We are heading toward a civil war of a magnitude we cannot foresee
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-10-24 In Reply to:
Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful.This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected.People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President.They will go against the constitution just to get him elected.Why?I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President.If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger.There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they’ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don’t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country).We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face – I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed.Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that.Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won’t release his own.Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this – especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains “full” records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn’t that go for Obama too? Then there is the issue of his school records. Why is he desperately trying to suppress those. Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen. You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one. Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama. Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich. I'd even be okay with Edwards.
But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be “riots in the streets like we haven’t seen”, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind.You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.
Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens.We are suffering.There’s no doubt about it.We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering.We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor.More and more people’s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless.Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer.The latest saying in the Washington political scene is “if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave”.Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us.They don’t care about us - they don’t care one iota.They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.
All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities.And the country will see a civil distress.Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn’t.
People need to wake up.The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that.It’s all very sickening.I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain.Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not).If McCain gets in don’t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal.That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
05/11/2006 @ 10:53 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna
Use of Iraq terror group bypassed Congress, sources say
Advertisement
Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.
According to military and intelligence sources, an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table.
Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an immediate need.
In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window, says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to shore up enough support to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.
A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.
The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having their own way.
Strike could come earlier than thought
Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.
Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.
Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.
I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area, Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.
In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.
I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States, Gardiner explained. I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia.
Finally, he added, a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships.
Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.
The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations, Aftergood said. With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles.
Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.
Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.
All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and pause assessment.
Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. Most of the strikes would be at night, he said. The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets.
After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue, he added.
The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.
Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’
As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).
Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.
In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.
According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.
Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers, the Iranian news service reported.
Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005, it added.
Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.
One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a Cambone operation than a Department of Defense operation.
Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.
During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.
There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis, a reporter asked. Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?
Our policies haven't changed on those organizations, McClellan said. They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations.
We would never cooperate with them, in terms of— the questioner continued.
Our policy hasn't changed, McClellan replied.
Military, intelligence community alarmed
According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran, Hersh wrote.
The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.
[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill, one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.
For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.
During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war. All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over. The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea. The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs. The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered.
Are all you republicans rich? Don't fight for them, they are on vacation.
Thank you van - and thank you for being civil
Everyone here gave me a headache I shut it down for awhile. Talk about jumping on and attacking. Heaven forbid anyone should ever put their opinions or beliefs up on this board.
You are correct and I did state in one (if not more) that I was incorrect and he did not lie. But even after saying that they kept attacking and attacking. Then bringing up past posts that had nothing to do with this.
You raise a good point about bin Laden, I never thought of that. He could have died of natural causes and be buried somewhere. It's not like he was the most vigorous being (healthwise). Who knows?
Catching him two years ago would have meant more politically and *antiterror* wise than it would mean today.
I definitely agree with you - we all need to be civil
Sharing one's viewpoints is one thing. There is no need to call people nasty names. Those other bashings you are talking about came after I posted my message, so I didn't see them.
I hate to quote Rodney King but we all do need to get along. Having one viewpoints is important (it's what makes us human beings), but not everyone will agree with us, and as you stated in your message calling you a d-bag (that has got to be so low class) just because you don't agree with someone? I think I called someone that in high school (but that was over 30 years ago). We will all disagree about issues, but I hope people would be nicer and just say "I disagree and this is why", and leave it at that.
I am sorry you were called all those horrible things. I just want you to know that with our disagreements I in no uncertain terms think you are a d-bag or jerk or anything horrible like that. You are a person just like me. Strong in our beliefs, just different in our ways.
You do Civil War re-enactment?
Politics aside, I feel like I'm meeting some new FRIENDS on this board! By any chance are you going to participate in the Prairie Grove, Arkansas re-enactment the 1st weekend in Dec? We're working to get recognition for the Battle of Cane Hill and hopefully in the next few years we'll have a re-enactment here.
Why have civil defense. NM
x
Civil Defense
civil defense: NOUN: abbr. CD A range of emergency measures to be taken by an organized body of civilian volunteers for the protection of life and property in the event of natural disaster or enemy attack.
