Well we finally got the go ahead to attack those freedom hating

[dawgman]

Syrians. I say good, s@#w the B@st@rds.
(sarcasm off) syrian accountability bill passes in landslide and now Syria is officially a "haven of terrorists".

[Wickerman]

1. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us

35 times...

Unbelievable. And today's speech in England was PNAC defined. All war, all the time.

[dawgman]

2. Do the dems who voted for this really disbelieve the idea that

this bill will be used as a pretext for war? For Christ's sake wake the fuck up. Syria will probably be forced to try and prove a negative again. Prove to us that you don't do this, but if you deny that you do this is means you are lying. This is sickening.

[Wickerman]

3. I agree with you on everything except one small point

Get that Pic outta your sig line! My Vikes got enough trouble!

[dawgman]

6. You know the Vikes actually started to slide the week after I put it up.

[Wickerman]

7. Damn you, damn you all to hell!

er, just kidding, 'kay mods?

:evilgrin:

[dawgman]

9. I just made the connection and it is gone will find a new pic

Go Vikes

[dawgman]

10. I just made the connection and it is gone will find a new pic

Go Vikes

[asjr]

4. dems

This is exactly how we got into Iraq. Some of the dems are damns.

[Walt Starr]

5. Did Lieberman vote in favor

If he did, I stand by my assertion that a Lieberman presidency would be worse than a Bush presidency.

[jpgray]

8. He and Kerry skipped it, much to my, and everyone else's, frustration

If you're running for the highest office in the country, you had better damn well put up or shut up on these issues if you can. Being in the Senate gives them that opportunity, and they consistently squander it.

[truthspeaker]

11. To coin a phrase:

"You and what army?"

We're so bogged down in Iraq we can't even keep order in Afghanistan. The only way we'd have the forces to invade Syria (which is probably in better shape militarily than Iraq was) would be to institute the draft. Rummy says that won't happen, and we all know he always tells the truth.

[dawgman]

12. Well Iraqi's are being pressed into service and trained to quell any

form of local insurrection so... we can leave there and head to our new target next October, fully 3 mos. after turning the rule of Iraq over to "Iraqi's," and just one short month before the election. "Roll out the new product in October."

[Zorra]

13. The nazi PNAC at work. A general strike is looming.......

If these SOB's think they are going to wage eternal war at our expense they got another thing comin'. If we don't build them, they won't blow up. One week of a general strike will cut tax revenues enormously. One month will bring them to their knees. It is within our power to stop them when democratic means fail.

No work = no bombs

Bush says U.S. forces won't leave Iraq when interim government formed
WASHINGTON (AP) American forces won't leave Iraq when a new interim government takes charge from the U.S. military occupation next year, President Bush said Monday. ''We're staying,'' he pledged.

More than 400 U.S. troops have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq

But he said there was good reason for U.S. troops to remain. (Associated Press, 11/17/2003 16:55)

So what is this "good reason" to stay in Iraq, and exactly who are they good for? And now Syria? Maybe this is why:

Statements explaining what we are doing in the ME, and why the US is in for long term military engagement if we don't stop shrub and the neocons. From the PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" Sept., 2000:

1) At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

2) Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein

3) From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

4) Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces.

5) Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

6) Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn.

7) MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

8) INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

Shrub and the neocons must go. They are undeniably fascist imperialists.

This message is brought to you by Herman Goering and the PNAC:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/03/25_goering.html

Any questions?

[dawgman]

14. Unfortunately a general strike would be less likely to happen

than a civil war/revolution. There are two groups of people who wouldn't support the strike.
1. The freeper underclass. This is the group of people who need to have pride in their countries (read countries as republican party)ideals and actions no matter what. These people don't/won't understand that the ideals and beliefs they so adamantly support are the very ideals and beliefs that keep them powerless. Their reliance on this belief system is the same as drug addiction, alcohol abuse adn religious fundamentalism. It is a crutch that helps them cope/escape from the everyday realities of there subservient existence. These people, as a result of their addiction to the belief system set forth in the "American Dream" and the right wings perversion of that vision will never strike. In fact, they can be counted on to break the status quo challenging actions of their peers.

2. The other group who wouldn't strike but who might join in an uprising is the working destitute. These people cannot afford to NOT work. THey are a few dollars away from abject poverty and homelessness. These would be especially unlikely to strike if there were children/invalid family members dependant on their salaries.

[dawgman]

15. kick