iranian colors of convenience. The Chinese are giving
> them the same sort of favorite son status that they give Pakistan.
That'll be the same Pakistan that can't control it's own Islamic nutters,
you know, the ones they have trained and sponsored and are now busy blowing
up their capital city...
China has a delicacy of touch in its foreign policy that matches the USA,
only without the ability to pay people off when it all goes terribly
horribly wrong, as it always does...
John Briggs
> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:pte474hmhijlnoe7f...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:01:49 +0100, "William Black"
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II
>>>
>> That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every
>> step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support
>> from the public.
>
> You could say exactly the same about Pakistan and Iran.
>
> It doesn't change things.
>
>>> Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate.
>>>
>>> The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German
>>> parliament,
>>> but had no part in government.
>>
>> So?
>
> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government
> isn't a representative democracy.
Like the US Congress, you mean?
--
John Briggs
William Black
But it does.
It gets to approve the candidates for cabinet positions.
Peter Skelton
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:pte474hmhijlnoe7f...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:01:49 +0100, "William Black"
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II
>>>
>> That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every
>> step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support
>> from the public.
>
>You could say exactly the same about Pakistan and Iran.
>
>It doesn't change things.
>
Do you mean Pakistan and India? It is not true of Pakistan if you
do.
>>>Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate.
>>>
>>>The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German
>>>parliament,
>>>but had no part in government.
>>
>> So?
>
>Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a
>representative democracy.
Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
government.
Peter Skelton
William Black
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>>Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a
>>representative democracy.
>
> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
> government.
True.
But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
news:op.udxmqfd2ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
Peter Skelton
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:igo474hhfip15ojtk...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>
>>>Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a
>>>representative democracy.
>>
>> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
>> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
>> government.
>
>True.
>
>But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would
rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . .
Peter Skelton
J A
One point- it's not mainly Jewish voters that US politicians fear, it's the
heavy influence of Jews in the US media.
While Jews are only about 3% of US population, they are about 10 times as
prevalent in media. No conspiracy - it just reflects a cultural emphasis on
education.
People like Hines, who are easily manipulated by "neocons", are being
used in ways that are in direct conflict with basic US interests.
"Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
J A
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g4stuo$324$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>
>
> IMHO, Israel is
>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests.
>
> The problem here is international relations..
>
> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with each
> other.
Historically, representative democracies haven't been prevalent enough in
number or time span, to give a data field to base an opinion on how
representative democracies behave, regarding war.
However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative
democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - not
encouraging to your statement. Lincoln thought he would lose the 1864
election to an "end the war" candidate.
The Greeks were always warring with each other, and at least some of those
city states were probably "democracies".
Native American tribes were largely "democratic", and they often warred with
each other.
Theoretically, a representative democracy, in which the people were
angry over some real or imagined issues, might very well get a leadership
happy to take them to war agaisnt some other representative democracy.
Your statement is based on an assumption that wars have to be created by
amoral scheming elites.
They can just as well originate from the bottom up, on real or imagined
issues.
Raymond O'Hara
>
> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:igo474hhfip15ojtk...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>
>>>Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't
>>>a
>>>representative democracy.
>>
>> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
>> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
>> government.
>
> True.
>
> But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
>
> --
> William Black
you confude the tame republicans supporting their parties leader with not
having any say.
congress didn't use its powers against but it had them. and should mccain
win he will find things are much different for him than for bush.
the democratic party will have veto proof majorities after the next
election.
right now the dem majority has been to thin to stop bush.
Peter Jason
"BL5511" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c87b0a46-ce38-4743...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I can't wait for Persia & Judea to start
nuking one another. It will be the
irresistible object slamming hard up against
an immoveable one.
Then peace can descend on to the earth.
Andrew Swallow
In 1812 there was a shortage of black and women voters in the USA.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally
for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the
Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when
they are still a lower rank.
Andrew Swallow
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:wPydnZ7ezP0...@bt.com...
I'm quite sure they had plenty of both Andrew, perhaps they just forgot to
register.
cheers....Jeff
Raymond O'Hara
how many women and blacks were voting anywhere. in 1812 more people
percentage wise could vote than anywhere else.
how many women and blacks were voting in canada. how many anybody were
voting in canada?
Fred J. McCall
:
Also in the UK. There is a large shortage of adolescent voters pretty
much world wide.
So what?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Billzz
news:rEzck.14725$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
I do not know anything about this, as I am sure that it is a history thing,
but, in 1812, did blacks and women have the right to vote in the UK? Or
India? Or Canada? Or France? Or Russia? Or Germany? Or Venezuela? Or
Switzerland?
