“Syrians bolstered by ‘good American’ Pelosi”

RollingSkull

RollingSkull

Banned
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070502-120459-5124r.htm

Pictures of Mrs. Pelosi and Syrian President Bashar Assad—officially Syria’s most popular citizen—still turn up on the local news channels, especially during coverage of the dispute between President Bush and Congress over the Iraq war spending bill.

Mrs. Pelosi’s two-day visit to Damascus was a major news event here. Camera crews trailed her as she bought sweets in the ancient Hamadieh souk, made the sign of the cross at what is thought to be the tomb of John the Baptist and donned a black abaya to visit the historic Omayyad Mosque.

Mrs. Pelosi, 67, is praised as “a friend of Syria,” and that makes her more influential than Oprah Winfrey and more appealing than the old Hollywood movies shown on satellite television.

Many Damascus residents say her private visit with Mr. Assad and senior ministers shattered Washington’s attempt to isolate the regime.

“She was enormously popular here, a hero,” said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions.”
Click to expand...
Can I rest my case now?
 
Maybe you should read the rest of the article before resting your case.
Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi's trip "bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work."
More than burnishing the regime's image in Syria, Mrs. Pelosi is seen as the well-dressed woman who stood up to President Bush, possibly the most unpopular figure in the Arab world after former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The White House criticized her visit, both on the constitutional grounds that she was usurping executive powers and on policy grounds that she was undermining months of diplomatic efforts.
Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria's support for terrorist groups.
But nobody talks about that now.
"I love her," said an Iraqi woman who has emigrated to Syria. "She's a grandmother, so handsome, so cute. I see myself, my old self, in her."
Despite the lingering personal affection, few expect U.S. policy to change as a result of Mrs. Pelosi's visit.
"She is a different face of America, but she does not have ideas, any solutions," the Iraqi woman said. "I watch TV all day, and I know that only the faces change."
Click to expand...
I guess it's been so long since we've seen any real diplomacy, some people can't recognize it.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe you should read the rest of the article before resting your case.

I guess it's been so long since we've seen any real diplomacy, some people can't recognize it.[/quote]
Because countries always can be made to act against their national interests by just saying please. If we'd only ask nicely.

Just like diplomacy stopped the Iranian nuclear program.
 
Which, is to say, the version of diplomacy that you envision: providing support and legitimacy to totalitarian regimes for absolutely nothing in return... well, that's the stuff EMPIRES are built on, buddy.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Which, is to say, the version of diplomacy that you envision: providing support and legitimacy to totalitarian regimes for absolutely nothing in return... well, that's the stuff EMPIRES are built on, buddy.[/QUOTE]

You are pro-empire?
 
That's awesome that you have such a problem with her going over there and NOT being hated outright. She put a positive face on America, in Syria for fvcks sake. What planet do you live on that you'd prefer they hated us?

Now that Condi's going, is she a traitor too?
 
[quote name='Cheese']Now that Condi's going, is she a traitor too?[/quote]

Why would she be a traitor? She's the one tasked with, among other things, representing the United States forign policy directives, not the Speaker of the House.

(For the record, I don't think Peosi is a traitor, but she is criminally liable for going to syria if in fact it was to discuss forign policy, period. There is no leeway on that, no " but she was trying to do good" that you could add to spin the issue if in fact it comes out that she traveled there with the intent of representing herself as a forign policy ambassador for the US).
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are pro-empire?[/quote] Kid, stick with the "Bush Lied People Died and anyone who thinks otherwise is a Bushoilhitler lackey."
 
[quote name='Cheese']That's awesome that you have such a problem with her going over there and NOT being hated outright. She put a positive face on America, in Syria for fvcks sake. What planet do you live on that you'd prefer they hated us?

Now that Condi's going, is she a traitor too?[/quote]
Oh, dear lord. I didn't think I was ever going to meet someone who had such a childish view of foreign policy.

Really, any country that works against us? We simply haven't been nice enough to them. We are making them hate us! Pelosi is just fixing that!

I wish I could live in the world you live in, Cheese. Where the beauty of the passive voice ensures a self-absorbed, self-flagellating intellectual laziness, that absolutely nothing any country ever does is their own fault; it is entirely ours.

Man, for all the left bemoans fascism, they really, really love REAL dictatorships.

EDIT: Okay, fine, I understand that some of you may not actually realize what is going on. You do realize that Syria sponsors terrorism. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Plus, meeting with them is the sort of 'realism' politics I thought the democrats weren't too fond of, but meh.
 
It's called an edit button.
edit.gif


Use it.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Why would she be a traitor? She's the one tasked with, among other things, representing the United States forign policy directives, not the Speaker of the House.

