Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Israel air force is ready to attack Iran

Posted By: because Iran as of today is now on 2008-11-20
In Reply to:

capable of making nuclear bomb.  I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran.  My question is if the US is going to help?  I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel.  I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states. 


The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75885&sectionid=351020104


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455005,00.html


This is about Iran nuclear capibility as of today from Fox news. 


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Iran warns US. Israel Livini Blasts O's Iran plan

Iran warns US.


http://www.startribune.com/world/33937339.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU


Israel concerned about ties with new US administration.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=060dd72c-c876-4e0d-b39f-c835c26b256c


And we have to worry about our own economy.  Afraid to find out what is next.


oops: I did mean Israel & Iran.
Afghanistan & Pakistan are no picnic, either.
I think if Israel slings anything at Iran....
it would not just be rockets, and if someone had said I had no right to exist, I might consider slinging some rockets at them myself. I'm just sayin.

And as to Obama being able to hold them back...if he can't be bothered to shake his finger at Iran for crushing protests on worldwide TV, what on earth would make you think he could or would if he could hold Israel back? I have seen nothing to indicate that Barack Obama cares a hoot in heck what happens to Israel. If you look at his connections and who he has loaded his administration with...their agenda is certainly not pro Israel and to be frank I believe they consider Israel expendable, and if the palestinians get taken out as collateral damage...well...you should watch that posted video, and then you should look at a list of the Bilderberg group. Funny how the left always wanted to talk about it because there were many of right in the group...well, there are certainly a lot more of the left in it, and a ton of those are in the present administration. But now that they are in power, amazing how the Bilderberg group is no longer the big bad...sorry for borrowing your moniker there. lol.
I assumed you meant Israel and Iran.
Iran's potential for nuclear weapons? A war between them is not likely, unless Israel initiates a Bush-style "premptive strike." Given their history of aggressive militarism, this is not entirely inconceivable. Ask yourself a few questions. When was the last time in modern history that Iran declared war or invaded another country, keeping in mind that Iraq invade Iran, not the other way around? Now, when was the last time Israel declared war and/or invaded another country, i.e., Syria, Egypt, Lebanon multiple times?

Despite Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, thanks to the US taxpayers, he can never hope to catch up with the nuclear arsenals now housed in Israel....and he knows that. Consider the case of Korea. Bush bullied North Korea around relentlessly UNTIL they succeeded in developing nukes. After that, W sure did start singing a different tune, didn't he? Stunning reversal in attitude.

As long as US nuclear policy is "do as I say, not as I do" and continues to bankroll nuclear stockpile arsenals in their Middle East military staging base, the region will remain unstable....just the way the US likes it, at least so far. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran just MIGHT bring about the same sort of results it did in Korea and serve as a moderating force. This is where diplomacy comes into play. Open discussions held in good faith (so far not possible in view of sanctions and all those Israeli NUKES) that encourage nuclear energy and discourage nuclear weaponry in Iran along with incentives (such as easing sanctions, for starters) would go a long way in at least bringing some HOPE for stability in the region. War there is not a foregone conclusion...unless we elect another saber-rattler.
Oh, I think Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel...
from the map, to me, gives them a right to be be concerned, doncha think? Oh my all means, given Iran a nuke and see how that stabilizes everything. Even Obama is not goofy enough to say that...HE said a nuke in the hands of Iran was unacceptable. Now whether that means Ahmadinejad would not be welcome for tea...not altogether sure.
US attack on Iran may prompt terror













  MSNBC.com

U.S. attack on Iran may prompt terror
Experts say strikes on nuclear facilities could spark worldwide retaliation


By Dana Priest


Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET April 2, 2006



As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.


Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.


U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.


Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.


Bigger threat than al-Qaeda?
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.



The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.


Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.


Rise in tension raises stakes
Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.


U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.


Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.


History of reprisals
Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.


Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.


Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.


Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.


Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.



Agencies mum on true threat
The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.


We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.


The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.


Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.


As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.


Facilities make difficult targets
Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.


A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.


Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.


Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.


Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69717&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f12114512%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s53651515372730?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=2/3/2006%2011%3A47%3A43%200%20360&pageName=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=World%20News&v1=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c3=Dana%20Priest&c4=World%20News&c5=washingtonpost.com%20Highlights&v5=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=12114512&c16=Story&c18=00&c20=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c24=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c39=ON&pid=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7Cp1&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2712114512%27%29&ot=A&oi=631&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2006 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/


Kristol said people of Iran would embrace US attack. sm

More warmongering from the lunatic neocons.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/


 


Why do you feel the desperate need to attack, attack, attack....
what IS it about Obama that inspires this kind of thing? I guess you don't get it when someone is being facetious do you? Read the whole thread...including the part about celestial choirs, which was said by one of Obama's supporters.

The smoke machines and strobe lights was definitely a joke, one can only hope they would not do something so ridiculous but who knows....Britney Spears' set designer designed that set.

So much for no celebrity status. LOL.
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
O says that he will force insurance
companies to insure preexisting conditions. That sounds like something that will put them out of business to me. No need to buy insurance until you need it. Think of all the lost jobs.
PS, NOT ENCOURAGE, FORCE!!
XX
Require = force
xx
I don't believe I force people

to convert to my religion.  I don't kill in the name of my God.  I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it.  What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here.  A war were people want me and you dead.  I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process.  Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that.  So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist. 


I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm
.....having a good ol' time ganging up on me....I have come to expect no less from the left on this site.

She's dynamite and will get rave reviews....wait and see....wait and see.....


Once again, a "civilian military force" that is

ENDORSED BY BUSH.


That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.


Keep believing all the hype and the lies.  That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.


There is no force involved whatsoever. I do it
because I "choose" to do what the Bible commands.  I love the Lord and want to do what His Word says.  There is nothing forced about.  If you don't think it's a sin, that is your perogative.  I, however, feel that it is and that is my perogative, too. 
I don't really understand the civilian force...
why not just beef up the military we already have? But, I don't actually think that it will ever happen, at least not to the extent that people are thinking and during Barrack's presidency. Americans will not allow that to come to fruition. It would take a very long gradual change for something like this to be implemented and accepted.
Does this help. Homeland security force.

KNOWN AS HOMELAND SECURITY FORCE, CIVIL DEFENSE.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=related


This is about freedom of speech being taken away.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_llXvTx5g


This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQ68jBGK8o&feature=related


 


From a founding member of Delta Force
http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3641046

'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush
By David Kronke, TV Critic
U-Entertainment
Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for Inside Delta Force (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for The Unit, CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against American Idol, The Unit shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.

Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of The Unit.

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say we, because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed � which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, Well, they do it to us. Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

THE UNIT

What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.

---
David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com
It's a beautiful thing to see dems out in force
nm
I see the Witches of Leftwick are out in force today....sm
just posting under different names.

Halloween must be around the corner.



wait for it......



.......the pig comments are about to be unleashed.....lol.....again.....
Civilian National Security Force...

These are Obama's words...


"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s


 


Civilian National Security Force
From FactCheck.org (Complete analysis at link below.)

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
They are also a viable grass roots political force
in the region, just like Hezbollah. How successful was Israel in trying to eradicate Hezbollah by bombing them off the face of the earth just 2 short years ago in Lebanon? The harder they try to suppress with violence, starvation, dehumanization, occupation and genocidal wars, the stronger those movements become. Israel is the consummate poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity.

Until the US and Israel have the guts to come to terms with the root causes of WHY these Islamic movements are gaining such traction across the board in the region, we are doomed to stay mired in the same atrocious tit-for-tat cycles of wholesale slaughter and human suffering. There seems to be an endless supply of that on both sides of the fence. The question is why and what can e do to effect a different outcome? Here's a clue for you. End the occupation.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE KORAN FORCE PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO ISLAM?..
Are you still living in the stone ages?
Big Brother is I believe a covert force infiltrating each and every one's personal lives without
their knowledge. That is hardly the same thing as a poster on an MT board noticing that 4 different names post the same thing. I think that is creepy.  I have been on this board for a long time and I recognize patterns, phrases that are repeated verbatim from far in the past, things people remember about me and say something like ***weren't you the one who ....*** and it is posted under a name different from the original. I leave Big Brother to our shadow government, wherever they are.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.





Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.


The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.


If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.


The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.


Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.


On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.


The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).


Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.


Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.


He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.


We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.


