Nancy Pelosi is such a POS

[Craig234]

When, exactly, is the 'right time' to recognize a genocide still denied by a government decades later? 62 years? 82 years, 1 month, and 11 days? 82 years, 1 month, and 13 days?

The Turkish government is now involved in an issue where they do not want Kurds forming their own nation, and I'm not familiar enough with the specifics to comment on whose 'side' I favor and why. But I've long had concern about Turkey denying the Armenian genocide - an old history teacher was from Armenia and I recall his passion and sense of outrage at the lack of justice for it. If the times are right because of the current conflict for us to get around to taking sides on the history, so be it - we should avoid the temptation to let the selfish benefits dictate our version of history we select. That's fit for Pravda, not any honest government. Nations will deny such events, and it's our obligation to say when that happens - and yes, we have our own wrongs, such as with the Native Americans and slavery.

I recognize that any price for the accurate history lies with the Turkish government's desire to lie and use force for the lie, not with our standing up for historical accuracy. Sadly, I don't know whether the reasons for this bill are honorable or simply some effective lobbying by an Armenian interest group or what, but I'm less concerned with the reason, than the principle of the US standing for the accuracy of the history.

I don't rush to condemn Turkey automatically for their resistance to secession - the US wasn't too nice to its own secession, and you can imagine if a section of the US heavily populated by Hispanics wanted to secede - but I don't care for the formulas suggested by the right here who ask 'does it help or hurt us' to stand for accuracy.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I don't see the strategy to this. If the House passes this non-binding resolution and Turkey cuts off our troops, isn't this gonna hit Nancy and the Democrats the hardest?

The strategy is that "The Deciders" in Congress can't deliver on anything they promised their fanatical base. They don't want to actually solve any real major problems we have, as 1.) that'd be a win for Bush, and 2.) they'd have to comprimise more than they will when Billary gets elected in '08.

So what they'll do is just continue to waste time and our money, not to mention lives and futures, so as to hurt Bush any chance they can get (at detriment to the country) so as to have a better position in '08.

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops, all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

Chuck

I don't see how this helps the Democrats. Even if it hurts Bush it will still fall back on Nancy and the House because they caused Turkey to stop helping us. This would not help any of the Democratic candidates for 08. Which is why I don't see the strategy behind this. I understand trying to hurt the Republicans to help for 08 but it should be ways that would not blow up in your face.

It helps the Democrats because it doesn't help Bush or the troops. The Dems do not care that this will make life more difficult on the troops or that they, they only care with hurting Bush - at any cost. The Dems will just spin any Turkey fallout - as Lemon Law is doing - as Bush not working with the Turks beforehand. That the Turks are already helping us to the degree we need them to will not be an issue, the fanatical Dem base will get whipped up into a Why didn't Bush use diplomacy with the Turks? questions, the media will spin a story where there is none, etc etc.

Just read Lemon Law's posts for Pelosi logic, you can see the left mindset clearly there...

Chuck

It's not leftest logic, it's common sense. No one half-way intelligent can justify not calling the Armenian genocide a genocide; it's reality. You can argue all you want that it might hurt the troops; smarter people argue that what's really hurting the troops is keeping them in harms' way in Iraq.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Pelosi is being a fool. There are no discernible benefits for doing this right now, there are a number of possible bad outcomes from doing it at this time.

Turkey has made great strides in its secular democratic government to meet the requirements for admission to the EU. This may see some reversal if they are denied admission. Anyone they perceived as having intentionally impeded their entry would gain no favors, only reprisals. If they lose out, they may look at this condemnation as a tipping point and blame us. We will become the demon to another country in the M.E..

Since 70% of the supplies for Iraq travel through their country and airspace, if they cut off access abruptly, it could be far worse than Congress cutting funds since that would involve a much longer time frame to make adjustments.

The Kurds are a ticking time bomb with their frequently expressed desire for a Kurdistan. Any solution to this that is acceptable to us would almost have to involve Turkey. This would be a poor time to alienate them. If they become really pissed at us, they may decide to stubbornly act entirely in their own best interests; compromise with the U.S. be damned.

Since we have waited nearly a hundred years to condemn this act, I can't see how waiting for a more opportune time costs us anything.

