So peacfull acting is bad for you and widespread killing is ok? The USA killed more civilians in 3 years of Iraq war then terorism in the last 100 years !!! but sorry, because as we all know EVERY single Iraqi are terrorists and every american are good people !!!
In Christianity women are also oppressed, maybe no more like before but not so long ago women had to stay in the kitchen and shut their mouth and men had all the rights. You memory is fish short or your knowledge inexistant.
I never say he is a mass murder you idiot :loco: This is a forum not a court !!! I respect every person on this forum as well as Fred even thought if I donât agree his point of view.
But what about you? Any short term solution to the middle east issue smart ass?
Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
âHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isnât going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.â
The âLogan Actâ makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, âwithout authority of the United States,â ⌠WSJ
And thereâs this also⌠Pelosi steps out of bounds
For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some wayâŚbut thats just my guess.
For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some wayâŚbut thats just my guess.[/quote]
Maybe Soros and Carter got together and bought her that fetching Hijab.
However I think that the WH is just playing the game here as both bush and condi have said they wouldnât deal with Syria (except when sending falsely accused Canadians for torture). The 3 republicans and the Pelosi delegation were briefed by the WH before they left.
It is any Senator or Congress critters SOP to be âbriefedâ about the areas they travel to if they request it. Its very helpful since quite a few of them really have no idea what they might run into while on their âmedia-junketsâ to foreign lands.
And when she returns she will be âde-briefed.â As in finding out things that she may have no knowledge of knowing through effective questioning by trained individuals.
Its time you got over the silly âthis administrationâ crap and realized that there is a war going on and what âyouâ(âyouâ as in those who use this as a tool to denigrate the current US admin) say has direct consequences to how the opposition forces play the world media. These actions are used by the terrorists to increase dissent and dis-unity among the populace of the countries involved in the Coalition Forces.
It is quite clearly stated in the Logan Act what can and cannot be legally done in making contact with foreign actors. Are you of the opinion that these laws do not apply to Sen. Pelosi? If so, why?
And you do understand that not everything that goes on is told to the mediaâŚdonât you?
Although it may peeve some folksâŚsome actions during a time of war, such as we currently have, are not for immediate public debate.
[quote]And you do understand that not everything that goes on is told to the mediaâŚdonât you?
Although it may peeve some folksâŚsome actions during a time of war, such as we currently have, are not for immediate public debate.[/quote]
True enough, as a result we donât know the exact details of Pelosiâs visit nor do we know why the bush admin poo-pooâd her visit while not saying anything about the 3 republican congressmen that went to talk to President Bassar Assad. Perhaps the speaker of the house has less pull or less finesse on a world stage then the Lancaster country congressman Joe Pitts. Doesnât matter bush didnât want Pelosi going but was ok dokey with the congressmen or was he?
The media doesnât seem to care they have only fixated on Pelosiâs bunch. Again no surprise.
As far as the Logan act goes. This act is so broad in itâs language it truly is more of a threat than anything else. It wasnât until 1994 that the act carried any jail time. Interestingly tho the only time the act had an indictment was in 1803 when a farmer wrote a letter to a newspaper advocating a separation of the western states from the U.S. and allying themselves with France. He didnât talk with a foreign government but merely suggested the idea, free speech and all that. He was indicted but never charged. A threat.
Speaking of seditious acts tho I do remember a Dennis Hastert back in '97 usurping the Clinton admin by telling the Colombians not to deal with the president but to deal with congress directly when it came to procuring arms for the war on drugs.
This however is probably not a violation of the Logan act because we all know that republicans are better with the army and arms sales than the democrats. Or is that a media myth?
[quote=âBlackrobeâ] This however is probably not a violation of the Logan act because we all know that republicans are better with the army and arms sales than the democrats. Or is that a media myth?[/quote]UhhâŚ
I am simply referring to the fact that most of the armies contractors and all of the arms producers in the U.S. are heavily biased towards republicans. When it comes to money vrs. the rule of law well its a bit of a toss up.
[quote=âTainanCowboyâ]Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
âHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isnât going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.â
The âLogan Actâ makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, âwithout authority of the United States,â ⌠WSJ
And thereâs this also⌠Pelosi steps out of bounds
For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some wayâŚbut thats just my guess.[/quote]
Yep, Jews are like that.
As for the Logan Act, it was passed in 1799 as part of the hysteria that resulted in the Alien and Seditions Act , and only been invoked once, in 1803.
