Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

For all you moonbats that think diplomacy is the answer to Iran...

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Please understand: They aren't civilized, and dialogue won't cut it

Iran announces it will give Hamas $50 million to meet the bills. Pin
money, you might say. Grenade pin money, more like it.

The day after the award, a suicide bomber kills eight at a lunch stand
in Tel Aviv. Hamas, speaking with the exquisite sense of nuance and reason
that got them elected to run the Palestinian Authority, defends the attack.
They blame Israel's "aggression" -- must have been the flowerpots knocked
over on the way out of Gaza -- and call the action "self-defense."

How should the West respond? With furrowed brows, of course.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, through his spokesperson, called
upon the Palestinian Authority "to take a clear public stand against such
unjustifiable acts of terrorism." In other words, Annan wants Hamas to
condemn as "unjustifiable" something it has just justified. And do so
sincerely. This is the response of civilized men to barbarity: They're
reduced to begging for a lie.

Iran has created an elite squad of dedicated Human Similes, or, as they
call them, "The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers."

These are battalions of suicide bombers who will attack American and
British interests if the West dares to interfere with Iran's nuclear bomb
program.

These heroic would-be falafel-stand exterminators appeared in a recent
parade, "dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around
their waists and detonators held high," according to England's Sunday Times.
Wonderful. How seasonal. In your Martyr's bonnet, with all the wires
upon
it.

Iran says 40,000 have signed up. The Seekers are run by "Dr." Hassan
Abbasi (one suspects the doctoral program requirements are somewhat different in the Islamic Republic), a chap who runs the "Centre for Doctrinal
Strategic Studies" for the Republican Guard.

Surely a country that spells "Centre" in the English fashion can be
reasoned with. Granted, Abbasi has said that "Britain's demise is on our
agenda," but it's a cry for respect, really. When a country announces it has 40,000 suicide bombers, and its president announces that Israel is "a rotten,
dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm" and pledges the destruction
of America, it's a sign we have to sit down and ask: What's on your mind,
really?

Fear not. Oh, we'll talk. And talk and talk. The U.N. has taken the
carrot-and-stick approach. The stick: threatening a fresh round of
scowls from the Security Council. The carrot: Iran has just been elected
deputy for Asian nations for the U.N. commission on . . . disarmament.

That probably comes with an extra parking spot in the U.N. garage.
There's not a member of the diplomatic corps who believes Iran would be stupid enough to jeopardize such a plum. Why, it's close to the elevator. They may be mad, but they're not crazy.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/040...inter_friendly

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Soooo, by your definition, BuSh and Condi are "moonbats"??

Quote:

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Bush Pleased With Iran's Initial Reaction to Incentives Package
Tuesday, June 06, 2006

WASHINGTON — A package of incentives and disincentives to get Iran to stop enriching uranium has not been rejected at first sight, a reaction that President Bush said Tuesday "sounds like a positive step."

"We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously," Bush said in an impromptu conference with reporters in Laredo, Texas, where he was visiting U.S. Border Patrol area headquarters.

"I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way," Bush said. "So it sounds like a positive response to me.

"I want to solve this issue with Iran diplomatically," he added.

In a marked change of tone, Iranian officials did not immediately dismiss the West's latest proposal for ending the nuclear standoff. Personally conveyed by Javier Solana, foreign policy chief of the European Union, the offer emphasizes the positive, a senior Bush administration official told FOX News.

In his presentation of the package, Solana briefed Iranian officials extensively on Tuesday about the incentives involved but "went into a lot less detail" on the disincentives, the official said.

"There are robust measures on both sides, both the incentive side as well as the disincentive side," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in his daily briefing. "It presents the Iranian government with a very clear choice on both sides of the road."

The Bush administration official who spoke to FOX News on condition of anonymity said it was possible Solana transmitted paperwork to the Iranians outlining the incentives, but certainly did not transmit any paperwork on the disincentives. The decision to convey less information about the disincentives to the Iranians was agreed upon in advance by the six powers, made up of the U.N. Security Council's permanent members — the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China — plus Germany, who crafted the package.

If no deal is reached, the Security Council could move to sanctions such as travel and financial restrictions on Iranian officials.

The package is said to include a promise of a waiver of U.S. legal restrictions to allow export of some agricultural technology and U.S. and European backing for Iran to join the World Trade Organization, diplomats and others said.

