blackascoal

Didn't know this was here before I posted it in US Politics. It isn't just Latin America lining up agaionst US imperialism .. so is much of the world and new allainces against us are forming. It is another clear sign of the total failure of the war on "terror" and the end of the American Century.

On top of new China and Russia alliances, and alliances throughout the arab/Persian world being formed to repel American military and political imperialist intentions, many Latin American countries are now joining together to stand against us. Many of these countries that are lining up against us are oil producing nations and are fast moving to the euro as a way of attacking our colonialist nature. Instead of galvanizing the world against "terror", all the hapless Bush Administrtaion has managed to do is distance and isolate us. Even the British people want no part of our reign of terror. Soon, the only "ally" we'll have left is Israel, a country devoid of resources, and one that consistently spies on us and marches to its own drummer. an exerpt ... Iran, Venezuela agree to thwart ‘US domination’ Associated Press http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLa...3351871,00.html Presidents Chavez, Ahmadinejad say ready to spend billions of dollars to finance projects in other countries to help thwart US domination. ‘We’ll underpin investments in countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the (US) imperialist yoke,’ Venezuelan leader says Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said they were ready to spend billions of dollars (euros) financing projects in other countries to help thwart US domination. The anti-US Presidents whose efforts to extend their influence have alarmed Washington met Saturday in Venezuela’s capital, the first stop on Ahmadinejad’s tour of Latin America that will also see him visit newly elected leftist leaders in Nicaragua and Ecuador. The oil-rich nations had previously announced plans for a joint USD 2 billion fund to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran, but Chavez and Ahmadinejad said Saturday that the money would also be used for projects in friendly third countries. Ahmadinejad called it a “very important” decision that would help promote “Joint cooperation in third countries,” especially in Latin American and African countries. After Venezuela, Ahmadinejad will visit newly elected leftist governments in Nicaragua and Ecuador that are also seeking to reduce Washington’s influence in the region. Bolivian President Evo Morales, another critic of US policy, said he plans to meet with Ahmadinejad while both are in Ecuador Monday. Both countries are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chavez said Saturday that they had agreed to back an oil production cut in the cartel in order to stem a recent fall in crude prices. Ahmadinejad is set to travel to Nicaragua to meet on Sunday with Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla. On Monday, he travels to Ecuador for the inauguration of President-elect Rafael Correa, another outspoken critic of the administration of US President George W. Bush and Washington’s policies in Latin America.

Once again the left are exposed in their fight against the truth and free speech. A most seriously ridiculous post. In the face of all that has been discovered and revealed about right-wing failure to face truth and their inability to analyze critical issues .. and the damage to America they've done because of their ignorance .. you post this nonsense. Seriously ridiculous.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim. WHAT ??? Are you serious? Perhaps you're not an American, because all of America knows and even the republicans don't deny it. They try to excuse it, but they don't deny it. Don't you guys do any research? It's as simple as putting "US Saddam chemical weapons" in your search engine. Yikes Perhaps my cousin twice removed on my sister in law's side, there is a reason you want someone else to waste their time....perhaps the request is too difficult for you or anyone. So let's just drop the conseptual proof and do your own homework attenmpt to provide real proof for those fringe claims. Lets see the documents proving the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. Nope .. you have no interest in the obvious truth.

Ooopps, looks like the naysayers have been caught with their pants down again. An excerpt ... Exxon cuts ties to warming skeptics Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases MSNBC staff and news service reports Updated: 8:43 a.m. CT Jan 12, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases. Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions. Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.” Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. ------------------------------ Exxon has been the biggest suporter of the naysayers, but even they are bending to the weight of the truth.

Bush??? .. honesty??? C'mon

OOPs Once again the naysayers are caught with their pants down.

Obviously this is from someone who did not see the clown in his recent scaryman address to the nation .. nor does this person have the slightest sense of what is happening in America.

Not listening to crap like this would be a marvelous thing to do.