Well....civil unions would have
to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.
For someone who "laments" civil debate
you do a fair job of attacking me - it at least feels like one - and I am hardly a Republican... something you obviously hate.
I totally share your disgust of the fascists in power and those who defend them. But if you think for a New York Second the Democrats are much less corrupt you are fooling yourself.
Ask yourself WHY in the face of clear criminal conduct the Democrats have not only successfully challenged bu$h but have HELPED TO ADVANCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS AGENDA (POLICIES).
You do a little real research on this and get back to me. Maybe then you'll hve a better idea why I am a recovering Democrat.
Clinton himself said it best: Fool me once (democratic party), shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.
They are the first to invoke their civil liberties. sm
And the first to silence others who do not agree with them. They have attempted to bring the office of the Presidency down to their level...disrespectful, unhallowed, a slip shod Animal House with pizza lovers who trash the house when they leave and steal all the W's from the keyboards. Their beloved Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to people who had no awe of anything, much less respect for all who slept there before. They had sex with young interns and said it wasn't sex. They lied under oath and brought their shady cronyism into the White House. Theyrefused background FBI checks and refused to have their medical records made public, both firsts in any presidency. In other words, THEY HAD NO RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE. This from a man who promised the most ethical presidency ever. And those very same people who continue to support Clinton to this day swear it was all about sex post on this very board about following rules. It boggles the mind.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Currently in Kentucky ther is a civil
trial going on against members of the KKK for beating up someone at one of the county fairs.
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
Civil marriages don't just involve
Lots of people are married by JPs. Have for years. And a church might decide that they would not hire a heterosexual on the basis that they "weren't married in the church". Granted, most don't even inquire, but it could happen, if we accept the governor's ridiculous statement. And he suggests that if they did, it would be hunky-dory. Churches aren't required to recognize "civil marriages" by his pronouncement. This would obviously have to include homosexual and heterosexual marriages or now we have a THIRD type of marriage.
My point is that there is no legal differentiation between a "civil marriage" and one that is performed in a church and never has been. If the governor is now suggesting that there is such a difference, he is nuts.
House Debate and Passage The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.
This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.
I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.
I think history has established that slavery is wrong. I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago! I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves. So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president? What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election? Who is making race an issue here? I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black. They did not suffer as slaves. They did not have to overcome slavery. And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know. Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud!
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board
Believing that the whole thing is one intermingled war in the middle east is not spin. Those are my beliefs. When I talk to my friend and she talks about her husband in Iraq and she says the middle east, then she talks about her son in Afghanistan and she refers that to the middle east, that is why I always believed both countries are in the middle east. That is not spin???? And for pete's sake don't call me ignorant!!!! Like I said I always believed both Iraq and Afghanistan were in the middle east. I'm not trying to incite war against Obama - sheesh! Get a grip. I read a news story and posted it here about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. The article said 17,000 troops are going to Afghanistan. That is not spin, that is citing a news article I read. He lied - Okay I'm wrong about that. He did not lie about the sending troops to Afghanistan thing (I don't remember him saying he would send them, but I've heard they are on youtube and if they are on youtube then I believe JTBB (she's the one who pointed me in the right direction).
You know I could say a lot of negative and nasty words to you like you did to me, but I'd probably be banned, so I'd appreciate it if you keep your closed minded opinions to yourself. Your whole post to me sounds like BS in itself and your just too eager to attack.
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
Civil Liberty Effects - Police State Pizza
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
National security? Civil liberties? Must be socialist conspiracy
This is an amazing article that not too suprisingly will probably go unaddressed, right along with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae corporate bailout story. The're too busy getting ready for the coronation ball. However, I just wanted to thank you for passing this along. The links and other articles also lead to some insightful and interesting reads on stories that will probably end up thrown under the royal coach. Let them eat cake!
Community service and CIVIL service - not the same thing nm
x
marks the location of current message within thread
Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.