Why I do not bother with any history. It's all selective history.
Kerryn Offord
Parliament does no such thing.. (In NZ and probably UK and Oz). A
conviction for a criminal act with X months/ years prison time possible
is necessary before "parliament" can sack an MP
The party can "sack" a cabinet minister (Strip them of their cabinet
portfolio), but they can't chuck an elected MP out of parliament for any
reason (No matter how much they might want to.. Best they can do is try
to encourage them to resign their seat in the interests of the party).
In NZ they seem to invite the MPs to resign.. If they refuse to resign,
the government has a few problems...
Very few MPs have been sacked. The best they can do is chuck them out of
the party (Unless they have done something the courts convict them for
that has a minimum jail sentence of???)
If the MP won a seat, they go independent and stay in parliament as an
MP (And collect points towards their pension) If they got in on the
party vote.. Then they can in theory be chucked out of parliament.
Parliament (Being the collection of all sitting members not just one
party) doesn't have the power to sack anybody (They can make it so
difficult for the person to continue that they resign, but that's not
sacking.
Peter Skelton
I thought that, in the UK, a minister could resign out of
embarassment, be required to resign by the pm, or voted out of
the party caucus (could happen, never heard of it happening).
Your suggestion demands a reference.
Peter Skelton
William Black
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:p_mdna4U8u5FCe_V...@earthlink.com...
> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative
> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight -
Did the Confederacy ever have a general election?
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:f064f$4872ef23$9440b19b$21...@STARBAND.NET...
I was of course being terminally *tongue in cheek*.
Canadian women had no voting rights at all, until during WW1 some limited
voting was enacted.
Voting was considered a privaledge not a right.
Voters were men of substance, that is they owned land or had a sufficient
income to qualify.
I have no idea when the first *black man* voted in Canada.
Suffice to say though, he was a person of substance.
cheers....Jeff
BL5511
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:47:20 -0700, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why
> > such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with
> > Iran, they have oil they need to sell, the west has stuff they west
> > wants to sell. So just sell it and buy from them, everybody is happy.
> > Iran is crazy, Iran wants to do this, Iran wants to do that, blah blah
> > blah, right, fact of matter is Iran hasn't been willingly a
> > participant of a armed conflict ever since the revolution while the
> > US, on the other hand, has been involved in 6 wars during the same
> > period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the
> > threat to world peace?
>
> I think that there are other things in play. First off, Iran has been
> threatening Israel a lot. The Israelis can't take out Iran. They're too
> big, too bloody minded and too capable once you take size into account.
>
> So, the Israelis want us to do it. They're banking on two things. First
> off in some elections in certain states like New York, the Jewish vote
> represents a cohesive voting block and failure to genuflect to Tel Aviv
> can get you a loss in an election. Secondly, they know that emerging
> countries with nukes is the red flag in Washington. So Israel whispers
> nukes and our politicians react accordingly. Down here it's called "The
> tail wagging the dog."
I am glad that there are a few smart and patriotic Americans (dozens
among the entire population of 300 million) figure it out that Israel
now controls the U.S. In 1879, the French colonized Vietnam and set up
the protectorate system. The Vietnamese emperor and his cabinet were
still functioning but they must do whatever the French wanted. However
the smart Vietnamese public figured it out that the French controlled
Vietnam as a colony and thus they revolted against the French and the
puppet Vietnamese government for independence. Eventually the French
were defeated.
The American public too should realize that functioning American
president, congress, and cabinet are under control of foreigners like
the Vietnamese did and should do something about it. The only problem
for Americans is when they fought the British in 1779, they were
called heroes but if they fight against the Israelis for independence
today they would be called anti-semitic, a dirty word that all
politicians want to avoid. Because both Obama and McCain have pledged
defending Israel at any costs at the recent AIPAC conference, they are
hopeless.
>Furthermore, Bush II is an alleged Born Again
> Christian, and some of them have parsed this oddball idea out of the Bible
> that there is a religious obligation to carry Israel's water for it.
> Whether he actually believes that or whether it's election year posturing
> is anybody's guess.
>
> I'm a Christian and I'm pretty well versed in the Bible, and I don't
> recall seeing any passage saying that we're supposed to subordinate our
> national security to Tel Aviv. And I've looked hard and haven't found it
> and nobody I know who has made the claim, has been able to show me that
> passage either. So when some alleged Christian starts waving that
> particular flag, I put it squarely in the Bullshit column. IMHO, Israel is
> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests.
