How was providing weaponry to rebels in Niceragua an "interventionist failure"? --- the same way intervention in Vietnam and the middle east were failures. not only was it a failure, it was illegal.
The *Boland Amendment* is a term describing three U.S. legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984, all aimed at limiting U.S. government <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._government> assistance to the Contras <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras> in Nicaragua <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua>. The first Boland Amendment was part of the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)> to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, named for the Massachusetts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts> Democrat <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)>, Representative Edward Boland <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Boland>, who authored it. The House of Representatives <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives> passed the Defense Appropriations Act 411–0 on December 8, 1982 and it was signed by President Ronald Reagan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan> on December 21, 1982.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment#cite_note-apa-1> The amendment outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras> for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment#cite_note-clr-2> Beyond restricting overt U.S. support of the Contras, the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the Iran–Contra affair <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair>, during which the Reagan Administration circumvented the Amendment, without consent of Congress, in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras. On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:13:31 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > You obviously haven't a clue about what you're talking about....How was > providing weaponry to rebels in Niceragua an "interventionist failure"? > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Brings to mind Iran contra. >> --- >> the same kind of US interventionist failure for sure. >> >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:33:10 PM UTC-5, gtheist957 wrote: >>> >>> Brings to mind Iran contra. >>> >>> On Aug 12, 2016 12:30 PM, "MJ" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> May 24, 2015 >>>> >>>> *Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To >>>> Overthrow Syria's President Assad *by Tyler Durden >>>> >>>> From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical >>>> Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, >>>> on the world's stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al >>>> Qaeda as the world's terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the "*straight >>>> to beheading YouTube clip*" purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded >>>> Islamic State >>>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html>was >>>> >>>> a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a >>>> political goal: depose of Syria's president Assad, who for years has stood >>>> in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed>, >>>> >>>> one which could dethrone Russia as Europe's dominant - and belligerent - >>>> source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful >>>> Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in >>>> quasi-world war. >>>> >>>> The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw >>>> right through them. Recall from September of last year >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-11/russia-warns-obamas-two-faced-strategy-syria-will-lead-huge-escalation-middle-east-a> >>>> : >>>> >>>> If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting >>>> Damascus, LiveLeak reports >>>> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=760_1410383985#Iv1gTyxwvHzlfUFs.99> >>>> that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes >>>> against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign >>>> Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama's new >>>> strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline >>>> through >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed> >>>> (as >>>> was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push) >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed>, >>>> >>>> Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for >>>> bombing Syrian government forces and warning that "such a development >>>> would >>>> lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa." >>>> >>>> But it's one thing to speculate; it's something entirely different to >>>> have hard proof. >>>> >>>> And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?_r=0>had >>>> >>>> been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and >>>> national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more >>>> than >>>> al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this. >>>> >>>> That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government >>>> document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows >>>> that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other >>>> Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. >>>> >>>> According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the "leaked >>>> document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the >>>> West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, >>>> despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an >>>> ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). >>>> >>>> According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw >>>> the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the >>>> strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to >>>> “isolate >>>> the Syrian regime.” >>>> >>>> And not just that: as we reported last week >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-22/how-you-boost-gdp-us-sells-over-4-billion-weapons-israel-iran-and-saudi-arabia>, >>>> >>>> now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people's heads of >>>> in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US >>>> has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, >>>> sophisticated weapons in the region in order to "modernize" and >>>> "replenish" >>>> the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq. >>>> >>>> But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war >>>> breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) >>>> is clear to everyone by now. What wasn't clear is just how the US >>>> predetermined the current course of events in the middle east. >>>> >>>> Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better >>>> understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to >>>> be, >>>> but what America's puppermaster role leading up to it all, was. >>>> >>>> From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as >>>> strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists >>>> to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion', originally posted in >>>> Medium >>>> <https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092> >>>> . >>>> >>>> [image: []] >>>> <http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/05/isis%20US%20role.jpeg> >>>> >>>> Hypocrisy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on >>>> their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret >>>> Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning >>>> threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on >>>> civil liberties at home. >>>> >>>> Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a >>>> federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense >>>> Intelligence Agency (DIA) document >>>> <http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf> >>>> >>>> then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012. >>>> >>>> The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, >>>> policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and >>>> intelligence community. >>>> >>>> So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama >>>> administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to >>>> rebels in Syria. >>>> >>>> Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal >>>> prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the >>>> disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, >>>> al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria. >>>> >>>> Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police >>>> counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said: >>>> >>>> “Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these >>>> documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far >>>> has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known >>>> about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the >>>> documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally >>>> important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support >>>> of >>>> Syria’s rebellion.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *The West’s Islamists*The newly declassified DIA document >>>> <http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/> >>>> >>>> from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces >>>> by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would >>>> lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue >>>> receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies. >>>> >>>> Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI >>>> [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” >>>> the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the >>>> opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.” >>>> >>>> The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the >>>> precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic >>>> State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the >>>> beginning, both ideologically and through the media.” >>>> >>>> The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the >>>> insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” >>>> attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across >>>> the region. >>>> >>>> In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA >>>> report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control >>>> over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy >>>> war.” >>>> >>>> The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under >>>> international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when >>>> Benghazi >>>> was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.” >>>> >>>> In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated >>>> militias, were protected >>>> <http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/good-news-uk-counter-extremism-plans-could-be-used-silence-katie-hopkins-1353190385> >>>> >>>> by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity*In a strikingly prescient >>>> prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable >>>> declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist >>>> organizations in Iraq and Syria.” >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are >>>> supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to >>>> “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi >>>> provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”: >>>> >>>> “… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared >>>> Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is >>>> exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to >>>> isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the >>>> Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).” >>>> >>>> The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation >>>> that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago >>>> welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the >>>> region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion >>>> of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia >>>> expansion.” >>>> >>>> The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, >>>> the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the >>>> [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes >>>> those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” >>>> >>>> Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely >>>> aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway. >>>> >>>> The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, >>>> it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old >>>> pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, >>>> and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi. >>>> >>>> Such a quasi-state entity will provide: >>>> >>>> “… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among >>>> Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against >>>> what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State >>>> through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, >>>> which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the >>>> protection of territory.” >>>> >>>> The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not >>>> a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted >>>> before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US >>>> intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central >>>> Command, >>>> the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies. >>>> >>>> In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government >>>> simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate >>>> Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign >>>> Office spokesperson said: >>>> >>>> “AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all >>>> forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to >>>> the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political >>>> coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with >>>> international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist >>>> groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate >>>> opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the >>>> extremists.” >>>> >>>> The DIA did not respond to request for comment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Strategic asset for regime-change*Security analyst Shoebridge, >>>> however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria >>>> since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon >>>> intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official >>>> pronunciations: >>>> >>>> “Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK >>>> governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted >>>> Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore >>>> deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly >>>> undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, >>>> despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.” >>>> >>>> According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early >>>> years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps >>>> Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released >>>> Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that: >>>> >>>> “US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and >>>> the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as >>>> an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.” >>>> >>>> Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report >>>> <http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/> >>>> >>>> ?an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct >>>> experience of the Middle East??points out that the DIA document >>>> “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist >>>> political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.” >>>> >>>> The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only >>>> became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency??“there is no >>>> mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s >>>> rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The >>>> report demonstrates that: >>>> >>>> “The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is >>>> ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want >>>> (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken >>>> the Assad government.” >>>> >>>> The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, >>>> and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US >>>> intelligence as likely??but nevertheless strategically useful??blowback >>>> from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Complicity*Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have >>>> repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in >>>> intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in >>>> the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria. >>>> >>>> The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain >>>> sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was >>>> supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups >>>> were supported. >>>> >>>> However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously >>>> that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the >>>> US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants >>>> constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency. >>>> >>>> Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist >>>> insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would >>>> establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq. >>>> >>>> As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US >>>> government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and >>>> likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion”??namely, the emergence of >>>> ISIS??“but >>>> that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also >>>> suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead >>>> the >>>> West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s >>>> rebellion >>>> was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’” >>>> >>>> Annie Machon >>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/24/mi6-whistleblowers-accuses-intelligence-agencies-annie-machon>, >>>> >>>> a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle >>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/15/gender.uk> in the 1990s >>>> on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel >>>> Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations: >>>> >>>> “This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are >>>> always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.” >>>> >>>> She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the >>>> deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was >>>> setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.” >>>> >>>> This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO >>>> intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were: >>>> >>>> “… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, >>>> mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the >>>> American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS >>>> after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part >>>> of >>>> an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of >>>> human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Divide and rule*Several US government officials have conceded that >>>> their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent >>>> extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS. >>>> >>>> US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted >>>> <http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268> >>>> last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled >>>> hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that >>>> metamorphosed into ISIS. >>>> >>>> But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document >>>> demonstrates??that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and >>>> supervised >>>> <http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cancer-modern-capitalism-1323585268> >>>> by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers. >>>> >>>> The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US >>>> Army-commissioned RAND Corp report >>>> <http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165#sthash.N7UEf4Dc.dpuf> >>>> . >>>> >>>> The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for >>>> the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the >>>> conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them >>>> against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.” >>>> >>>> The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf >>>> by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and >>>> Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic >>>> relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance. >>>> >>>> The RAND report confirmed >>>> <http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf> >>>> that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create >>>> divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being >>>> used >>>> at the tactical level.” >>>> >>>> The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with >>>> al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US >>>> for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these >>>> nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are >>>> now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses >>>> to both parties.” >>>> >>>> The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring >>>> purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, >>>> Western >>>> governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria. >>>> >>>> The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very >>>> US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly >>>> created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent >>>> government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers. >>>> >>>> In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat >>>> extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and >>>> even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being >>>> pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately >>>> targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims. >>>> >>>> Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western >>>> government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own >>>> deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for >>>> dubious geopolitical purposes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