(For the record, I don't think Peosi is a traitor, but she is criminally liable for going to syria if in fact it was to discuss forign policy, period. There is no leeway on that, no " but she was trying to do good" that you could add to spin the issue if in fact it comes out that she traveled there with the intent of representing herself as a forign policy ambassador for the US).[/QUOTE]
By all accounts, including the Republicans who went with her, Nancy Pelosi reinforced the White House's position regarding Syria. She wasn't doing independent foreign policy. She's only being attacked since the Bush administration can't get any positive press now that Congress is doing its oversight job.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']By all accounts, including the Republicans who went with her, Nancy Pelosi reinforced the White House's position regarding Syria. She wasn't doing independent foreign policy. She's only being attacked since the Bush administration can't get any positive press now that Congress is doing its oversight job.[/quote]

Okay, now you're stretching. She reinforced the White House's position? The White House's position was isolating Syria.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Okay, now you're stretching. She reinforced the White House's position? The White House's position was isolating Syria.[/QUOTE]
Is that the same Syria Condi was talking to today. Somebody better tell Dubya.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Is that the same Syria Condi was talking to today. Somebody better tell Dubya.[/quote]
Oh, yes, next tell me she was making trips to Syria even before Pelosi attempted her foreign policy coup. And that the Pelosi visit has NO BEARINGS AT ALL on Condi heading down there.

Damage control? Typical Bush administration capitulation? I don't know, but you cannot sit there and pretend that this was their policy before Pelosi's visit.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Oh, dear lord. I didn't think I was ever going to meet someone who had such a childish view of foreign policy.

Really, any country that works against us? We simply haven't been nice enough to them. We are making them hate us! Pelosi is just fixing that!

I wish I could live in the world you live in, Cheese. Where the beauty of the passive voice ensures a self-absorbed, self-flagellating intellectual laziness, that absolutely nothing any country ever does is their own fault; it is entirely ours.

Man, for all the left bemoans fascism, they really, really love REAL dictatorships.

EDIT: Okay, fine, I understand that some of you may not actually realize what is going on. You do realize that Syria sponsors terrorism. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Plus, meeting with them is the sort of 'realism' politics I thought the democrats weren't too fond of, but meh.[/QUOTE]

Been saving up those lines for a while, eh? Too bad I never blamed America for anything.

Look, we can't go around bombing everyone, sorry. I know you like watching shit blowin' up and guns and dead babies and all those wonderful things, but at some point you have to actually sit down with people you have a disagreement with and deal with them, believe it or not. Ignoring a problem rarely ends with the problem going away. Having the man on the street not blaming everyone for the actions of our illustrious leader is a step in the right direction.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']
EDIT: Okay, fine, I understand that some of you may not actually realize what is going on. You do realize that Syria sponsors terrorism. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Plus, meeting with them is the sort of 'realism' politics I thought the democrats weren't too fond of, but meh.[/QUOTE]

Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and we are friendly with them, very friendly.


holding_hands_with_evil.jpg
 
[quote name='Msut77']Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and we are friendly with them, very friendly.[/quote]
And the diplomacy shown there has stopped their terrorist activities entirely, right?

Been saving up those lines for a while, eh? Too bad I never blamed America for anything.
Click to expand...

Well, that's good, so long as you understand that Syria's support of terrorism and constant attempts to thwart our mission in Iraq is not our fault.

Look, we can't go around bombing everyone, sorry. I know you like watching shit blowin' up and guns and dead babies and all those wonderful things, but at some point you have to actually sit down with people you have a disagreement with and deal with them, believe it or not. Ignoring a problem rarely ends with the problem going away. Having the man on the street not blaming everyone for the actions of our illustrious leader is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

But, yet, you still have not proven you anything but a child's world view.

But, yes, you are correct. The war in Iraq? All so that Bush may drink Iraqi blood from the skulls of our children/troops.

What world do you live in that makes you think that Syria is coming to these negotiations in good faith? That is the core to diplomacy. Nobody has learned a thing from the diplomatic attempts to stop Iran from gaining nuclear power, it seems.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Well, that's good, so long as you understand that Syria's support of terrorism and constant attempts to thwart our mission in Iraq is not our fault.[/QUOTE]

What mission?
 
But, yes, you are correct. The war in Iraq? All so that Bush may drink Iraqi blood from the skulls of our children/troops.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Bush or Iraq. I said YOU like dead babies.

But, yet, you still have not proven you anything but a child's world view.
Click to expand...

As compared to,"Ignore it and it'll go away."?

Well, that's good, so long as you understand that Syria's support of terrorism and constant attempts to thwart our mission in Iraq is not our fault.

