Hi Oceans, I can't speak for those other locations but plenty of spaces to dock in Malta. Nice, safe, loads of rental property, Marine stores, good comms and the food's not bad either. Not a lot of crime and even that's petty crime. People are pretty friendly and there are some really nice historic sites
I'm in Montenegro right now and will return to Malta in about 3 weeks. I'm happy to send you whatever information I have but you'll have to wait till I get backndly people and things to do
Anyway, let me know. We're hijacking someones thread so I\ll go. See ya
Would you feel so strongly in your convictions if you looked back to the start of this thread and realized you did the same thing?
This is why I took a moment and asked you who you were talking to rather than assuming and jumping to wrong conclusions.
You can disagree with my point of view and I can disagree with yours but there's really no need to be rude and/or nasty towards each other. Let's just agree to knock off the tit for tat bickering and press on to something a little more constructive.
Malta is nice. The people are good and friendly and there's plenty to see and do. I think it's a great place to visit but depending on what you're used to, you may get island fever after awhile.
If you're sailing in there are plenty of good ports and the water is beautiful in most places. Come on down and I'll help you with the land logistics.
I think I get your meaning. Are you thinking this is could potentially be a ruse? Possibly a way to placate one foe so we would be free to squash another? Just want to make sure I get your meaning.
Actually, the reports don't have that much detail but they did include the following:
"The United States will also begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade sanctions."
This could be a good first step but there's still a possibility it could fold. John Bolton/fmr UN Amb has already made a negative comment about the deal and is encouraging the Pres to reject it. I hope that doesn't happen. This just seems like a good way to open up dialogue
If you're referring to the US it was certainly influenced by Christian morals but it was based in freedom. There's a clear distinction between church and state. The freedom to choose how we believe is guaranteed. Those morals and beliefs are great for you and me but not everyone feels the same. I think that's probably the greatest thing the framers of the Constitution did.
I personally don't agree with taking your own life, and I really doubt I would do it myself but who knows what I would do in the same circumstances. I think each person should be able to do whatever floats their boat as long as they don't harm anyone else.
I think most people, given the chance can make pretty rational decisions. Those who don't, well that's why we have Darwin Awards
Just another note. I keep finding opinions on the documents you mentioned earlier with only brief excerpts of the document itself. I would really like to see the raw document(s). Particularly the clean break document.
Really thoughtful, good answer. I think this covers just about every aspect of protecting everyone's rights to choose. Of course we'll never have agreement on the other side of this issue.
No Worries, these things should be more enlightening than confrontational. Certainly they shouldn't get personal as they sometime do. Anyway, there are some interesting ideas out here and some interesting interpretations of news. I don't agree with some but they're interesting none the less. Have a good one.
There's a big difference between ensuring our security, our prosperity and principles. That statement does not equal the US owning the world's resources and becoming the world police.
I read the document and there is certainly some arrogance displayed.
As you may recall, during the cold war the hype was all about the super powers. When the Soviet Union split up there was one remaining (at least according to the press) Some people believe this and that appears to be the stance this organization has taken. I don't agree with their stance but some of the ideals are right. After all, every nation tries to foster their own principals and interests and it's not a bad idea to have a military capable of defending your national interest. We are not responsible for the world but we do owe it to our friends and allies to help when caled upon and needed.
Anyway, I'm still not making the connection to this organization and the creation of a new world order dominated by the US or some other power.
Well, laundry is still drying so I have a few more minutes before I have to go.
I think you may have mis-read my earlier post. The point was that when that allegation came out there was an immediate rebuttal by the former NSC head William Clark. In fact, he went on the work for Casper Weinberger.
As far as there being a Jewish lobby goes, that should not be too surprising. Look at all the special interest groups that lobby congress. Oil, Tobaco, anda multitutude of nations that have Lobby groups here. They are trying to get the US do what they want.
On the other side of the coin it's painfully obviouse that Feith was extreem in his support of Israel. No doubt about it and the rather candid remarks made by Sec Rice make that clear.
This does not however equate to a new world order conspiracy theory. I'm still trying to find the time to look at the other document you sent me but on the surface it appears to be a startegy for policy. Anyway, I'm still looking.