> (Too many people, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, all figure that they can
> lead God around by the nose anyway. Look at all three and you'll find
> significant minorities in all of em who want to base national policy on a
> perception of religious eschatology. That's crazy, wanting to bring about
> the end of the world, but every group of people have people who want to
> bring about the end of everything and religious communities aren't any
> exception to that.)
>
This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state
principle as stated in the founding of this nation. And as confirmed
by article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli in 1779 signed by president
Washington that the U.S. will not allow Chistians to go to war against
Muslams.
John McCain clearly violate this principle when he stated on TV during
a campaign in New Hampshire that because the U.S. is a Christian based
nation, it must defend Israel. There are other religions in the U.S.
and the radical extremist Christians should not force American people
of other religions and atheist to fight for their brainwashed
ideology.
> Now post Iraq, that nuclear claim is increasingly a dog that won't hunt.
> More to the point, Israel's manipulative behavior leaves a really sour
> taste and situations like the Pollard Affair, their industrial espionage
> and thefts, and their transfer of sensitive technology to China, is
> convincing some of us that they're really in SCO's corner and not ours. To
> put it bluntly, many of our enemies treat us better than this alleged
> friend does.
>
> So, from where I sit, Israel can go do whatever they want to to the
> Iranians and it's perfectly okay with me if the Iranians pound the
> Israelis to a pulp in another nice long war. And if my congressional
> delegation tries to vote them so much as one more jet fighter, I'll walk
> neighborhoods getting people to vote for their opponents and this is an
> election year.
>
> For my money, the best pick for an ally in the region if they're willing
> is Syria. Bashar Assad is a rational guy and as a general rule, he doesn't
> go looking for trouble. And I'd rather rent bases from him than rely on
> the Israelis.
>
For the past 200 years, only European nations, Japan, and the U.S.
invaded and colonized other nations, the Arab, African, and Asian
nations were peaceful and rarely invade other nations.
For the past 30 years, most war power nations in the world abandoned
wars and remained at peace including China, Russia, Japan, Germany,
Italy, Vietnam, UK, France, and Canada. Only the U.S. continues to go
to war against smaller nations such as Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and
Iraq. The U.S. government so far could not even stay in peace for any
period over five years. In order to enter new war, it fabricated
reasons to get the approval from UN and the war resolution in
Congress.
So the questions are:
1. What nation the world public today perceives as the most dangerous
nation in the world?
2. What nation has the leader portrayed as the new Hitler, even by its
own people? Who the world perceives as more dangerous than the leader
Kim Song Il of North Korea?
> In the end, I regard the whole Israel/Iran thing as an internal matter
> within SCO and that's something in the Sino/Russian sphere of influence
> and not ours. When the Israelis started handing over our technology to the
> Chinese and suborning our holders of classified information, they lost
> whatever right to any consideration they might have had from us. Americans
> will eventually die in combat because of the tech that the Israelis
> transferred and of late that includes a variant of their Popeye submarine
> launched cruise missile, the HARPY, a bunch of electronic warfare stuff,
> advanced Sidewinder, AIM-120, I2R Mavericks, the electronic suite from the
> F-16 and the Lavi which eventually was developed into the J-10. I've got a
> pic somewhere of a J-10 on display with AIM-120s, Pythons and what looks
> suspiciously like a Shrike missile under it's wing and another that has a
> half dozen Mavericks mounted. We didn't give the Chinese any of that and
> the only place they'd have gotten it is from our former "Favorite son",
> Israel.
> I'm willing to be that I could service the RHAWs installation on the J-10
> from the US Air Force Technical Order without having to contend with any
> design changes.
>
> So when it comes right down to it, given the current correlation of
> forces, I think that it's prudent to get out of Iraq, I think that it's
> prudent to cut off Israel from any more technology that might come back
> and hurt us, I think that we should also cut their economic support since
> I don't pay taxes to subsidise SCO. If we want to cut a deal with anybody,
> I'd rather deal with Dr. Assad.
>
It is interesting to see that Assad did not react to the bombing of
his nuclear facility by U.S. and Israelis pilots a few months ago.
U.S. pilots worn Israelis pilot uniform using U.S. jets painted with
Israel flag to carry this attack. Today the two nations that can
launch attack at any other nations without UN condemnations are U.S.
and Israel.
Andrew Chaplin
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:38:35 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:50:52 +0100, "William Black"
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:igo474hhfip15ojtk...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> representative democracy.
>>>>> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
>>>>> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
>>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>> But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
>>>
>>> So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would
>>> rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . .
The uprisings in the Canadas in the late 1830s had everything to do with
"responsible government" which is another expression of the idea of
representative democracy. Having seen the reforms brought forward with the
Great Reform Act and fed up with the Chateau Clique and Family Compact, the
populace rebelled. When the dust settled (it took until 1848 and involved
significant but peaceful obstruction of the Colonial Office's appointees) they
had universal manhood suffrage (they would fsck this up with the cynical
Wartime Elections Act, 1917, with which they enfranchised the female kin of
serving soldiers and disenfranchised pacifists such as the Menonites) and
minsterial responsibility to the legislature, i.e. the ministry had to have
the confidence of the House before it could go forward with its legislative
programme.
>>The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally
>>for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the
>>Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when
>>they are still a lower rank.
>>
> I thought that, in the UK, a minister could resign out of
> embarassment, be required to resign by the pm, or voted out of
> the party caucus (could happen, never heard of it happening).
>
> Your suggestion demands a reference.
In the Westminster system, a minister holds a portfolio at the pleasure of the
sovereign. In practice, this means for as long as the prime minister can
stomach him/her. Expulsion from the caucus would not require a resignation
from cabinet. Not even resigning one's seat means that one can no longer
remain a minister. However, not being a member of the government's caucus or
not sitting in the House makes the job much harder.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
^OvO^
> Good, sensible post.
>
> One point- it's not mainly Jewish voters that US politicians fear, it's the
> heavy influence of Jews in the US media.
>
> While Jews are only about 3% of US population, they are about 10 times as
> prevalent in media. No conspiracy - it just reflects a cultural emphasis on
> education.
>
> People like Hines, who are easily manipulated by "neocons", are being
> used in ways that are in direct conflict with basic US interests.
>
>
>
>
As seen by ^OvO^ :
Very true, but incomplete.
The Jews discovered the power of money and "Bribery"... centuries ago.
WHAT FAMOUS MEN SAY ABOUT JEWS (Utube search)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g467AaOTORI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxMGGgJje4
^OvO^
(I C, do U C 2) ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are none more ignorant, and useless, than those who
seek answers while on their knees, with their eyes closed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Shirley
>> So, the Israelis want us to do it. They're banking on two
>> things. First
>> off in some elections in certain states like New York, the Jewish vote
>> represents a cohesive voting block and failure to genuflect to Tel Aviv
>> can get you a loss in an election. Secondly, they know that emerging
>> countries with nukes is the red flag in Washington. So Israel whispers
>> nukes and our politicians react accordingly. Down here it's called "The
>> tail wagging the dog."
>
> I am glad that there are a few smart and patriotic Americans (dozens
> among the entire population of 300 million) figure it out that Israel
> now controls the U.S. In 1879, the French colonized Vietnam and set up
> the protectorate system. The Vietnamese emperor and his cabinet were
> still functioning but they must do whatever the French wanted. However
> the smart Vietnamese public figured it out that the French controlled
> Vietnam as a colony and thus they revolted against the French and the
> puppet Vietnamese government for independence. Eventually the French
> were defeated.
Yup. Our biggest problem is getting our politicians to understand that
our national security comes first and that given Israel's behavior since
the end of 1973, their problems aren't ours.
> The American public too should realize that functioning American
> president, congress, and cabinet are under control of foreigners like
> the Vietnamese did and should do something about it. The only problem
> for Americans is when they fought the British in 1779, they were
> called heroes but if they fight against the Israelis for independence
> today they would be called anti-semitic, a dirty word that all
> politicians want to avoid. Because both Obama and McCain have pledged
> defending Israel at any costs at the recent AIPAC conference, they are
> hopeless.
Personally, I'd like to see AIPAC run out of the country. We've got
enough problems without them. If Israel wants to take on Iraq, they're
more than welcome to try. But I'll openly oppose any politician that tries
to tangle us up in that mess and that includes the two idiots running for
President.
>>
>> I'm a Christian and I'm pretty well versed in the Bible, and I
>> don't
>> recall seeing any passage saying that we're supposed to subordinate our
>> national security to Tel Aviv. And I've looked hard and haven't found it
>> and nobody I know who has made the claim, has been able to show me that
>> passage either. So when some alleged Christian starts waving that
>> particular flag, I put it squarely in the Bullshit column. IMHO, Israel
>> is
>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>> interests.