There may be good reasons to install a lightning rod on your house, but doing it during a thunderstorm might not be a good idea. Timing IS important.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I don't see the strategy to this. If the House passes this non-binding resolution and Turkey cuts off our troops, isn't this gonna hit Nancy and the Democrats the hardest?

The strategy is that "The Deciders" in Congress can't deliver on anything they promised their fanatical base. They don't want to actually solve any real major problems we have, as 1.) that'd be a win for Bush, and 2.) they'd have to comprimise more than they will when Billary gets elected in '08.

So what they'll do is just continue to waste time and our money, not to mention lives and futures, so as to hurt Bush any chance they can get (at detriment to the country) so as to have a better position in '08.

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops, all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

Chuck

I don't see how this helps the Democrats. Even if it hurts Bush it will still fall back on Nancy and the House because they caused Turkey to stop helping us. This would not help any of the Democratic candidates for 08. Which is why I don't see the strategy behind this. I understand trying to hurt the Republicans to help for 08 but it should be ways that would not blow up in your face.

It helps the Democrats because it doesn't help Bush or the troops. The Dems do not care that this will make life more difficult on the troops or that they, they only care with hurting Bush - at any cost. The Dems will just spin any Turkey fallout - as Lemon Law is doing - as Bush not working with the Turks beforehand. That the Turks are already helping us to the degree we need them to will not be an issue, the fanatical Dem base will get whipped up into a Why didn't Bush use diplomacy with the Turks? questions, the media will spin a story where there is none, etc etc.

Just read Lemon Law's posts for Pelosi logic, you can see the left mindset clearly there...

Chuck

It's not leftest logic, it's common sense. No one half-way intelligent can justify not calling the Armenian genocide a genocide; it's reality. You can argue all you want that it might hurt the troops; smarter people argue that what's really hurting the troops is keeping them in harms' way in Iraq.

Common sense is to wait to PO a friendly country in the region we're fighting a war in, 92 F'ing years after an event happened? That's your version of common sense?

I'm not disputing that a genocide happened, it probably did. We had our own little genocides right here with the Native Americans if anyone would like to take a little look back on US history.

My problem with this is that the US has not recognized this as a genocide for 92 years. For 92 years, it's not been important enough to spend time on. But now, in the midst of a war, we pick the same issue that's sat for 92 years to rebuke a country helping us.

How F'ing stupid is that?

Chuck

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

Dave,

It's posts like this that make reading anything by you an automatic laugh fest. It's like anytime I'm reading down a thread here, and I hit one of Harvey, Moonbeam, or your posts, a huge smile breaks out on my face because I know it's going to be some rediculous BS post like the one by you above.

Just take for example your "It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time" text. Congress represents every person from their state - including those troops you say they shouldn't be caring about. So when you say it's not their job, that just shows a complete lack of logic and reality on your part. The first priority of a Congressperson is to represent the people from their state, that's who they were elected by and for that purpose.

Nice dodge and spin by a typical Republican.

Nancy and the Dems did not put the troops there. Period.

Try again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

Typical response from a cold hearted political tool.

Thank you I learned from the best "cold hearted political tools" that support Republicans.

Apparently I learn well.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: chucky2


Common sense is to wait to PO a friendly country in the region we're fighting a war in, 92 F'ing years after an event happened? That's your version of common sense?

It's common sense because its recognition has been delayed for quite a long time. Listing the amount of years it has been delayed actually helps my case.

I'm not disputing that a genocide happened, it probably did.

Oy. There is absolutely no question it happened.

We had our own little genocides right here with the Native Americans if anyone would like to take a little look back on US history.

I know, and the American gov't might do well to officially recognize it as that.

My problem with this is that the US has not recognized this as a genocide for 92 years. For 92 years, it's not been important enough to spend time on. But now, in the midst of a war, we pick the same issue that's sat for 92 years to rebuke a country helping us.

How F'ing stupid is that?

Don't know how long you've been following politics, but this has been delayed for at least a couple decades now based on the literature I've seen. This is long overdue.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yes, she is such a POS for calling a genocide a "genocide."

She is a POS because her "leadership" in Congress thus far has been to take the easy road.

While the world recognizes the Turkish Armenian genocide as an atrocity, at this point, recognizing it as such does little to reverse the past. Similarly, Turkey has proven a valuable ally in recent decades, dating back to the Cold War. Given recent developments of Turkish military forces engaging Kurdish fighters along the border they share with Iraq, prioritizing the Armenian issue will only strain our diplomatic efforts on that front.

