I won't be a part of a forum that allows terror

[M45510G1C]

It is an unfair generalization to say that Bush is a liar. And yes, they DO all say that. Their entire case against him is based on an attempt to undermine his credibility because there is no conclusive proof of any criminal wrongdoing by Bush.

From various sources, sorry dont have time to grab em all, a google should reveal the, however:

When President Bush reneged on his promise to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants and turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol, he promised that the US would remain committed to fighting global warming. Today, it is clear he did not mean it. The Bush energy plan, if implemented, would send U.S greenhouse gas emissions through the roof, increasing overall emissions by 35% or more, and emissions from power plants as much as 65%. If this plan is enacted, the fight against global warming may well be over.

The plan places the US clearly in breach of its obligations under the UN Climate Convention, which President Bush (senior) ratified in 1992. This treaty requires industrialized countries to develop plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. US emissions are currently about 15% above 1990 levels, and would rise to 50% above 1990 levels under the Bush plan. Besides breaching the specific obligations of the treaty, the plan violates international and domestic law by defeating the object and purpose of the treaty. The president of the international climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, has called the plan a "disastrous development" for international efforts to slow output of global warming gases.

As a signatory to the UN Charter, the United States is bound by the Charter's requirements. Article 39 specifically gives the UN Security Council, not individual nations, the authority to determine "the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression", and the authority to "decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Article 42 authorizes the Security Council, if non-military measures fail, to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." No nation can take it upon itself, without Security Council approval, to act to enforce UN resolutions.

Guantanamo bay:

The prisoners, who are suspected of having ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, have been held for a year and a half without being charged and without access to legal representation. They have no contact with the outside world.

The Bush administration claims that the captives are not prisoners of war but rather

Edited December 11, 2004 by M45510G1C

[ted]

I bet it would suprise many people if I said that one of the few things I support Bush on IS the war on terrorism.

He has a few other bright points, but he's basically like a lot of other politicians.

t.

[Eadora]

Eadora Here.

This was and never has been an

[ted]

Again, after so many threads from you and others telling me that the Pentagon, our President, and our Government spews out nothing but lies, now you want to accept this one as the truth?

Which one is it? A lie or the truth?

Having an office of the Pentagon not agreeing with official policy is nothing new. There job is to formulate policy in matters of defense. If they see a problem with policy, I think they should try to fix it.

I never said that I am in complete accordance with our defense policies, I just support Bush as he goes after terrorists and the nations that harbor them and help them in their way to blow us up.

Whether a few in the Pentagon agrees or not as how to best accomplish that has little or no bearing on how I feel about the subject.

You have now singled me out in two different threads so let's talk;

How would you, as President Eadora, deal with the problem of international terrorism?

I want specifics now, no general statements or insults. I've grown weary of your snide little remarks that you toss at my feet.

In fact, if you must post toward me in the future, please do so with a little bit of human decency.

If I have offended you in a prior post with insults or bad manners, then I ask your forgiveness. Please give me the link or quote to where I did, so that I may give you a more direct apology.

Here's where you did it to me:

Eadora Here.

This was and never has been an

[Eadora]

Oh Ted!!

No Ted It is not my intent to single you out.

Forgive me if I give you cause to think so. Looking at my post, I must admit you may have just cause to think so. My words do seem cast in to much haste and temper.

Forgive me. I do violence to my cause when I offend you thus.

I try to make my argument strong, vociferous, and compelling. You beleive that I have crossed the line into snide ignorance. I am sorry and will try to moderate.

Now I don't believe that I have ever made the allegation that the Pentagon has lied.

I'm after what the Pentagon report is after.

I'm after the policies that create dozens of fanatical insane brute terrorists for every one it kills.

If being after those policies means that I am after BUSH and his administration, so be it

Big Daddy Bush gave the Iraqi

Edited December 13, 2004 by Eadora

[Eadora]

Now here's a disturbing article!!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=41709

I may not agree with everything this article says, but I do believe it's contention that these MAD DOG FANATICS will eventually find a way to hurt us, and hurt us very badly.

I believe that the policies that we contend about here, have put us on a slippery slope where responses such as this article advocates are becoming conceivable.

I think It would be wise to end policies that create this kind of hate against us.

Policies that drive and inspire this kind of hate.

Policies that the Pentagon report, that we reviewed earlier in this thread, refer to.

How to reverse these policies now that we are locked in???

I do not know.

Answers must be found and formulated.

Maybe the first thing that can be done is to admit to our mistakes.

Now that

Edited December 13, 2004 by Eadora

[ted]

Eadora, I ask your forgiveness.

Last night, when I posted my previous response, was a time of pain and anger. I never should have replied like that and will delete the entire post, if you wish.

To the matter at hand, and more respectfully, I hope....

Big Daddy Bush gave the Iraqi

[Eadora]

Ted

Thank you for your response.

I think you had just cause to be a bit tiffed.

I checked out another of my posts.

One in

Edited December 14, 2004 by Eadora

[other one]

I am going to try and hijack this thread..... early warning signal "Whooop Whoop Whoop"....... hijack alert..... hijack allert"

I need to know something...... why is is so important that everyone in the world agree with every post made here? Why can't we just post information and ideas and beliefs and if others disagree, we must move heaven and earth to make the others say "I'm right" Are we so insecure in our beliefs that we can't handle someone not believing something we say?

Why do we do that........... Why

We need to be focused more on Why do I believe this or that instead of looking for 13 other web sites that agree with me that no one on the other side (whichever that might be) is going to believe either.l

Instead of focusing on "why" we move the conversations to individual people and thier abilities to function mentally..... which carries to no where.

[ted]

Thank you, Eadora.

Again, I apologize. I'm tired and weak right now.

But we have Christ in common and even the most ardent "disagree-ers" can build on that Rock.

I will be taking a brief rest from the war threads. Time to clear my head and attend to other needs here, like the Prayer threads.

I think we are closer than we think. We are just taking different roads to the same town, I reckon.

Bless you!

Sam, wise words, as always!

t.