The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.












 
 







 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.

Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.

Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.

So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
We are ready
I too have heard the same thing about O's safety. It truly saddens my heart when I hear this. I truly hope that all it is is rumors spread by sick people. I'd also want to get down to the bottom of it and find out who started the rumor and make it stop. I on the other hand believe the opposite of the country. I believe the country is ready for a black president. The US is a very big place and I think while you may run into racists in any area, each area is just such a small part of the whole country. I do believe the country is more ready for a black president than they are a woman president. I am a woman and I do not want a woman president and I know lots of men are voting for O because if she gets in there the men in the country will be destroyed. If we had a different woman running it might be different, but her past speaks for itself. However, with all that said, we should also remember that he is half white. It's funny that people refer to him as a black person, but because his mother was white why don't we ever respond or say he's also half white. Just doesn't make sense to me, if someone is half black/half white why are they referred to as one or the other. I'm half Puerto Rican, but my other side (Irish) is what I look more like. Sometimes I have to remind people that refer to me as white that I am half puerto rican and they just look at me odd. The other thing to remember is that all the most of the southern states voted overwhelmingly for O and not the other. I think if someone is so stupid to vote (or not vote) for someone because of their race then they will vote McCain. I do understand your comment about liberals and god. I think its just that the republicans are so "in your face" with their religion and dems are more laid back not letting you know where they stand on their beliefs in god. We all have different beliefs on religion, but I can't stand the people who wear their religion on their sleeve and throw it in your face and consider you a heathen because you don't belong to "their group" - sorry....I am actually talking about my own relatives....too sad a story...and that's a whole nother topic not for this board.
I was ready to go to war on 9/11
but I didn't know we were going to do the Iraqi freedom thing, I thought we were going to hunt down bin Laden who orchestrated the disaster.  Must have misunderstood.
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out' sm-long article
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'

· Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May
· Plan follows pressure for exit strategy


Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer



British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.


Have you ever seen a cow getting ready to be slaughtered
It is the most horrible horrible thing. You can see in the cows eyes the absolute fear it is going through. It also screams in pain.

Of course people who like to eat meat will argue with that, but a facts a fact.
She's not even ready to be elected

i'm sure he is ready to leave,
and would not worry about that. Also am glad that the provisions are in place for every kind of emergency, including directive 51, to preserve the integrity of our government. If the terrorists will try again, i'm sure they'll wait to test Obama rather than mess with Bush. You'd best worry instead whether Obama will be ready 'on day 1'.
Get ready for $8/gallon gas.....sm

I was talking with a friend who is a field consultant in the oil industry.  He said that it is very possible that OPEC has plans to terminate the US contract on or about March 14 in which the US gets the lion's share of OPEC oil.  He said what will happen is that instead of the US getting the largest supply of foreign oil, that oil will now be distributed to European countries who have gotten only the "leftovers" in the past and will now leave the US to get the "leftovers."  This, combined with decreased domestic drilling, will create higher oil and gas prices in the US. 

He has been out of work since long before Christmas and is now looking at the very real possibility of having to relocate his family to Saudi in order to make a living.  He and his wife are not wanting to take this route, but with the jobs drying up here, it may be his only alternative if he wishes to remain in the oil industry which is the only work he has ever done. 

There is a pipe yard located about 30 miles from here in which there are a lot of drilling towers just sitting on the yard, and that is only one of many such yards in the area. 


So get ready to either pay through the nose for gas or buy a horse and buggy!


Get ready for $8/gallon gas.....sm

I was talking with a friend who is a field consultant in the oil industry.  He said that it is very possible that OPEC has plans to terminate the US contract on or about March 14 in which the US gets the lion's share of OPEC oil.  He said what will happen is that instead of the US getting the largest supply of foreign oil, that oil will now be distributed to European countries who have gotten only the "leftovers" in the past and will now leave the US to get the "leftovers."  This, combined with decreased domestic drilling, will create higher oil and gas prices in the US. 

He has been out of work since long before Christmas and is now looking at the very real possibility of having to relocate his family to Saudi in order to make a living.  He and his wife are not wanting to take this route, but with the jobs drying up here, it may be his only alternative if he wishes to remain in the oil industry which is the only work he has ever done. 