Yet America, and the world, remain silent on genocide occurring TODAY.

and what other road option does she have with Republicans still in control of the vote count?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Common sense is to wait to PO a friendly country in the region we're fighting a war in, 92 F'ing years after an event happened? That's your version of common sense?
Chuck

Why are we fighting a war where we have to deny obvious truths just to please our "allies"? Maybe the problem in this situation is not the resolution, but the war and diplomatic relations that it threatens?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

Typical response from a cold hearted political tool.

Thank you I learned from the best "cold hearted political tools" that support Republicans.

Apparently I learn well.

Trust me Dave you've learned nothing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

Dave,

It's posts like this that make reading anything by you an automatic laugh fest. It's like anytime I'm reading down a thread here, and I hit one of Harvey, Moonbeam, or your posts, a huge smile breaks out on my face because I know it's going to be some rediculous BS post like the one by you above.

Just take for example your "It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time" text. Congress represents every person from their state - including those troops you say they shouldn't be caring about. So when you say it's not their job, that just shows a complete lack of logic and reality on your part. The first priority of a Congressperson is to represent the people from their state, that's who they were elected by and for that purpose.

Nice dodge and spin by a typical Republican.

Nancy and the Dems did not put the troops there. Period.

Try again.

ORLY? So the vote in the Senate was just for show? WOW! Amazing! Maybe we need to repost the count for you? haha

Troll

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yes, she is such a POS for calling a genocide a "genocide."

She is a POS because her "leadership" in Congress thus far has been to take the easy road.

While the world recognizes the Turkish Armenian genocide as an atrocity, at this point, recognizing it as such does little to reverse the past. Similarly, Turkey has proven a valuable ally in recent decades, dating back to the Cold War. Given recent developments of Turkish military forces engaging Kurdish fighters along the border they share with Iraq, prioritizing the Armenian issue will only strain our diplomatic efforts on that front.

Yet America, and the world, remain silent on genocide occurring TODAY.

and what other road option does she have with Republicans still in control of the vote count?

PSST! Maybe you forgot....The Dems took majority already....sshhhhh

 

[ZebuluniteV]

I think it's pretty ironic that many of the people condemning Pelosi's resolution on the Armenian genocide are also the ones who yell "Holocaust denier" (in regards to Ahmadinejad) left and right as they try to get the US to invade Iran (or even to deny Ahmadinejad's mere presence at Columbia).

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Nice dodge and spin by a typical Republican.

Nancy and the Dems did not put the troops there. Period.

Try again.

I believe I've told you before in another thread, I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a Libertarian. I look at candidates record and what they say, line it up with what I believe, and make my decisions that way. How else could one possibly vote?

It doesn't matter who put the troops there (in this case Bush), the point is these are not Chinese or Russian Congresspeople, these are US Congresspeople. Because of that, and because of their position, they should be making decisions that don't jeopardize our troops in the field.

P1ssing off an ally we have in the ME to do this now is just simply idiotic timing. There's no excuse to pass this measure now. That there are more hugely pressing issues they should be spending their time on is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately, the one sure thing is that Pelosi and her crew will "Try again" at some other waste of time activity, all the while, nothing important actually is accomplished.

Period.

Chuck

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

Dave,

It's posts like this that make reading anything by you an automatic laugh fest. It's like anytime I'm reading down a thread here, and I hit one of Harvey, Moonbeam, or your posts, a huge smile breaks out on my face because I know it's going to be some rediculous BS post like the one by you above.

Just take for example your "It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time" text. Congress represents every person from their state - including those troops you say they shouldn't be caring about. So when you say it's not their job, that just shows a complete lack of logic and reality on your part. The first priority of a Congressperson is to represent the people from their state, that's who they were elected by and for that purpose.

Nice dodge and spin by a typical Republican.

Nancy and the Dems did not put the troops there. Period.

Try again.

ORLY? So the vote in the Senate was just for show? WOW! Amazing! Maybe we need to repost the count for you? haha

Troll

First of all, only half of the Democrats at the time voted in favor of Iraq. Second of all, Bush had access to far more intelligence than any mere representative or senator.

 

[Lemon law]

The consensus still seems to be----Just read Lemon Law's posts for Pelosi logic, you can see the left mindset clearly there...