Hey, I haven't too much time left. It's getting late and I actually have to do laundry. I took your advice and here's what I found on Feith:
1982 NSC alleged firing and security clearance controversy It has been alleged by Former NSC Intelligence Director Vincent Cannistraro and author Stephen Green that Douglas Feith involuntarily left the NSC in March, 1982 and lost his security clearance after he fell under suspicion of the FBI for passing classified material to Israeli embassy officials who were not entitled to receive it. This would have required the Bush administration to reissue Feith his clearance before bringing him into the Pentagon. This version of events is disputed by the NSC head at the time, Judge William Clark. When a Montana newspaper reported this accusation, Clark, who was President Reagan's National Security Adviser at the relevant time, wrote a September 22, 2005 letter to the editor to correct the record:
Your article cites a Mr. Cannistraro to the effect that Mr. Feith was fired for wrongdoing from President Reagan's National Security Council in 1982. I was President Reagan's National Security Advisor at the time and I tell you that is untrue. Mr. Feith served honorably on my staff and went on to serve well at the Pentagon under Secretary Cap Weinberger. Because of his fine record, President George W. Bush hired him as his Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. END QUOTE>
This is only one source and I just don't have time at the moment to do more. Anyway, I'm not debating with you to start a fight or be unpleasent. I just think there's a heck of a lot of dis-information out there. Hell, I may even be one of the victims of it but I honestly don't think so.
I don't know. They sure did a great job with Water gate, Bill Gate, White water, the whole war in Iraq and just about every other controvercial issue. I think they would be licking their chops to get hold of some credible information which they could use to drag the current administration through the mud. They have already made the haliburton/Cheney connection or at least attempted to.
If they could get something on some of these conspiracy theories that are flying around I would be willing to re-look at this. But as it stands, these papers, ideas/theories are of entertainment value only
Well why not share the source? Where can I find this document with the Presidents signature that states he has singed on to create a new world order.
Here's what I found when I googled the phrase:
This is a direct quote from New World Order - Wikpedia and I'm more than happy to send you a link or any of the others.
New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) refers to a conspiracy theory in which a powerful and secretive group is claimed to be planning to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles.
In new world order conspiracy theories, many significant occurrences are caused by a powerful secret group. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance and mind control.
END QUOTE.
It gets really strange when one reads a little further about how the numerous special interest groups i.e religeous, political, etc.. have their own ideas about how this New World Order is going to be created. They are a creative bunch and each has designed their own signs and warnings.
I could spend months wading through this stuff trying to find the signed document you have seen and would appreciate it you could share it.
Well that at least clears up who you were talking to.
I would have to disagree with your assessment of the research I have done and I would certainly disagree with the conclusions you have come to on what the IG report means. What it seems to say, quite clearly I may add, is that the flawed intelligence comes from bad intell processing, procedures and analysis. None of the media I have read concerning this report even alludes to the SECDEF or President being involved in the manipulation of this intell. I would think that the mainstream media would jump at the chance to even imply this was the case.
Having said that, I'd still be interested in the background research you've done and/or what sources you're are using. To be honest, when you mention terms like "A New World Order" it strikes me that your beliefs stem from some of these conspiracy based web sites and or publishers. If that's the case than you and I simply have a different concept of reliable information which is fine. If you have something else I would really like to see some proof that ties these things together. Up to now, I simply have not seen it.
Hey Bobby, I can't argue with some of your logic. None of the reasons you listed were the premise for goingto war with Iraq. The reasons simply stated were WMD and ties to Al Quida.
We have now discovered the WMD didn't exist and quite probably the ties with Al Quida did not as well (at least to the extent that the intell implied).
However, given the recent release of the Inspector General's report of the intelligence gathering mistakes made by the pentagon do you feel the reason for the war was based on a profit making scheme? I'm not saying those are your ideas, just asking.
The reason I ask is that I see a lot of Bush bashing, name calling and accusations but never see anything when reports like the IG's report somes out. I believe it was Harry Truman who said "The Buck Stops Here" and I have to agree with that but there were a hell of a lot of people evaluating, agreeing and pushing the intell received. Those same people are the ones doing a lot of the name calling we hear today.
Hold the bus a moment... Isn't PBS & NPR both fully funded by the public and different sponsors? I didn't know they received funding from the governement other than grants.
I checked the web site you mentioned and they offer no information on how they came to the conclusion Bush was cutting funding for NPR. They only offer a button to push and sign their petition. In fact, unless there's an error on their site they only offer those or other sign-up buttons.
Oddly enough when I checked the PBS and NPR sites, there no mention of this fund cutting. They have great information on their sponsors yet nothing about the USG. One would think if this were the real deal there would at least be mention of it by the said victims PBS/NPR.
Sorry, but these sites like move on aren't the most accurate and I'm being kind with that assessment. Aw what the heck, I think they rate right up there just below the National Enquirer anmd Star Magazine in the belivability department. Seems they're great at playing on the fact people hate George Bush and they get people to react. In the meantime while we're pushing those little buttons for our petition, we are doing nothing but making money for someone who's feeding us "facr" they fail to even begin to prove.
Believe what you will but I sure wouldn't blindly put my trust in any organization that's serves nothing up other than hype.
Jerry53531 Forum Posts (410)
RE: sould us pull out of iraq
Thanks.. See you around the threads.