Other sources have said that the offer also provides access to American nuclear technology, help in building light-water reactors and long-sought aircraft and spare parts from Boeing and Airbus.

Asked about the technical help offered in the package, McCormack urged reporters to take the leaks, which appeared to have come from European diplomats in Vienna, with a "grain of salt."

"U.S. security guarantees, U.S.-based security guarantees, U.S. participation in security guarantees ... not on the table," he said, adding that the negotiations are not taking place in Vienna, though that's where the deal was struck for the package contents among the six powers involved.

The senior administration official would not confirm or deny any elements in the package to FOX News, but when asked about that specific alleged elements, said a report containing the technology incentives "was a little overwritten."

Receiving the briefing in Tehran was the country's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, who was "welcoming" of Solana's visit and promised to look "seriously" at the package presented, but said "ambiguities" in it need to be removed.

Larijani also falsely portrayed the diplomatic initiative as one in which the United States is not involved.

"We recognize Europe's decision for solving Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations as a positive step," he said.

After his meeting, Solana returned to Brussels, from where he called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the details of his visit.

Recounting the discussion, McCormack said Solana called the meeting "very useful and constructive," but said the Iranians told him that they would consider the proposal but need time to review it. Solana said that he would be in contact with the Iranians in the coming days about the proposal, according to McCormack.

He added that the United States will give Iran "a little bit of space" to consider the package, but repeated that the offer is not open-ended.

"It's a matter of weeks, not months," he said.

"We want to give this every opportunity to succeed," McCormack added. "The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage ... We want to give them a little bit of space to consider what's in the package, both on the positive as well as the negative side."

The Bush administration would not say exactly how long it will refrain from discussing specifics of the package, but White House press secretary Tony Snow put the onus on Iran.

"If the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, then we'll be able to discuss more openly what the incentives are, and we certainly hope that that's the case," Snow said.

Despite the renewed negotiations, a policy decision pushed by Rice about six weeks ago, the Bush administration still considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and its leaders grossly anti-Semitic.

Still, Rice determined that only direct U.S. involvement could restart stalled negotiations with the Iranians, and last week, the United States offered to bargain directly with the Iranians if they first put disputed nuclear development on hold.

FOX News' James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Soooo, by your definition, BuSh and Condi are "moonbats"??

You ability to misunderstand the situation and overly simplify things to the point they no longer resemble truth is amazing. What must your "reality" be like.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Soooo, by your definition, BuSh and Condi are "moonbats"??

I love Johnny. Some day I have to have a beer or two with this guy.

Very entertaining.

Posted by: fossten

Actually, (and this is just my opinion, not any facts that I can prove) I think Bush and Condi would just as soon bomb Iran flat starting yesterday. But they are intelligently and wisely laying a paper trail of documentable actions starting with diplomacy so that NO LIBERAL WACKJOB MURTHAS OR KERRYS IN CONGRESS OR ANYWHERE ELSE will be able to say he rushed us into war with bad intel.

They've learned the lesson from Iraq and the Drive-by media and the libwacks in Congress, that it's best to proceed carefully and predictably while getting these liars on record as saying that we need to take care of Iran. Not that it made any difference in Iraq, though. He did the same thing there, including more than a dozen UN resolutions, and they still all say he lied to get us into war. Can't win with these people, that's why we should just go in there and bomb away.

Personally, I think anybody who thinks we can effectively negotiate with somebody as insane as Mahmoud needs to have his/her head checked.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I'm thinking 2 dozen MOAB's should do the trick with very little collateral damage.

Chris Matthews last night was trying to make Trent Lott PROMISE that BUSH would not attack without a Declaration of War from Congress. It was pretty damn funny.

I feel sorry for this Country if/and/or/when the wussy Dems ever get into power.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I'm thinking 2 dozen MOAB's should do the trick with very little collateral damage.

Chris Matthews last night was trying to make Trent Lott PROMISE that BUSH would not attack without a Declaration of War from Congress. It was pretty damn funny.

I feel sorry for this Country if/and/or/when the wussy Dems ever get into power.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work though? Congress declares war and then the President reacts?

Posted by: DixieRambler

I bet the Iranians are glad Ronald Reagan is no longer around! He would not tolerate their BS.......period. Ask Kadhafi, he'll tell you what it would be like if "Dutch" was still with us.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Isn't that how it's supposed to work though? Congress declares war and then the President reacts?