Good luck finding a credible source for that claim. WHAT ??? Are you serious? Perhaps you're not an American, because all of America knows and even the republicans don't deny it. They try to excuse it, but they don't deny it. Don't you guys do any research? It's as simple as putting "US Saddam chemical weapons" in your search engine. Yikes

While they cry, Vice President Dick "Ironman" Cheney laughs. ...Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named Dick.... No one believes the Dark Overlord can laugh. He has to be the most invisible Vice-President ever. He only rises from his crypt every 6 months and even then is only seen on military bases .. when the moon is out.

I'm not asking whether Bush should be impeached, but whether it's feasible. Feasible in what way? Money to investigate? Can't get people to testify. There is more evidence here than a smoking cigar. And judging by how things are going? I'd say that is more evidence than what is needed. Yes it is feasible. Just remember what Clinton was impeached for, and you should be shaking your head in disbelief that Bush has not had a serious attempt on him to bring him down. Not sure how that would have manifested. Also if Bush had a trial for impeachment, many many behind the scenes people would be testifying. That could get ugly. That is not favoured by the current Administration. Saddam was not a imminent direct threat to the US. Saddam was NOT working with Al-Qeada. Saddam could not get a WMD program off the ground after the first Gulf War. Saddam did not get yellowcake from Africa. 10 years of sanctions. Two no fly zones. However Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds that the US gave them during then 80s. Saddam was a close ally of the US in the 80s (Remember the Shah of Iran and the stand off?) Saddam was not a threat. The war was illegal, Bush (and now I will say Cheney) should be impeached. Where is the APPLAUSE and AMEN button?

I believe Canadians can join the U.S. military. Do you have a link that says they can't? At this point, we will take martians into the military. The US military is actively seeking recruits from Mexico and other Latin American countries with the promise of US citizenship as a "prize" for joining up. I'm fairly certain that any Canadien that wants to join can do so, particularly given that we have no idea where the additional 20,000 IED fodder is going to come from.

There is a very good possibility that the US will withdraw from Afghanistan. Why are we there? Bin Laden is nowhere to be found and quite possibily has been dead for a long time. We can't find a 6'7" guy in a stone age land of 5'6" people. The Taliban is stronger than ever and Pakistan is and has been used as a safe haven for them. Are we going to attack Pakistan next? The American people are weary of unnecessary war and politicians are scrambling for cover. The so-called "surge" in Iraq is getting little to no support, even from many republicans, and Bush is more isolated than ever. It's too bad that Canada got drawn into this disaster but maybe Harper should meet the same fate as Tony Blair and be shown the door by the populace. The same fate that happened to the leaders of Italy and Spain once their citizens recognized that they had been had. The US will soon be left all alone in Iraq and we hve run out of troops. We don't even know where the proposed additional 20,000 troops will come from. Our men and women in uniform are strecthed to the limit and the military has already extended their combat time from 12 to 24 months with little time between when they can be deployed again. Time to get real .. this entire "war on terror" was a fraud from the beginning used to secure oil contracts for US and British corporations who have made more profit since the beginning of this fraud than any corporations in history. Our troops are dying, but the plutocrats are having a party.

An exerpt .. Pentagon abandons active-duty time limit By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_...itary&printer=1 The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq. The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours. The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars. Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said. In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months. --------------------------------------------- They are desperate for the prowar armchair warhawks. Why aren't they joining up?

"president" Cheney .. who has an approval rating of about 8%

Who is the resident troll?