>> (Too many people, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, all figure that they can
>> lead God around by the nose anyway. Look at all three and you'll find
>> significant minorities in all of em who want to base national policy on
>> a
>> perception of religious eschatology. That's crazy, wanting to bring
>> about
>> the end of the world, but every group of people have people who want to
>> bring about the end of everything and religious communities aren't any
>> exception to that.)
>>
>
> This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state
> principle as stated in the founding of this nation. And as confirmed
> by article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli in 1779 signed by president
> Washington that the U.S. will not allow Chistians to go to war against
> Muslams.
The one thing you don't expect the Federal Government to do, is to honor
it's own laws. <Chuckle>
> John McCain clearly violate this principle when he stated on TV during
> a campaign in New Hampshire that because the U.S. is a Christian based
> nation, it must defend Israel. There are other religions in the U.S.
> and the radical extremist Christians should not force American people
> of other religions and atheist to fight for their brainwashed
> ideology.
Nobody should. The whole idea of holy wars should have gone out centuries
ago, and we have no obligation to get into one for anybody.
> For the past 200 years, only European nations, Japan, and the U.S.
> invaded and colonized other nations, the Arab, African, and Asian
> nations were peaceful and rarely invade other nations.
> For the past 30 years, most war power nations in the world abandoned
> wars and remained at peace including China, Russia, Japan, Germany,
> Italy, Vietnam, UK, France, and Canada. Only the U.S. continues to go
> to war against smaller nations such as Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and
> Iraq. The U.S. government so far could not even stay in peace for any
> period over five years. In order to enter new war, it fabricated
> reasons to get the approval from UN and the war resolution in
> Congress.
> So the questions are:
> 1. What nation the world public today perceives as the most dangerous
> nation in the world?
> 2. What nation has the leader portrayed as the new Hitler, even by its
> own people? Who the world perceives as more dangerous than the leader
> Kim Song Il of North Korea?
I can't disagree. The big thing about us though is we're getting involved
with this crap with no possible profit from it. That makes it stupid on
top of bad policy. We've got a capital exhaustion problem now, and we're
gonna sink more at the behest of Tel Aviv? That's crazy.
>> So when it comes right down to it, given the current
>> correlation of
>> forces, I think that it's prudent to get out of Iraq, I think that it's
>> prudent to cut off Israel from any more technology that might come back
>> and hurt us, I think that we should also cut their economic support
>> since
>> I don't pay taxes to subsidise SCO. If we want to cut a deal with
>> anybody,
>> I'd rather deal with Dr. Assad.
>>
>
> It is interesting to see that Assad did not react to the bombing of
> his nuclear facility by U.S. and Israelis pilots a few months ago.
> U.S. pilots worn Israelis pilot uniform using U.S. jets painted with
> Israel flag to carry this attack. Today the two nations that can
> launch attack at any other nations without UN condemnations are U.S.
> and Israel.
I haven't heard of any of our guys being involved and given how
Washington leaks like a sieve, I suspect that the story that we were
involved was planted by the Israelis in order to deter retaliation from
the Syrians and the Iranians.
If it had been US land based planes, they'd have staged out of Italy. I
haven't heard of any major movements of aircraft coming out of there. And
if it had been a naval strike, somebody would have reported F/A-18s, and
nobody did, so the whole show was probably Israeli and the story about us
being there a Mossad plant. Washington would have leaked because that kind
of action has to be reported to the Majority and Minority Leaders in both
houses of Congress, and if they'd gotten told that we were out doing
attacks with the Israelis, it would have hit AP an hour later and Drudge
probably before that.
When people in Washington don't like something, they leak.
Michael Shirley
>
>
>
> I can't wait for Persia & Judea to start
> nuking one another. It will be the
> irresistible object slamming hard up against
> an immoveable one.
>
> Then peace can descend on to the earth.
One Sievert at a time. <EVIL GRIN>
Michael Shirley
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>
>
> IMHO, Israel is
>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>> interests.
>
> The problem here is international relations..
>
> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with each
> other.
>
> US foreign policy is based around that fact.
>
> The US knows that a representative democracy will not attack them, it
> also
> knows that it has, in the past, been attacked by just about every other
> form of government.
>
> So the US backs representative democracies wherever it finds them knowing
> that what they want is peace and prosperity.
>
> It attacks tyrannies because it knows that tyrannies attack the USA.
>
> In the Middle East there is a single representative democracy, so the
> USA
> is allied to it.
>
> It doesn't trust the assortment of degenerate sultans, military monsters
> and religious loony tunes who run the other countries in the Middle East
> because, pretty obviously to everyone with a mind, they're not to be
> trusted.