There is a pipe yard located about 30 miles from here in which there are a lot of drilling towers just sitting on the yard, and that is only one of many such yards in the area. 


So get ready to either pay through the nose for gas or buy a horse and buggy!


Thanks - was just getting ready to put in an order
Will check those out too.
Let's get ready to RUMBLE
We're trying to have intelligent discourse. Not mob mentality ready to roll around in the mud. That is what is pathetic.
Whether I'm **ready to meet him** is something
and it's none of your business.
We'll be ready for it.

I think I posted an article on this further down on the page.


The anti-missle defense in Hawaii is ready with missles that can take out NK's missles without a problem. Anyhow, they don't believe NK has enough fire power to make it to Hawaii. Hawaii is 4500 miles away, while the missle is only supposed to be good for 4000 miles.


Now, Alaska is a different story, but they are also on alert. 


I trust our miliary. I think our country will be safe. S. Korea, though, is another story if he sets off a nuclear warhead like he threatened. That nut keeps telling his people that WE are threatening nuclear war with THEM and have built up the nuclear war defenses on the DMZ.


This is probably ONE of the tests Biden talked about. The other one is Iran.


 


Ready for a Redistricting Boom? sm
June 29, 2006
Ready for a Redistricting Boom?
Look for several states to rejigger congressional districts in the wake of the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling upholding the Texas legislature's 2003 decision to draw a new map, advises Kiplinger Forecasts. The Court made it clear that states can rewrite boundaries whenever they want, not just after the Census every 10 years. That means the congressional landscape in Washington can change every time one party gains control over a state's government. Although the Supreme Court's decision is a big victory for Republicans, and specifically for former Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who engineered the redistricting, redistricting by other states may have the GOP ruing the day.

New maps may well put more Democrats in the House of Representatives, possibly enough to tip the balance of power from Republicans to Democrats. We expect Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York to wind up with Democrats in control of both the governor's mansion and the state legislature after the November elections. So redistricting in those states might shift enough seats to the Democratic column to give that party a majority.

Washington Wire: The Supreme Court’s decision is the culmination of one of the hardest fought redistricting battles in history.

The best analysis of the court decision comes from Rick Hasen and Nathaniel Persily.

Meanwhile, a Houston Chronicle editorial calls it a pyrrhic victory for Texas. If Wednesday's court decision was a victory for Texas, another such victory, and we are undone.

are we ready for a black president?
-Chris Rock
But a VP should also be ready to be commander-in-chief should something...sm
happen to the President so what does this say about what McCain has been saying about his opponent's lack of experience? His VP pick is the same age?!?!

I think his pick will hurt him more than help him and I have absolutely nothing against her at all...
Palin not ready for the press

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259517

Todd Harris, a GOP strategist, and McCain aide Nicole Wallace both said Sarah Palin won’t be available to the press. They said might make a mistake and American people don’t care about Palin talking to the press.
Todd Harris, GOP Strategist who is also close to the McCain campaign, told Chris Matthews, MSNBC that Palin won’t be available to the press for about two weeks. He said she might make a mistake in the show.

If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt McCain for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.

And the GOP is proud in making such a decision, despite telling everyone she has more experience than Obama and Biden.

In the second video, McCain aide Nicole Wallace told Time’s Jay Carney and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC that the press will not be given a chance to take shots at Palin. She said American people don’t care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. She said the public will know about her from Palin’s scripted speeches and appearances on the campaign trail and in political ads.

Jay Carney responded with the following statement:

Wallace's bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won't lift McCain to 50% in November. More importantly, in her smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters.

If she is not ready now, how can we expect that she will be ready in the next few months? Is there a two-month crash course for Presidency?
Joe Biden also said that Obama was not ready...
to be President. Is HE sticking by that? Sorry to you to...lol
I'm about ready to pull what little money I have -
out of the bank and bury it in the backyard!  What about you?
I dont ready your posts cause

they are usually wrong.  Sorry.


 


Get Ready to Pay off your credit cards
The government is looking into buying some banks instead of subprime mortgages.  They are going to need some capital.  All ready to pay up?
I'll go with you; pitchfork at the ready!
*
The pubs were armed and ready, too
Why don't you talk out of both sides of your mouth?