That says more aobut the thugs and the thug-apologists (europe) in the rest of the world than it does about America, my friend. I disagree my brother. We are in the midst of two failed wars, we are attacking and provoking in Iran and threatening others in the region, and we are bombing in Somalia .. but It's their fault that they think we're dangerous? The truth is, we are dangerous and out of control .. and a great many Americans believe that as well on both sides of the political divide. Who's fault is that? The US used force to enforce UN resolution with respect to weapons inspections which were flouted by Saddam for 10 years after the gulf war. Force that the UN never would have used. Enforcement is an integral part of UN resolutions. That Sunnis and Shia wanna kick eachother to shit is unfortunate. But the US has only lost 3000 soldier in the years its been there - hardly an asskicking. If you haven't heard, Iran and Syria and funding and arming the insurgency in Iraq. If the US wants to take action to stop that it has every right. As well, Ahmedinejad has publically stated on more than one occasion that his intention is to "wipe Israel off the map". He has also publically pursued a Nuclear program for Iran in between these anti-jew hate speeches - a program which, by the way, is opposed by virtually the entire western world yet he continues. Why? Because Ahmedinejad knows this: the only country in the world that backs up it's demands with enforcement is the USA - and they're kinda busy right now. The US mid-east strategy will pay off lnog run if we're patient - alot to ask for a culture with a 5 minute attention span. Meantime, if Bush wants to take on Iran in a proxy battle inside Iraq, good on him. With all due respect brother, I find your comments astounding at this point in the knowledge of what really happened. Would you support an attack on Israel for its violations of UN Resolutions .. which far exceed those that Iraq was in violation of. In fact, Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in its history. I suspect that you would not support an attack on Israel .. but either UN Resolutions are valid or they are not. Suddenly "enforcement" means something else. You post your comments as if you are completely unaware of the fallout from this disaster. Are you suggesting that America needs no allies? That we have "the right" to do whatever we want and murder whomever we want? The mindless attack on Iraq only empowered Iran, who is the only real winner in this horror. Now, Bush and his minions have set their sights on Iran .. but where are the troops going to come from? Are you going to join up to fight for a cause you believe in? With all the fraud and deception that has been revealed, you are among a tiny minority who still refuse to face the reality of this monumental blunder.

That says more aobut the thugs and the thug-apologists (europe) in the rest of the world than it does about America, my friend. I disagree my brother. We are in the midst of two failed wars, we are attacking and provoking in Iran and threatening others in the region, and we are bombing in Somalia .. but It's their fault that they think we're dangerous? The truth is, we are dangerous and out of control .. and a great many Americans believe that as well on both sides of the political divide. Who's fault is that?

Not true....here is a better than half-ass answer broken down for prior and non-prior service: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...f/faqenlage.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...nlstandards.htm The maximum age of non-prior service enlistment, under federal law used to be age 35. In 2006 the Army convinced Congress to change this to age 44. Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for each of the services are: Active duty Army - 42 Army Reserves - 42 Army Natinal Guard - 42 Active duty Air Force - 27 Air Force Reserve - 34 Air National guard - 34 Active duty Navy - 34 Navy Reserves - 39 Active duty Marines - 28 Marine Corps Reserves - 29 Active duty Coast Guard - 27 Coast Guard Reserves - 27 Age waivers are possible for those with prior military service.

Perhaps you can point out who said they had more respect for Russia and China. What I said was that China and Russia have more global respect than the US today and America is considered the most dangerous nation on the planet .. next to Israel. It should be fairly easy for you to validate or discredit that statement .. instead of dabbling in strawman arguments that were never suggested. But then again ... I'm not surprised.

This also includes the biggest war hawk on the hill, Republican Senator George Voinovich, who essentially scoffed at Rice. .. I thought she was going to cry. Does it matter that neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government want more troops in their country? "Democracy" .. remember that one?

Guthrie, True .. and we're desperate brother. Well take 'em up to 55. But none of the pro-war heros are posting from Iraq.

Does it matter that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government does not want any additonal troops and reject the notion of a surge?

Gee, I though the *Iraqi government* killed Saddam? Freudian slip? Which explains the pece and quiet in Baghdad today. Oh...shit. And, as we all know, might always makes right. I'm always surprised when pro-war types cite the speedy victory of the most powerful military on the planet over one of the sorriest fighting forces around (the Iraqis had "infantry" fighting in flip flops and bluejeans for chrissakes!). Like, doesn't that kind of disprove the idea that Iraq was a threat? I've misjudged you. I apologize.