I don't trust any of em. And while you've got an excellent analysis
there, I doubt very much if any of that has ever crossed the minds of
anybody outside of the State Department.
Michael Shirley
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> When will the U.K. be joining up?
Depends on how long Gordie Brown stays in office.
God's Creator!
> On Jul 6, 1:29 am, "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
>>
>> <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't think either France or Israel should react preemptively until
>>> there is
>>> a smoking gun, an actual Iranian atom bomb test.
>>>
> if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why
> such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with
> Iran, they have oil they need to sell, the west has stuff they west
> wants to sell. So just sell it and buy from them, everybody is happy.
> Iran is crazy, Iran wants to do this, Iran wants to do that, blah blah
> blah, right, fact of matter is Iran hasn't been willingly a
> participant of a armed conflict ever since the revolution while the
> US, on the other hand, has been involved in 6 wars during the same
> period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the
> threat to world peace?
>
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
A FEW OF THE DEFENSELESS COUNTRIES THE U.S. HAS INVADED OR ATTACKED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras,
Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Granada, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Zaire, Namibia, Lebanon, Egypt, Greece,
Cyprus, Bangladesh, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam,
Laos, Iraq, Cambodia, Libya, Palestine, China, Afghanistan,
Sudan, Indonesia, East Timor, Turkey, Angola, Yugoslavia, and Somalia.
NONE THREATENED OR ATTACKED THE U.S. AT ANY TIME. :-(
God's Creator!
( Sorry, I don't forgive shit! )
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. "Judaism Vs. Islamism Wars" News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William Black
I imagine the guys down at Foggy Bottom have been down the Whitehouse and
explained it to George and the boys a couple of times.
J A
>
> "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
> news:p_mdna4U8u5FCe_V...@earthlink.com...
>
>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative
>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight -
>
> Did the Confederacy ever have a general election?
The states making up the Confederacy were led by people elected to office.
The Confederacy had a constitution similar to the US Constitution.
Do you think the Confederacy was not democratic?
John Briggs
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g4vmin$9es$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
>> news:p_mdna4U8u5FCe_V...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative
>>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight -
>>
>> Did the Confederacy ever have a general election?
>
> The states making up the Confederacy were led by people elected to
> office.
> The Confederacy had a constitution similar to the US Constitution.
>
> Do you think the Confederacy was not democratic?
As an institution, obviously not.
--
John Briggs
J A
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:S1Sck.170914$P83....@newsfe20.ams2...
It was made up of states with democratic governments, had a constituion and
a central government similar to the US, and had all the political culture
and institutions that it had had for the previous 70 or 80 years, but you
don;t think it was a democracy.
> --
> John Briggs
>
>
J A
> Personally, I'd like to see AIPAC run out of the country. We've got
> enough problems without them. If Israel wants to take on Iraq, they're
> more than welcome to try. But I'll openly oppose any politician that tries
> to tangle us up in that mess and that includes the two idiots running for
> President.
One known idiot - the other hasn't had the chance to prove himself, yet.
John Briggs
How was the Constitution adopted? How were the government elected?
--
John Briggs
J A
By a gathering of political representives from the constituent states.
And if you're going to concentrate on technical issues, then why should we
consider some of the anceient Greek city states to have been early
democracies?
Ency. Britannica:
A provisional government, established in February 1861 at Montgomery,
Alabama, was replaced by a permanent government at Richmond, Va., a year
later. The Confederacy, operating under a structure similar to that of the
United States, was headed by President Jefferson Davis and Vice President
Alexander H. Stephens. The new nation soon acquired other symbols of
sovereignty, such as its own stamps and a flag known as the Stars and Bars.
> --
> John Briggs
>
>
Raymond O'Hara
in theory it was, but the corrupt vote fixing that went into the ordinances
od secession argue against it.
Raymond O'Hara
> How was the Constitution adopted? How were the government elected?
> --
> John Briggs
>
>
the original CSA states held a constitutional convention in montgomery
alabama.
davis was appointed provisional president at first but then was elected by a
general popular election to a 6 year term later.
Raymond O'Hara
"^OvO^" <Lo...@n.S.ee> wrote in message
news:cM6dncp9keSvM-7V...@comcast.com...
>J A wrote:
>> Good, sensible post.
>>
>> One point- it's not mainly Jewish voters that US politicians fear, it's
>> the
>> heavy influence of Jews in the US media.
>>
>> While Jews are only about 3% of US population, they are about 10 times as
>> prevalent in media. No conspiracy - it just reflects a cultural emphasis
>> on
>> education.