While the right calls Pelosi an idiot bent on killing our troops or some similar certain motivations they can't know without being inside her head, it seems that no one else if open to
admitting that they may not understand the rules of the game being played.

Just like in chess, some move may look like a nothing or even foolish to someone who are less than chess masters, and I do admit I don't claim to understand exactly what it means, but I think quite a few people on this thread are being total fools in total denial over the possibility that Pelosi may know exactly what she is doing and it may turn out to be exactly in the interests of this country.

We have to understand that Pelosi has much better access to high level intel than we do, she can't directly reveal that to us lesser peons, and she may be doing something we don't understand to effect a higher purpose we don't yet understand. I have suggested two possible explanations and I may be right or wrong on both. But we may well find that later on, what Pelosi is doing does have a clear and higher purpose even if we don't see it now.

At least be open to that possibility.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

ORLY? So the vote in the Senate was just for show? WOW! Amazing! Maybe we need to repost the count for you? haha

Troll

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yes, she is such a POS for calling a genocide a "genocide."

She is a POS because her "leadership" in Congress thus far has been to take the easy road.

While the world recognizes the Turkish Armenian genocide as an atrocity, at this point, recognizing it as such does little to reverse the past. Similarly, Turkey has proven a valuable ally in recent decades, dating back to the Cold War. Given recent developments of Turkish military forces engaging Kurdish fighters along the border they share with Iraq, prioritizing the Armenian issue will only strain our diplomatic efforts on that front.

Yet America, and the world, remain silent on genocide occurring TODAY.

and what other road option does she have with Republicans still in control of the vote count?

PSST! Hey stupid....The Dems took majority already....sshhhhh

They do not have "majority" control of the vote.

Someone should be looking at this poster calling people "Stupid" and "Troll".

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: chucky2


Common sense is to wait to PO a friendly country in the region we're fighting a war in, 92 F'ing years after an event happened? That's your version of common sense?

It's common sense because its recognition has been delayed for quite a long time. Listing the amount of years it has been delayed actually helps my case.

It in no way helps your case. The people who were killed are all dead. The kids of the people who were killed are all dead. This is simply a symbolic gesture that easily could have waited until Iraq calmed down and/or we weren't so dependant on Turkey.

My problem with this is that the US has not recognized this as a genocide for 92 years. For 92 years, it's not been important enough to spend time on. But now, in the midst of a war, we pick the same issue that's sat for 92 years to rebuke a country helping us.

How F'ing stupid is that?

Don't know how long you've been following politics, but this has been delayed for at least a couple decades now based on the literature I've seen. This is long overdue.

At 92 years, it's so long overdue as to be almost useless in its issuance. There is absolutely no difference in 92 years, 94 years, 96 years, or 98 years...it's all a stupidly long time to acknowledge something of such magnitude. To do it now though is a tatical mistake that will buy us nothing with Turkey who right now is helping us and showing some restraint with the Kurds.

Why, with everything we have going on in the ME now, would we pass a symbolic gesture for something that happened 92 years ago???

Absolutley F'ing dumb...just ineptly dumb....

Chuck

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: piasabird
We already let all the people die, so what is the point. Now we are letting the people in Darfur die.

No no no...

...the UN is letting the people in Darfur die, not us. The UN is going to take care of that problem, without US aid I so dearly hope.

That there'll be no one left to slaughter once The UN finally gets there in any meaningful numbers will be sadly ironic, but, that's OK, The UN is sadly ironic itself...

Back to the thread topic of Congress wasting time on rediculous sh1t while massively important issues go on not being solved."The Deciders" in Congress are doing a heckuva job! <insert Harvey stule Emoticon Trifecta>

Chuck

dude you clearly need a reality check. When it comes to security and boots on the ground it's the US and the western world who decides who lives or who dies.

The USA, France, UK, Germany... are all responsible for NOT doing anything about Darfur. The UN has no standing army. If the will is not there from the big powers, nothing is going to happen. It's all to easy to blame the UN while it's the rich western world that turns a blind eye. Everything else is just bs

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: chucky2


Common sense is to wait to PO a friendly country in the region we're fighting a war in, 92 F'ing years after an event happened? That's your version of common sense?

It's common sense because its recognition has been delayed for quite a long time. Listing the amount of years it has been delayed actually helps my case.

