It wouldn't **** me off. I just think that every other option should be explored before we just start firing off bombs. If it comes down to it I'm all for taking care of business. I would just hate to see Iran turn into another Iraq.
All I'm saying is that we should wait it out and see what happens before we get trigger happy. Maybe all they really want to do is generate nucular power.

 

How could you forget about The Coalition of the Willing?

Albania
Czech Republic
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Iceland
Lithuania
Macedonia
Nicaragua
Philippines
Uzbekistan

 

What, is there like 35 troops combines in all of those countries?

 

[QUOTE=tardman91]The reason everyone hates us is because the US has become the big international bully.
QUOTE]



hmm. eeyeah, I'd rather another country be the big international bully. Tardman, if you don't like it...leave it.

 

http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#list4

 

What a website.

And I thought Joe's post was bizarre.

It is just tough to put a positive spin on the 'coalition' reasoning Bush used in the early stages of selling the war to us.

He was quick to say we weren't going it alone, that 34 Countries were with us.

Thirtyfour !

 

What's so bizarre about posting the actual numbers? I agree that support isn't impressive. With France and Russia not supporting the action, there are a lot of countries that follow them, or don't want to be caught in the middle politically. There is much more to this than, "We're wrong because we're there alone." France, Russia, and Germany all had financial reasons to leave Iraq just the way it was under Saddam Hussein.

 

Because someone bothered to post numbers to prop up the 'truth' that we had 34 coalition partners.

Let's not argue truths, half-truths.

I found something interesting on the wiretap issue.
This is what's known, the wiretapping without FISA court order began shortly after Sep 2001, approved by the President.

This is the President trying to get the Patriot Act renewed in Apr 2004...

"...Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Truth, half-truth, no-truth, you make the call.

link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html

 

...the court established by FISA granted 15,624 warrants between 1979 and 2002 and declined zero.


I'm not sure whether the law has been broken or not; but, as far as civil liberties go, how much difference is there between going to the court for a rubber stamp and bypassing the court altogether? Hmmm?

 

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ism-foolme.htm

 

OK, the above link should work now.

 

That one is easy.
The technology has changed and so has the electronic eavesdropping

The upteen thousand that were approved by the court weren't rubber stamped, they were legit.

It was kinda like a Fishing license.
You had a rod, a line, a hook and you wanted a fish.
You showed the court your equipment and they nodded, they nodded 15,642 times.

Now the technology for fishing has changed.

No rod, no line, no hook.

You throw a huge net out.
You get all the fish in the area.
You keep whatever you want, throw back the rest.

No way George Bush could have gone to the Court and get that approved
and that's why he bypassed the court.

Maybe you and I are in the net and maybe we ain't.
Old george ain't saying and I wouldn't trust him if he did.

 

I think I heard that on Jon Stewart's Daily show....I still laugh when I think of his face. He had me tearing up just looking at his expressions in reaction to Bush's statement.

I felt bad just watching Bush trying to get through that tidbit of wisdom.

 

One thing's for sure... They'll never call him "Slick".

 

Not entirely true. For the first couple of decades it was; but, not all the way through 2002.

People listen to other people's conversations everyday. It's what they do with the info they glean that is important. When someone that isn't a threat to national security is convicted due to Homeland Security wiretaps, I'll be upset about it, too.