>>
>> People like Hines, who are easily manipulated by "neocons", are being
>> used in ways that are in direct conflict with basic US interests.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> As seen by ^OvO^ :
>
> Very true, but incomplete.
>
> The Jews discovered the power of money and "Bribery"... centuries
> ago.
>
jews barred from owning property discovered money was the only thing they
were allowed to possess.
Michael Shirley
Give him time.
>
>
--
Michael Shirley
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't trust any of em. And while you've got an excellent analysis
>> there, I doubt very much if any of that has ever crossed the minds of
>> anybody outside of the State Department.
>
> I imagine the guys down at Foggy Bottom have been down the Whitehouse and
> explained it to George and the boys a couple of times.
Nope. Bush tends to lash out at people who disagree with him, so that
pretty much makes the Whitehouse impervious to such things as facts.
Andrew Swallow
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:wPydnZ7ezP0...@bt.com...
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, Israel is
>>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>>>>> interests.
>>>> The problem here is international relations..
>>>>
>>>> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with
>>>> each other.
>> In 1812 there was a shortage of black and women voters in the USA.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> percentage wise could vote than anywhere else.
> how many women and blacks were voting in canada. how many anybody were
> voting in canada?
>
>
I would not know, I am English.
In Britain people were working to change who was allowed to vote.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:rEzck.14725$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>> news:wPydnZ7ezP0...@bt.com...
>>> John Briggs wrote:
>>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.udw3yhbsra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, Israel is
>>>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own
>>>>>> interests.
>>>>> The problem here is international relations..
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with
>>>>> each other.
>>>> War of 1812?
>>> In 1812 there was a shortage of black and women voters in the USA.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>> register.
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>
> I do not know anything about this, as I am sure that it is a history thing,
> but, in 1812, did blacks and women have the right to vote in the UK? Or
> India? Or Canada? Or France? Or Russia? Or Germany? Or Venezuela? Or
> Switzerland?
>
> Why I do not bother with any history. It's all selective history.
>
>
wait for the 20 century to get the vote.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:50:52 +0100, "William Black"
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:igo474hhfip15ojtk...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government
>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>> representative democracy.
>>>>> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
>>>>> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
>>>>> government.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>> But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
>>>
>>> So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would
>>> rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . .
>>
>> The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally
>> for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the
>> Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when
>> they are still a lower rank.
>>
>
> Parliament does no such thing.. (In NZ and probably UK and Oz). A
> conviction for a criminal act with X months/ years prison time possible
> is necessary before "parliament" can sack an MP
>
> The party can "sack" a cabinet minister (Strip them of their cabinet
> portfolio), but they can't chuck an elected MP out of parliament for any
> reason (No matter how much they might want to.. Best they can do is try
> to encourage them to resign their seat in the interests of the party).
>
> In NZ they seem to invite the MPs to resign.. If they refuse to resign,
> the government has a few problems...
>
> Very few MPs have been sacked. The best they can do is chuck them out of
> the party (Unless they have done something the courts convict them for
> that has a minimum jail sentence of???)
>
> If the MP won a seat, they go independent and stay in parliament as an
> MP (And collect points towards their pension) If they got in on the
> party vote.. Then they can in theory be chucked out of parliament.
>
> Parliament (Being the collection of all sitting members not just one
> party) doesn't have the power to sack anybody (They can make it so
> difficult for the person to continue that they resign, but that's not
> sacking.
Strawman. We were talking about sacking government ministers.
Andrew Swallow
John Briggs
That is just not true. The Government (i.e. Prime Minister) has to resign if
they lose a Confidence vote. The same applies to individual Ministers
(usually a motion to reduce the Minister's salary).
--
John Briggs
Andrew Swallow
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:38:35 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:50:52 +0100, "William Black"
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:igo474hhfip15ojtk...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black"
>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a
>>>>>> representative democracy.
>>>>> Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is
>>>>> not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in
>>>>> government.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>> But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly.
>>> So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would
>>> rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . .
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
>> The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally
>> for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the
>> Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when
>> they are still a lower rank.
>>
> embarassment, be required to resign by the pm, or voted out of
> the party caucus (could happen, never heard of it happening).
>
> Your suggestion demands a reference.
>
>
In Britain 'Votes of No Confidence' are normally directed against the
Prime Minister himself.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence>
The threat of one of those is normally sufficient to get a minister
fired. There is no rule that says firing somebody has to be simple.