It in no way helps your case. The people who were killed are all dead. The kids of the people who were killed are all dead. This is simply a symbolic gesture that easily could have waited until Iraq calmed down and/or we were so dependant on Turkey.

My problem with this is that the US has not recognized this as a genocide for 92 years. For 92 years, it's not been important enough to spend time on. But now, in the midst of a war, we pick the same issue that's sat for 92 years to rebuke a country helping us.

How F'ing stupid is that?

Don't know how long you've been following politics, but this has been delayed for at least a couple decades now based on the literature I've seen. This is long overdue.

At 92 years, it's so long overdue as to be almost useless in its issuance. There is absolutely no difference in 92 years, 94 years, 96 years, or 98 years...it's all a stupidly long time to acknowledge something of such magnitude. To do it now though is a tatical mistake that will buy us nothing with Turkey who right now is helping us and showing some restraint with the Kurds.

Why, with everything we have going on in the ME now, would we pass a symbolic gesture for something that happened 92 years ago???

Absolutley F'ing dumb...just ineptly dumb....

Chuck

So I guess by your logic we will never deal with the fact that the Saudi's are the ones who financed and principally carried out 9/11 since it's not politically convenient. So we're waiting, and 50 years from now your grandchild is going to be making the same argument, well it's been 50 years already, why now?

You can't have it both ways, it's taken 92 years because the time is never right. We are still dealing with the aftershocks of WWI in this instance and many others every single day. Most of the problems we are dealing with in Iraq are also because of WWI.

But maybe you're right afterall, we do torture people and have secret prisons, so I guess it would just be symbolic and empty rhetoric. We don't hold those values anymore.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The consensus still seems to be----Just read Lemon Law's posts for Pelosi logic, you can see the left mindset clearly there...

While the right calls Pelosi an idiot bent on killing our troops or some similar certain motivations they can't know without being inside her head, it seems that no one else if open to
admitting that they may not understand the rules of the game being played.

Just like in chess, some move may look like a nothing or even foolish to someone who are less than chess masters, and I do admit I don't claim to understand exactly what it means, but I think quite a few people on this thread are being total fools in total denial over the possibility that Pelosi may know exactly what she is doing and it may turn out to be exactly in the interests of this country.

We have to understand that Pelosi has much better access to high level intel than we do, she can't directly reveal that to us lesser peons, and she may be doing something we don't understand to effect a higher purpose we don't yet understand. I have suggested two possible explanations and I may be right or wrong on both. But we may well find that later on, what Pelosi is doing does have a clear and higher purpose even if we don't see it now.

At least be open to that possibility.

It's nice you give Pelosi this lattitude in judgement, but don't give the POTUS - who plays a far bigger game of chess than Pelosi - the same leeway.

Face it: You can make no real argument for angering Turkey like this now, while we are very much dependent on their cooperation, so you've cooked up some Trust Pelosi she knows what she's doing logic.

That you trust Pelosi over Bush is amazing...their politicians that pander to their base. Don't believe for one second Pelosi would actually make a sacrifice on behalf of the country that wouldn't benefit her...

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

ORLY? So the vote in the Senate was just for show? WOW! Amazing! Maybe we need to repost the count for you? haha

Troll

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yes, she is such a POS for calling a genocide a "genocide."

She is a POS because her "leadership" in Congress thus far has been to take the easy road.

While the world recognizes the Turkish Armenian genocide as an atrocity, at this point, recognizing it as such does little to reverse the past. Similarly, Turkey has proven a valuable ally in recent decades, dating back to the Cold War. Given recent developments of Turkish military forces engaging Kurdish fighters along the border they share with Iraq, prioritizing the Armenian issue will only strain our diplomatic efforts on that front.

Yet America, and the world, remain silent on genocide occurring TODAY.

and what other road option does she have with Republicans still in control of the vote count?

PSST! Hey stupid....The Dems took majority already....sshhhhh

They do not have "majority" control of the vote.

Someone should be looking at this poster calling people "Stupid" and "Troll".

OIC so the Republicans outnumber the Democrats in the Senate? Wow. I guess alot of people cant count eh?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

dude you clearly need a reality check. When it comes to security and boots on the ground it's the US and the western world who decides who lives or who dies.

