| |
Given that the Straights of Hormuz are in fact Iranian home waters and
that ALL international traffic must pass through the unquestioned
territorial waters of Iran their presence in them should be no more of
a surprise than a US vessel in the Canadian waters of Sault Ste.
Marie. There is NOTHING arrogant about them being there. Monkey Man
does have an arrogant attitude about EVERYTHING.
Should there be any concern that EVERY country in the world hides its'
nuclear enrichment facilities?? yes. Should that include Iran..yes.
Should that concern be given any more weight than it is in Argentina,
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands,
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (and a couple of the USSRs' ex
Satellites), the United Kingdom, and the United States Belgium, Italy,
Spain, Lybia, Niger, Australia, etc. ...I think not.
The US does have a "bunker buster" that goes down three hundred
feet... If it does become a problem. These facilities and the massive
activity they require are not "Hide-able".
> "*The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told
On Jan 22, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was a thoughtful article by Dan Murphy, and for the most part, I
> agree with him. I actually agree with PlainOl.....I think.
>
> As Murphy pointed out:
>
> the Financial Times' German edition yesterday: 'What we know suggests the> development of nuclear weapons' ".*
>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> This is cause for concern. At least to most Americans, who are familiar
> with the region and the theocratic regime in Tehran.
>
> Nevertheless, the distinction, is that I don't see (or hear) ANYONE (other
> than maybe Rick Santorum, and Santorum's even set preconditions for such an
> attack) calling for an immediate attack on Iran. Should there by concern
> over the fact that Iran seems to be hiding their research and development
> over their nuclear enrichment program? Absolutely.
>
> I do think that collectively as a people, and as a Nation, we have learned
> that, "Nation Building" don't work! We are not all that eager to engage
> another theocratic Nation-State when we haven't even concluded whatever the
> Hell it is that we are doing in Afghanistan, and especially if there is no
> visible, obvious, clear convincing danger posed to the United States
> and/or the world, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that an attack on Iran is
> imminent. Even the article that Murphy references written by Helprin in
> the WSJ is not calling for an imminent attack on Iran.
>
> We would neverhtless be fools not to watch with interest what takes place
> and transpires in that region of the world. Iran's recent arrogant
> military manuevers in the Straights of Hormuz should have been dealt with,
> and forcefully. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out attack on
> Iran.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, plainolamerican
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Diplomats and leaders, from President
> > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back
> > awhile
> > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start
> > than to
> > get out of.
> > ---
> > those who want war should go expediently
>
> > the peaceful will not miss them
>
> > On Jan 22, 6:28 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > --------
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210
>
> > > By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
> > > posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST
>
> > > The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
> > > opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade ago,
> > > in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink of
> > > obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
> > > certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.
>
> > > The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
> > > that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The current
> > > crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in the
> > > Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran." He
> > > writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't think
> > > rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
> > > attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
> > > existential necessity."
>
> > > Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in California,
> > > even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking gun
> > > of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes: "We
> > > cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds
> > or
> > > less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."
>
> > > RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites
>
> > > To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
> > > uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
> > > sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however – much
> > > as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position of
> > > the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
> > > nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking the
> > > ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.
>
> > > Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying
> > to
> > > develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop
> > a
> > > nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran
> > > is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."
>
> > > And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz
> > > reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
> > > nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials
> > > will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman
> > > of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
> > > poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a
> > unilateral
> > > attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't want to
> > > provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.
>
> > > To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
> > > suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it
> > insists
> > > is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that they
> > > don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
> > > Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
> > > edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
> > > weapons," according to a Reuters translation.
>
> > > War with Iran? A briefing.
>
> > > But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
> > > direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force more
> > > light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire
> > panic?
> > > No.
>
> > > The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however. One of
> > > the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
> > > Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
> > > Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
> > > Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with Iraq
> > > in February 2002.
>
> > > They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are
> > "troubling,"
> > > and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the Islamic
> > > Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
> > > sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given the
> > > likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
> > > United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After
> > all,
> > > Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
> > > revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."
>
> > > They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
> > > popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would lead the
> > > population to rally around the regime. In fact, given the unpopularity of
> > > the government, it seems more likely that the population would see the
> > > regime's inability to forestall the attacks as evidence that the emperor
> > > has no clothes and is leading the country into needlessly desperate
> > > straits. If anything, Iranian nationalism and pride would stoke even more
> > > anger at the current regime."
