Some weblog software programs, such as Wordpress, Movable Type and Community Server, support automatic pingbacks where all the links

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.

Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..

I don’t think Tony Blair, is stupid enough to back George W. Bush again, in his ‘war on terror’.

The British electorate will not let the Labour party, get away with deceiving them a second time.

It’s a pity that both governments and its politicians on both sides of the pond. Don’t pay heed to the great statesmen that have gone before them.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

President Abraham Lincoln

“The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.”

“Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

“It is the people who control the Government, not the Government the people.”

British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill

I stand corrected. I should have written ’secret,’ not ‘illegal.’

I agree with your remarks. The subject of this thread is ‘lashing out’ against Iran, which would be more of a disaster than we already have. Unfortunately, as Bush has recently said on Israeli TV, Iran is ‘on the table,’ and Rumsfeld has said that he has the forces to do it:

Q: Mr. Secretary, this weekend President Bush, addressing the Israelis, was asked if indeed we would get involved militarily with Iran if they continued developing their nuclear arsenal, and he said all options are on the table. And they tried to corner him, saying, “You mean military action?” He goes, “All options are on the table.” Are we capable right now as a fighting force of being in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Iran, if necessary?

Sec. Rumsfeld: Let me answer that in a couple of ways.

First of all, every president has consistently preserved options by using that phraseology, that options — all options — are on the table. There’s nothing new in President Bush saying that, and there’s also nothing new in other presidents in previous times using that phraseology. It’s kind of mindless to systematically take options off the table when there’s no reason to take options off the table. I think of it as a fairly standard comment.

Second, with respect to the Department of Defense and our military capabilities, we have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chairman and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a periodic basis, every period of months, review our military capabilities, anticipate the kinds of things that conceivably could occur. And they consistently tell me that we, in this country’s military department, have the ability to fulfill the likely missions that might occur. So I’m — we’re quite tight — quite comfortable with that.

Comment by Don

Don, it was never an illegal deal in the first place. That transpired between Great Britain and Israel. And what is with the cheap shot at France’s expense? This was the 1950’s we’re talking about here Don. America was only a little bully at the time, in world terms. And though America tried to throw its weight around, nobody took much notice of it.

Now America is the bullyboy of the world, with Bush and his cohorts, intimidating any country that they see as weaklings and inferior to America.

Well the peoples of the world have had enough of the bullyboys’ tactics, and are starting to stand up for themselves, and are fighting back. The Neo-cons don’t like anybody standing up to their bullying. They think that all they have to do is threaten people with putting the boot in even harder next time. And there would be no way that their victims would get off the floor, the next time, to receive more punishment from their tormentors. And this is why we are now in the mess that haunts the world. Because the Neo-cons don’t like anybody telling them that they are wrong. They just lash out even more, it makes them feel better. They look for new victims to bully and abuse.

President George W. Bush and the right-wing supporters, who support his ‘crusade’, are wrong. To stand by and applaud his and the Republicans actions, and are immoral for doing so.

The victims of Georges’ bullying are joining as one to stand up to their tormentors. They are ready to fight back, and put the bullies in their place. Do we stand by, and turn a blind eye to the proceedings. And sigh a huge sigh of relief, that it isn’t us that’s being bullied. Or do we stand up to be counted, along with the victims, of Georges’ thugs. Because we have a conscience, and we know what is going on in Iraq, is wrong.

–Russia: Yes, they’re supplying nuclear fuel to Iran, and no, again, I can’t see them siding with Iran against us. Let me add that I hope and pray that my forecast doesn’t come true, and of course nobody can predict the future, but all the signs I listed in #31 indicate to me that the Chimp sees himself in a corner and, like any cornered animal, will attack.

–Iran election and army size: “whatever dude” back to ya, dude.

#46, Chris,

–The original comment by Jennty was “a smaller and more nimble army” which I naturally took to mean “the army.” And “the army” is increasing in size and in the number of combat brigades. Now if you want to talk about the size of the Iraqi invasion force, that’s different. Shinseki said ‘big’ and Rummy said ’small.’ But there are now, for whatever reason, no commanders in the field calling for ‘more.’ A reserve for Iran? That may have been Rummy’s original intent, good point. Now, after taking a beating, I’m sure they can shake a few units loose, particularly Special Forces to work with the ‘dissidents’ noted in #18, but they’re really stretched thin without a draft.

As for the Iranian election. Guess you don’t believe election results can be rigged? Hellooooo… Ohio… Florida. Sheesh. Oh, and Wikipedia??? That is a nice experiment, but NOBODY uses it as a credible reference, it is by it’s nature subject to a high amount of inaccuracy. Anyone can change it for right or wrong.