The USA, France, UK, Germany... are all responsible for NOT doing anything about Darfur. The UN has no standing army. If the will is not there from the big powers, nothing is going to happen. It's all to easy to blame the UN while it's the rich western world that turns a blind eye. Everything else is just bs

I need no reality check. The UN has a security force, or the capacity to form a security force from member nations, to go stop genocide.

It seems every country likes to b1tch and moan about the imperialistic powers of the US, how we're the worlds traffic cop, how we blatantly bully other countries.

Well, Darfur has been a perfect opportunity for the vaunted UN to show exactly what their made of.

Where is the UN's security force - in appropriate numbers for the task at hand - in Darfur? How long has the UN been letting this go on?

Do not for a second start pointing fingers at the US in regards to Darfur. People b1tch that we went into Afghanistan, people b1tch that we overthrew Saddam, people fret that we'll go take on North Korea.

Well UN lovers, go look at all the butchered and maimed people in Darfur and you'll see exactly what happens when the US doesn't get involved and waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits on the UN to do something.

The US should be running news on how the complete lack of action by the UN has allowed the genocide in Darfur to occur and continue. The UN...I burst out laughing just now...

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2

It's nice you give Pelosi this lattitude in judgement, but don't give the POTUS - who plays a far bigger game of chess than Pelosi - the same leeway.

Face it: You can make no real argument for angering Turkey like this now, while we are very much dependent on their cooperation, so you've cooked up some Trust Pelosi she knows what she's doing logic.

That you trust Pelosi over Bush is amazing...their politicians that pander to their base.

NOT trusting Pelosi over Bush is what would be amazing.

Don't believe for one second Pelosi would actually make a sacrifice on behalf of the country that wouldn't benefit her...

You sound like the typical fringe righty who throws around character assassination completely baselessly.

We have a track record o Bush evading putting himself in war - not only not going but taking up a spot from someone else by abusing political connections - in a war he *supported*. But you ignore that, and make these big claims about Pelos you have zero but 'too many beers redneck' style commentary for backing up. What a waste in a discussion.

You are not helping he nation or the world with such blind views. Bush has proven himself willing to deceive the public, to serve interests other than the public interest. He's aligned himself with the far right on foreign and domestic policy who have goals largely against the public interest, as reflected in the accelerating shift of wealth to the very top form his policies - though his victims overseas are paying red blood rather than green money for his policies.

Why is the right so in love with authoritarian figures, who score points not by good policy but simply be being authoritarian in tone?

I understand it somewhat in Russia; Germany has not been immune to it either, but here in the US, it's hard to understand the lack of rationality.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: ayabe

So I guess by your logic we will never deal with the fact that the Saudi's are the ones who financed and principally carried out 9/11 since it's not politically convenient. So we're waiting, and 50 years from now your grandchild is going to be making the same argument, well it's been 50 years already, why now?

You can't have it both ways, it's taken 92 years because the time is never right. We are still dealing with the aftershocks of WWI in this instance and many others every single day. Most of the problems we are dealing with in Iraq are also because of WWI.

But maybe you're right afterall, we do torture people and have secret prisons, so I guess it would just be symbolic and empty rhetoric. We don't hold those values anymore.

We will never directly deal with SA unless another attack (or few attacks) occur against us on the 9/11 scale because Yes, we are so dependant on them for oil. It's sad, but true. If SA was some sh1thole country that we had no dependance on, and we traced the 9/11 attackers back to that country, then we all know for a fact that country would have had the hurt locker put on it. In 100 years we still won't have b1tch slapped SA for 9/11, because that oil will still be flowing out the ground. When that stops, then maybe we'll do so. Until then, expect nothing to be said. You did notice though that for the first time, they cracked down on a bunch of their militants. Baby steps or symbolic gesture, good topic for debate...

Do we torture people? Probably. Do we get information we want out of them that we wouldn't otherwise get? Probably. Do we have secret prisons? Almost assuredly. Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

In reality, when it comes down to it, most Americans understand that bad things have to be done to bad people so bad things don't happen to civilians. It's only the dreamers and warped that think differently, and fortunately, they're not tasked with the job of keeping us safe.

None of this has to do with the fact that this symbolic gesture is being made to the grandkids and greatgrandkids of the people who were actually murdered, and is being done at a time that is far from our best interests militarily. So, if it's not to our best interests, who's it?

Chuck