>
> > > That flies in the face of Iranian history and what most Iranians –
> > > including members of the Green Movement – say about how the population
> > > would respond to war. While there is clearly great discontent with the
> > > regime, and many millions of Iranians would like to throw off clerical
> > > rule, the history of Iran suggests that war would probably result in an
> > > uptick in support for the regime, confronted as it would be by a hostile
> > > foreign power. When Saddam Hussein gambled that Iran was weak in the wake
> > > of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and went to war, the result was a rallying
> > > of support for the fledgling Iranian regime and a ruinous war that helped
> > > the country's new theocrats consolidate their power.
>
> > > For now, the war talk looks set to go on. But with Iranian parliamentary
> > > elections scheduled for March – a chance for the opposition to perhaps
> > > show its political strength, or another occasion for Iran's rulers to fix
> > > the results, as happened in the 2009 presidential reelection – the
> > chances
> > > of action soon are vanishingly slim. Diplomats and leaders, from
> > President
> > > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back awhile
> > > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start than
> > to
> > > get out of.
>
> > > Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.
>
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> > > __._,_.___
> > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > > Messages in this topic (1)
> > > Recent Activity:
>
> > > New Members 2
>
> > > Visit Your Group
> > > Visit our main page!!http://www.rumormillnews.com/
>
> > > Come join the FUN!
> > > CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media
> > > Everyone can post!!
> > > RMN READER'S Forum -http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> > > .
> > > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Should there be any concern that EVERY country in the world hides its'
nuclear enrichment facilities?? yes. Should that include Iran..yes.
Should that concern be given any more weight than it is in Argentina,
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands,
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (and a couple of the USSRs' ex
Satellites), the United Kingdom, and the United States Belgium, Italy,
Spain, Lybia, Niger, Australia, etc. ...I think not.
The US does have a "bunker buster" that goes down three hundred
feet... If it does become a problem. These facilities and the massive
activity they require are not "Hide-able".
On Jan 22, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was a thoughtful article by Dan Murphy, and for the most part, I
> agree with him. I actually agree with PlainOl.....I think.
>
> As Murphy pointed out:
>
> "*The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told
> the Financial Times' German edition yesterday: 'What we know suggests the
> development of nuclear weapons' ".*
>
> This is cause for concern. At least to most Americans, who are familiar
> with the region and the theocratic regime in Tehran.
>
> Nevertheless, the distinction, is that I don't see (or hear) ANYONE (other
> than maybe Rick Santorum, and Santorum's even set preconditions for such an
> attack) calling for an immediate attack on Iran. Should there by concern
> over the fact that Iran seems to be hiding their research and development
> over their nuclear enrichment program? Absolutely.
>
> I do think that collectively as a people, and as a Nation, we have learned
> that, "Nation Building" don't work! We are not all that eager to engage
> another theocratic Nation-State when we haven't even concluded whatever the
> Hell it is that we are doing in Afghanistan, and especially if there is no
> visible, obvious, clear convincing danger posed to the United States
> and/or the world, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that an attack on Iran is
> imminent. Even the article that Murphy references written by Helprin in
> the WSJ is not calling for an imminent attack on Iran.
>
> We would neverhtless be fools not to watch with interest what takes place
> and transpires in that region of the world. Iran's recent arrogant
> military manuevers in the Straights of Hormuz should have been dealt with,
> and forcefully. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out attack on
> Iran.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Diplomats and leaders, from President
> > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back
> > awhile
> > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start
> > than to
> > get out of.
> > ---
> > those who want war should go expediently
>
> > the peaceful will not miss them
>
> > On Jan 22, 6:28 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > --------
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210
>
> > > By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
> > > posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST
>
> > > The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
> > > opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade ago,
> > > in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink of
> > > obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
> > > certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.
>
> > > The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
> > > that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The current
> > > crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in the
> > > Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran." He
> > > writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't think
> > > rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
> > > attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
> > > existential necessity."
>
> > > Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in California,
> > > even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking gun
> > > of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes: "We
> > > cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds
> > or
> > > less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."
>
> > > RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites
>
> > > To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
> > > uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
> > > sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however – much
> > > as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position of
> > > the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
> > > nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking the
> > > ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.
>
> > > Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying
> > to
> > > develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop
> > a
> > > nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran
> > > is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."
>
> > > And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz
> > > reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
> > > nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials
> > > will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman
> > > of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
> > > poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a
> > unilateral
> > > attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't want to
> > > provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.
>
> > > To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
> > > suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it
> > insists
> > > is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that they
> > > don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
> > > Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
> > > edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
> > > weapons," according to a Reuters translation.
>
> > > War with Iran? A briefing.
>
> > > But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
> > > direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force more
> > > light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire
> > panic?
> > > No.
>
> > > The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however. One of
> > > the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
> > > Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
> > > Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
> > > Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with Iraq
> > > in February 2002.