You're not going to make me dredge up that Congressional resolution telling Bush to deal with Iraq, are you? 'Cause I'd hate to have to embarrass you again.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Isn't that how it's supposed to work though? Congress declares war and then the President reacts?

Matthews 'intent' was that if Bush even set-a-foot in Iran, he should be impeached. I laughed my ass off.

Once again, liberals just don't get it. For them to act, we would need Washington D.C. to be turned into a nuclear graveyard. And then they would cry like pussies and look for someone (like the Chinese) to help us out. It would be so pathetic.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You're not going to make me dredge up that Congressional resolution telling Bush to deal with Iraq, are you? 'Cause I'd hate to have to embarrass you again.

Do you ever watch South Park? I doubt it but anyways, what you said reminded me of the episode where Stan's Uncle (one of the shows antagonist) takes the kids hunting where it's illegal to hunt. So he tells the kids, "You can only shoot an animal if it poses a threat to you." Afterwards he proceeds to yell out "Look, it's coming straight for us!" to any animal he see's and <blam> kills every single animal in the forest from chipmonk to deer to rabbit.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

LOL that's funny, but I don't see how that makes your point. South Park episodes don't prove anything. If that's the level that you need your politics to be at in order to understand it, though, I'm not going to stand in your way.

Go ahead and step into this obvious trap that I've laid out for you and see what happens, buddy.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Lol... I didn't say South Park was political.

Oooooo a trap! I know where you're going with this, "The President has the authourity and the responsibility to protect America from any and all threats." (or something along those lines)
Though I do agree with you on that, it has become a Republican talking point for any issue Bush is questioned on, which happens to be all of them. Hence my (jokingly) reference to 'IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!' <BLAM>

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Actually, the trap I was referring to was this:

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Actually, the trap I was referring to was this:

Looks like a bear stepped in that little rabit trap... We're talking about Iran not Iraq right since Iraq been going on since 2002?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Looks like a bear stepped in that little rabit trap... We're talking about Iran not Iraq right since Iraq been going on since 2002?

I'm talking about Iraq. Obviously you would have to be referring to Iraq as well, since that's the latest example of your South Park "analogy." Bush didn't attack Iraq without Congress, did he?

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

See thats because GW has used up all his trust with the American people. He couldnt wage war against his own family compound in Kennebunkport.

I think he should have gone to Iran instead of Iraq, because thats the true threat. Iraq was nothing.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Oh, sure, it's easy for you to say in hindsight. But I don't think you said anything of the sort 5 years ago. That's because you didn't know anything about Iran's nuke program back then. And Mahmoud hadn't been elected yet. So Iran actually wasn't in our crosshairs.

You sound like the guy in the movie theater at the end of the movie saying, "I knew that was going to happen."

Nice try.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

CATCH UP! I did TOO say this before the war. And dont give me this BS that Iran wasnt in our crosshairs. Remember the "Axis of Evil" --- Our wonderful president got his crayons out and pointed and the easiest of the 3 countries to attack - and still made a mess.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Take out a world globe and spin it to the Mid East. Then take a close look at the area geographically. And then take out some pins and place them in areas where the US has a presense or at least some type of agreement with the local government. Therein you will find the answer you seek.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Huh? I dont seek any answer -

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Huh? I dont seek any answer -

The answer of why we didn't 'attack' Iran first in our quest to conquer the axis of evil.

World domination is kind of playing dominoes. If you want to knock them all down, you have to start at the right place in line.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Huh? I dont seek any answer -

Therein lies the truth - and the problem.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

So you admit the goal is world domination.....

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

So you admit the goal is world domination.....

Haha.

I used the term as bait. After all, that is what the Left says the U.S. is up to. That we are the bad guys. They we attack vs liberate, etc. etc.

So no, I don't think the U.S. is interested in world domination. We are simply interested in protecting our rights, interests and way of life here in the U.S., while at the same time defending those same rights for individuals and countries that are unable to defend themselves or are incapable of achieivng those rights on their own..

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

So you admit the goal is world domination.....

You know, Joey, if you'd stop squinting in your rage, you'd have seen that little rolleyes smilie at the end of Bryan's post.

Haven't you ever read the Truman Doctrine? Don't act ignorant. I know you know what the role of the U.S. is in the world.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

So no, I don't think the U.S. is interested in world domination. We are simply interested in protecting our rights, interests and way of life here in the U.S., while at the same time defending those same rights for individuals and countries that are unable to defend themselves or are incapable of achieivng those rights on their own..

That I can live with