But, using âPelosi Rulesâ Newt Gingrich was certainly guilty for his messages to China and Israel, Denny Hastert was for specifically telling the government of Colombia to ignore the Clinton Administration on human rights and deal directly with Congress to get the money for death squads, and Tom Delay was for aiding and abetting Miloscevicâs genocide. But, hey, IOKIYAR.
History has shown that engagement, rather than ideological repudiation, with oneâs opponents has yielded positive results. Had the staunchly anti-communist Richard Nixon refused to engage in dialogue with the PRC during the early 70âs, US-China relations would never have gotten off the ground.
Bush has a problem of ignoring people or nations he doesnât like for his own rhetorical reasons. With that kind of attitude, you can never achieve results. The usual, seeing things in black or white attitude of âIf youâre not with me, then youâre my enemy.â Or if a government is non-democratic, then it must be a bad government. This kind of mentality is counterproductive.
Donât forget that a Congressional delegation of Republicans defied Bushâs wishes by also visiting Syria recently.
I thought Assad was a dentist. One learns something new every day.
Incidentally, Syria was an ally in the earlier âGulf Warâ (the Kuwait one) as we all know and I happen to think that if they had offered assistance this time round to the pathetically tiny âcoalitionâ, the U.S., desperate for legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab world, would most likely have agreed; conveniently putting the issue of state-sponsored terrorism (whatever that is) on the back burner. The U.S.'s indignation at Syria is a political manifestation of the the Great American Sulk; that characteristic that comes to the fore when the U.S. doesnât get what it wants/loses/is ignored/is impugned/gets caught with pants down by ankles (delete as applicable).
The U.S. didnât have any problems with Iranâs significant role in aiding the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taleban and as I mentioned, in hailing Syria as an ally during GWI even though what Syria does for fun wasnât markedly different then as it is now.
I donât see a problem in Pelosi going to Syria; the United States isnât âat warâ with Syria. If any good comes from it, excellent. If not, no harm in trying. The White Houseâs issue is having its foreign policy (the laughably simplistic but easy for thicko George to understand, âif they ainât with us they are against usâ doctrine) undermined or usurped by someone else.
No one really takes the Bullshit Administration seriously anymore.
Perhaps it is time for Combofluffy Rice to visit the dentist.
[quote=âTainanCowboyâ]Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
âHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isnât going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.â
The âLogan Actâ makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, âwithout authority of the United States,â ⌠WSJ
And thereâs this also⌠Pelosi steps out of bounds
For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some wayâŚbut thats just my guess.[/quote]
WASHINGTON (AP) - Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.
âI donât care what the administration says on this. Youâve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,â said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. âI want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.â
But Iâm sure thatâs different becauseâŚbecause⌠because it just is, dammit.[/quote]
Not to me it isnât. I donât have a problem with women wearing headcoversâŚif it is their choice. It is illegal in some Muslim countries for women not to wear one (and cover their bodies in way men never have to). When our female ambassadors wear them for the benefit of our Middle Eastern âalliesâ, it gives legitimacy to those laws forcing women to wear hijabs.[/quote]
Uh, hello?..She wore the headscarf while she was visiting a mosque (the tomb of John the Baptist, actually). Islamic custom requires a woman to cover her hair in church, just like the Catholic Church did until 1983; just like the Bible orders ( 1 Corinthians 11), just like most Eastern Orthodox churches do; just like Orthodox Jewish women do.
She did not wear it while meeting with Assad, as the photos clearly show.
If youâre the type of dork who wanders into St Peterâs Basilica wearing your shorts, flip-flops and âIâm With Stoopidâ T-shirt, I suppose you could get upset about this.[/quote]
Actually, itâs Islamic custom for women to wear veils EVERYWHERE, not just in mosques (well, they donât have to wear veils around other women only or close male relatives). And in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, NOT wearing a veil is punishable by fines or corporal punishment. Wearing the hijab legitimizing this practice, in my opinion.
Your comparison is weak. The United States is a superpower with a professional military. Itâs obvious that the collateral damage it inflicts in a major conflict is going to be greater than what isolated terrorists cause. If you want to make irrelevant comparisons, we could say that the United States killed more civilians in WWII than there had been murders for the previous 200 years. Does that mean the United States is more morally culpable for fighting the Axis powers than all the worldâs murderers put together over two centuries? Also, isnât the number of people Hussein killed greater than the collateral damage in Iraq? Should we include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war? The Kurds? The Shiâas in the uprising of '91? Fred has asked these questions many times and I never see direct answers. Just answer this:
If the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the Americans is less than those killed by Hussein, was the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq morally justifiable?