As to Rummy and the smaller, more nible army… whatever dude… ignore facts if it floats your boat. Go back and read the history. Google the terms, read some newspapers. What Rummy says NOW is NOT what he said in 2001-2002. That’s a FACT. Don’t believe me, go do the research yourself.

Yes, Norway was in on this illegal British deal, and I believe France had a hand in it.

Unlike Israel, Iran has signed the NPT, and claims to be willing to abide by it, unlike the Israelis.

* Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, is reported to have over 200 nuclear warheads.

* Bush made his recent belligerent speech over Israeli television, removing any doubt about the American/Israeli anti-Iranian axis.

If America doesn’t want a Middle Eastern country to have a nuclear capability, then why do they let Israel have their own nuclear weapons?

And before any sceptical right-wing nut-jobs start protesting, that Israel has no nuclear weapons, do some checking. As a Brit I know that Great Britain provided nuclear technology and hardware to Israel in the 1950’s.

From the BBC news homepage:

Britain secretly sold Israel a key ingredient for its nuclear programme in 1958, according to official documents obtained by BBC News. Papers in the British National Archives show a deal was done to export 20 tonnes of heavy water for about £1.5m. This was vital for plutonium production at the top-secret Dimona nuclear reactor in Israel’s Negev desert.

No “peaceful use only” condition was placed on its use. Officials said imposing one would be “over zealous”.

Ministers in Harold Macmillan’s government were unaware of the deal. It was also kept secret from the US. In one of the documents Foreign Office official Donald Cape concluded: “On the whole I would prefer not to mention this to the Americans.”

Washington had refused to supply heavy water to Israel without a guarantee it would only be used for peaceful means. US President John F Kennedy’s defence secretary from 1961, Robert McNamara, told BBC News he was “astonished” by the cover-up.

“It is very surprising to me we were not told because we shared information about the nuclear bomb very closely with the British.

“The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as any surprise.

“But that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me.”

The heavy water – surplus from a consignment bought from Norway in 1956 – was shipped from a British port to Israel.

Former Conservative defence and foreign office minister Lord Gilmour told BBC News the revelations were “quite extraordinary”. The civil servants involved must have known Israel would use the heavy water to develop a nuclear bomb, he added.
“They just seemed to be concerned with making a bit of money.” By the time Israel asked the UK for more heavy water in 1961, the existence of the Dimona reactor and a probable nuclear weapons programme had been exposed by the Daily Express newspaper, leading the Foreign Office to block the sale, the papers show.

Sir Hugh Stephenson wrote: “I am quite sure we should not agree to this sale.
“The Israeli project is much too live an issue for us to get mixed up in it again.”
While Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test and does not admit or deny having nuclear weapons, it has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

This means the International Atomic Energy Agency does not have the power to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities. The Israelis say that will not change as long as they feel threatened by countries in the Middle East.

Russia: “Russia, I can’t see doing anything” were my words. Your comment is “What can Russia do.” Apples and oranges. Russia has refused to invite the new Iranian President to visit, and is siding with the EU on the nuclear question. So, to repeat, I can’t see them doing anything in response to the coming Chimp attacks.

Iran elections: They were in stages and highly democratic. According to Wikipedia, 60% of the eligible voters participated.

Rummy wanting a smaller army: Your cite is worthless. Congress voted a 30,000 increase in end strength earlier this year. Thousands of positions have been converted from uniformed to civilian. Both of these factors are contributing to Rummy’s plan to increase the army’s brigades from 33 to 43. Hilary, and maybe others, are pushing for 80,000 more.

Jennty, you’ve got to do better than oh-for-three if you expect any respect in this blog.

The elections in Iran were HIGHLY flawed. Not free and fair. They were so corrupt that 80% of the population did NOT vote. This was a recognized problem BEFORE the election. The ruling Ayatollas didn’t like the way the polls were going for the Reform candidate, so they took him out at the box. It’s way more complicated than can be summed up in a few sentances. The vast majority of the population in Iran is under 25. The people themselves don’t harbor any intrinsic hatred of the US, just the government does.

Iranian situation can’t be handled by force. Period. We don’t have the power to do it. As for the person who asked for a reference to Rummy wanting a smaller army,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/synopsis.html
Or do some research yourself, google works. Rumsfeld smaller army, hit enter. Bingo 198000 things for you to read. In 2001-02 Rummy was stumping for and implementing a “Smaller, more nimble” army. Kind of gives new meaning to the “you go to war with the army you have, not the one you’d like”