The difference between parliament forcing a minister to resign and
firing him is a mater of semantics rather than reality. Particularly
since if he does not go the pressure will then change to make the prime
minister and sovereign fire him.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/1/19/UK_Constitution_and_Government.pdf>
Andrew Swallow
J A
"^OvO^" <Lo...@n.S.ee> wrote in message
news:cM6dncp9keSvM-7V...@comcast.com...
J A
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IrydnV_6P69Vo-nV...@rcn.net...
If some corruption and vote fixing would eliminate governments from being
"democracies", then most countries, incuding the US, would be eliminated,
past and present. "Democracy" is a mehtod and structure that always has
some level of abuse in its practice.
Secession was a popular issue in the South, largely becasue they feared what
would happen to their economy and society if slaves were freed, as they
believed would eventually happen with the growing loss of slave state voting
power in the Congress. I doubt much vote fixing was really neccesary.
As for democracy in the Confederacy, the basic structure was there, the
basic habits and views were there, the state government democracies
continued, and the people were basically for the Confederate government,
fought like hell for it, and saw it as an extension of, and serving, their
views and beliefs.
It might be convenient to pretend the Confederacy wasn't a democracy,
considering that it stood for a continuance of slavery, but it's not
realistic.
Kerryn Offord
Well, I can only write about NZ as that's the limit of my knowledge..
But that is not being sacked...
Sacked is the same as being fired from the job, given your pink slip..
whatever.
Losing a confidence vote doesn't toss a party out of power. It can cause
problems, and can force them to go to the people (general election)..
But I can't see them being sacked... (Gotr an example?)
Not like the Whitlam government in Oz.. that one was sacked (by the
governor general, not by parliament)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
As for individual cabinet ministers.. As I said above, they can be
sacked/ dropped from cabinet (but not from parliament.. where they can
continue to take their seats as MPs)
Andrew Swallow
Using your definition of sacked - fired, given pink slip.
Within a few days of losing a "Motion of No Confidence" in 1979
British Prime Minister James Callaghan was no longer receiving his
high pay. No pay = strong evidence of being sacked.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence>
Andrew Swallow
John Kane
> John Briggs wrote:
> > Kerryn Offord wrote:
> >> Andrew Swallow wrote:
> >>> Peter Skelton wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:50:52 +0100, "William Black"
>
> >>>>> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> As for individual cabinet ministers.. As I said above, they can be
> sacked/ dropped from cabinet (but not from parliament.. where they can
As far as I can see cabinet ministers are sacked by the PM
Parliament (as in House of Commons etc) has nothing to do with it.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Briggs
That is the normal procedure, but Parliament can pass a resolution to reduce
the Minister's pay - effectively a vote of 'no confidence' in the Minister -
which would have that effect. In practice, the Prime Minister would seek to
convert that into a vote of confidence in the Government.
--
John Briggs
Andrew Chaplin
I suppose that is a difference between the forms observed in London and
Ottawa. In Canada, the ministers' salaries are determined by statute and
regulations. A motion passed in the House can alter neither.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
^OvO^ (HTML)
Good, sensible post. One point- it's not mainly Jewish voters that US politicians fear, it's the heavy influence of Jews in the US media. While Jews are only about 3% of US population, they are about 10 times as prevalent in media. No conspiracy - it just reflects a cultural emphasis on education. People like Hines, who are easily manipulated by "neocons", are being used in ways that are in direct conflict with basic US interests.
As seen by ^OvO^ :
The Jews discovered the power of MONEY... long, long ago.
^OvO^
(I C, do U C 2) ?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are none more ignorant, and useless, than those who
seek answers while on their knees, with their eyes closed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Time Traveler (HTML)
Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute Sunday, June 29, 2008 Salih Speaks of Horizon for US Troops; Chalabi in Tehran, Criticizes US; Sistani rejects Use of His Name in Campaign Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said that the al-Maliki government is beginning to think about the "time horizon" of the US troop presence in Iraq. That terminology is awfully close to a request for a timetable for troop withdrawal. PM al-Maliki has repeatedly said that Iraqi militias and army can handle the security problems themselves within 18 months. Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraq government: ' The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq whose UN mandate expires on December 31.' Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism." I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . . Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .): ' McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” '
The Time Traveler... Observed:
Chalabi is a U.S. "Double Agent" , who was _Supposed_
to be the original, U.S. installed , "Puppet Leader of Iraq".
But, the Mission Accomplished... never happend.. :-\
The Time Traveler
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead, follow, or get the HELL out of the way!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bert Hyman
<Lo...@n.S.ee> wrote:
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
> http-equiv="Content-Type">
></head>
><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#ff0000">
What?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com