So? Weâre talking about Islamic oppression here. If you want to talk about Christian oppression, start another thread and Iâll join you. Or do you seriously believe that Christian oppression justifies Islamic oppression?
Now now little one, donât go name calling or Iâll put you in timeout again. And you said fred wants to nuke the Middle East, or in other words that he wants to be a mass murderer, which he doesnât. Actually, fred likes the Middle East and apparently really believes the Americansâ presence in Iraq will have a civilizing effect on the country and region in general. And weâre hear for discussion and debate. If you donât want your petty arguments deconstructed and debunked then go back to the swing set. Iâll give you a push.
It doesnât involve appeasing dictators, like our friend Pelosi seems to believe. I originally thought we should just pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis kill each other if they so please. But fred civilize-the-savages smith has convinced me that that may not be the wisest option. Civil war is sure to follow, which might even become a broader regional conflict. The loss of life would be catastrophic, and may end up with an Iraq-Iran-Lebanon-Syria Shiâa-dominated nexus emerging as the dominant regional power. That would be bad for Israel, bad for the region, and bad for the Western world. If we stay in Iraq, the loss of American troops will be low (compared to our total forces and historical losses in other wars), but likely steady. However, at least we can prevent a dramatic shift of power in the Islamistsâ favor.
The problem here is that we westerners are over-analyzing the whole (undoubtedly complicated) situation. Perhaps the easiest solution is to cut the Gordian knot instead of attemting to untie it in our pompous superior/holier-than-thou way. If the U.S. (and Britain) were to withdraw from the middle east, there may well be a period of re-adjustment amonst those states in the region and this may very well result in some bloodshed but not, in my opinion, of the scale predicted by those with a vested interest in fear-mongering. Again, in my opinion, a withdrawal could very well result in a respectful detente and after a breather, the possibility to engage in such a way that doesnât send the message that we think we are always superior, that doesnât attempt to impose our values on people who simply arenât interested in them, that doesnât regard Islam as some âevilâ doctrine. Take away the troops and the associated arrogance of the politicians that sent the hapless sods over there and the middle east will sort itself out. It wonât necessarily be pretty or particularly quick but it will happen. Clearly intervention by the west has done nothing to bring peace, just the opposite. Why not try non-intervention, non-engagement for a change?
And yes, Freda Smug does like the middle east as do I. I donât necessarily believe that he believes in everything he posts though. Except the nuke 'em all bit but that is just a characteristic of his that sustains him due to not having a sufficiently large collection of porn.
You should go to Iran and have a look. It might surprise you.
[quote=âgao_bo_hanâ] . . . Also, isnât the number of people Hussein killed greater than the collateral damage in Iraq? Should we include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war? The Kurds? The Shiâas in the uprising of '91? Fred has asked these questions many times and I never see direct answers. Just answer this:
If the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the Americans is less than those killed by Hussein, was the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq morally justifiable? . . . [/quote]
âOn April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell to invading U.S. troops, Khadim al-Jubouri took a sledgehammer to a statue of Saddam Hussein. âIt achieved nothing,â Jubouri says now.â
âWe got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him,â said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. âNow, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him.â
His faith in the United States has also vanished, he said. . . . His country today is politically fractured and struggling to find direction. He has seen four Iraqi governments since the fall of Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. At least 3,260 U.S. soldiers have been killed.
But the numbers that most directly affect Jubouri are these: Seven of his relatives and friends have been killed, kidnapped or driven from their homes. He gets four hours of electricity a day, if heâs lucky. The cost of cooking gas and fuel have soared, but his income is a quarter of what he used to earn. . . ."
Iraq was worse under Saddam. Iraq is not yet stable. Iraqâs neighbors do not want to stop interfering with Iraqâs domestic affairs. The more the parties involved sense that the US commitment will not be for the long term, the less likely they are to cooperate now. Witness the ethnic cleansing efforts to create facts on the ground. We are in for this kind of trouble for another three to five years. Afterward, we may achieve some stability with very problematic conditions. This happened to some degree in Kurdistan. Unfortunately, we are going to have to go through this in Iraq. We will be staying and I am confident that we will be there in equally strong numbers under any Democrat administration. In fact, at this point, it may be good to have a Democrat as president so that there can be no more lies about this war being the result of the actions or interests of one political party. Bring it on.
Maybe Soros and Carter got together and bought her that fetching 
great picture.