>
> > > They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are
> > "troubling,"
> > > and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the Islamic
> > > Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
> > > sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given the
> > > likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
> > > United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After
> > all,
> > > Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
> > > revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."
>
> > > They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
> > > popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would lead the
> > > population to rally around the regime. In fact, given the unpopularity of
> > > the government, it seems more likely that the population would see the
> > > regime's inability to forestall the attacks as evidence that the emperor
> > > has no clothes and is leading the country into needlessly desperate
> > > straits. If anything, Iranian nationalism and pride would stoke even more
> > > anger at the current regime."
>
> > > That flies in the face of Iranian history and what most Iranians –
> > > including members of the Green Movement – say about how the population
> > > would respond to war. While there is clearly great discontent with the
> > > regime, and many millions of Iranians would like to throw off clerical
> > > rule, the history of Iran suggests that war would probably result in an
> > > uptick in support for the regime, confronted as it would be by a hostile
> > > foreign power. When Saddam Hussein gambled that Iran was weak in the wake
> > > of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and went to war, the result was a rallying
> > > of support for the fledgling Iranian regime and a ruinous war that helped
> > > the country's new theocrats consolidate their power.
>
> > > For now, the war talk looks set to go on. But with Iranian parliamentary
> > > elections scheduled for March – a chance for the opposition to perhaps
> > > show its political strength, or another occasion for Iran's rulers to fix
> > > the results, as happened in the 2009 presidential reelection – the
> > chances
> > > of action soon are vanishingly slim. Diplomats and leaders, from
> > President
> > > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back awhile
> > > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start than
> > to
> > > get out of.
>
> > > Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.
>
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> > > __._,_.___
> > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > > Messages in this topic (1)
> > > Recent Activity:
>
> > > New Members 2
>
> > > Visit Your Group
> > > Visit our main page!!http://www.rumormillnews.com/
>
> > > Come join the FUN!
> > > CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media
> > > Everyone can post!!
> > > RMN READER'S Forum -http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> > > .
> > > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
newt the motivator!
among other things
On Jan 20, 11:14 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Newt is the only conservative candidate that can motivate this Nation once
> again, especially after the last twenty years of Presidents.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:03 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > It's actually a very old story and it should surprise no one. He now
> > has the young trophy wife -- and the bonus is that "God has forgiven
> > him."
>
> > life is good to newt
>
> > On Jan 20, 6:59 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Both men were having affairs while cheating on their wives. The
> > > difference is that Gingrich's cheating was going on at the exact same
> > > time that he was leading the impeachment proceedings against Clinton
> > > for doing the same thing.
> > > The difference is that Gingrich has always put himself forward as a
> > > family values candidate who believes in the sanctity of marriage.
> > > Clinton never did that.
>
> > > Can you picture a swinger as the first lady?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Americans have no need for foreign troops on our soil, we won't
tolerate
that, it
---
too late
On Jan 20, 11:04 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's called "invasion"; and an act of war, which is what we did in Iraq,
> because the Saddam Hussein/Baath Party was a danger to the world, including
> the United States.
>
> The Taiban was training suicidal bombers to come and bomb the United
> States, even after the events at 9/11. We said "ENOUGH"!
>
> Top that off with the big big feeling of "Let's Go Kick Some Ass, We All
> Wanna Little Revenge" right after 9/11.
>
> Americans have no need for foreign troops on our soil, we won't tolerate
> that, it violates every principal of our very core, our very foundation.
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a
> > large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that
> > thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American
> > streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the
> > auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting
> > their strategic interests."
>
> > Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the
> > Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then
> > they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed
> > or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most
> > of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine
> > that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and
> > ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were
> > fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America
> > would be better off without their presence.
>
> > Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that
> > they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our
> > soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were
> > unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists
> > or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or
> > captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that
> > the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans,
> > the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten
> > more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual
> > bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also
> > wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader
> > who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
>
> > Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
>
> > The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as
> > offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would
> > be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here,
> > but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign
> > policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards
> > us.
>
> > According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the
> > prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-
> > evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a
> > right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do
> > so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in
> > some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on
> > our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are
> > military installations. The new administration is not materially
> > changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with
> > semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who
> > simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind
> > in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian
> > soldiers would be in the United States.
>
> > Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations
> > with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite.
> > Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the
> > foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy
> > that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most
> > definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in
> > the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad
> > thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did,
> > when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:47 am, Pradeep Sharma <pradeep.pradeepsha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Clip on American Foreign Policy - Should All American Citizens See This
> > > Video ??!!
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao461iG9UsA
>
> > > __._,_.___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