...

What world do you live in that makes you think that Syria is coming to these negotiations in good faith? That is the core to diplomacy. Nobody has learned a thing from the diplomatic attempts to stop Iran from gaining nuclear power, it seems.
Click to expand...

What gives you the idea that they aren't? Bashar Assad isn't an idiot, he knows he's in a tight position and compared to other gov'ts in the region, he's considerably more moderate. Perfect? No. But to think that he can't be reasoned with or persuaded by anything but bombs is simplistic. There is also an internal power struggle going on there and having some first hand knowledge of what is driving the various internal factions could go a long way to finding a solution. Just taking out the current leaders and thinking that will solve all the problems is the same mistake we got into in Iraq: a fundamental lack of understanding the internal politics.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Bashar Assad isn't an idiot, he knows he's in a tight position and compared to other gov'ts in the region, he's considerably more moderate. Perfect? No. But to think that he can't be reasoned with or persuaded by anything but bombs is simplistic.[/QUOTE]

So you feel someone who's been behind attempted domination of a neighboring country (Lebanon), political assassinations in Lebanon, supporting terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq, is...moderate? If he's moderate, who are the extremists? Only Ahmadinejad?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you feel someone who's been behind attempted domination of a neighboring country (Lebanon), political assassinations in Lebanon, supporting terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq, is...moderate? If he's moderate, who are the extremists? Only Ahmadinejad?[/QUOTE]

Using that criteria?

Reagan.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Using that criteria?

Reagan.[/QUOTE]

Please elaborate. Which terrorist groups did Reagan support? Which political assassinations did her order? Which country did he attempt to make a satellite of the United States? This should be interesting if you can come up with more than a one-line response for once.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Which terrorist groups did Reagan support?[/QUOTE]

The Contras in Nicaragua and then selling arms to Iran for starters.

There is something I read about a handbook being handed out that instructed how to make political assassinations, I'll see if I can find it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you feel someone who's been behind attempted domination of a neighboring country (Lebanon), political assassinations in Lebanon, supporting terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq, is...moderate? If he's moderate, who are the extremists? Only Ahmadinejad?[/QUOTE]

Well there are a few wrong statements there, more evidence that if we weren't so ignorant to the situation we might have a better chance of finding a solution.

Lebanon had been occupied for what, 15 years? About a decade before Bashar Assad became president.

Hezbollah isn't considered a terrorist organization over there, they do considerably more charity work then terrorism. After the cedar revolution in Lebanon we should have rolled in 30 garbage trucks full of $100 bills, like Hezbullah did.

Before Iraq he was well on his way to becoming our new pal in the region, shit we still bring guys there to torture. Now I'm not a big fan of his, but I don't think he's an idiot either. I think the Syrian situation is considerably more nuanced then, "He am bad, me bomb!" and Pelosi going and seeing that first hand, while at the same time putting a different face on America, might not have been the worst thing ever.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The Contras in Nicaragua and then selling arms to Iran for starters.

There is something I read about a handbook being handed out that instructed how to make political assassinations, I'll see if I can find it.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK the Contras were freedom fighters against a communist Nicaraguan government, not terrorists. Please correct me if I'm wrong (really).

Selling arms to Iran is not the same as giving arms to Hezbollah. I think it is wrong for us to have done that, but it's not the same thing.

And please do tell me if you find any political assassinations ordered by Reagan, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Well there are a few wrong statements there, more evidence that if we weren't so ignorant to the situation we might have a better chance of finding a solution.[/quote]

Your attitude leaves something to be desired, especially given your false claims below.

[quote name='Cheese']Lebanon had been occupied for what, 15 years? About a decade before Bashar Assad became president. [/quote]

So it's okay for him to order a continued attempt to dominate Lebanon because that policy started before he was president? I strongly disagree on that one.

[quote name='Cheese']Hezbollah isn't considered a terrorist organization over there, they do considerably more charity work then terrorism. After the cedar revolution in Lebanon we should have rolled in 30 garbage trucks full of $100 bills, like Hezbullah did.[/quote]

I don't care what people blind to reality consider them to be. The reality is they are a terrorist organization, one that has killed hundreds of U.S. peacekeeping forces and a heck of a lot of civilians. You can take their ill-gotten money and blow it out your ass.

[quote name='Cheese']Before Iraq he was well on his way to becoming our new pal in the region, shit we still bring guys there to torture. Now I'm not a big fan of his, but I don't think he's an idiot either. I think the Syrian situation is considerably more nuanced then, "He am bad, me bomb!" and Pelosi going and seeing that first hand, while at the same time putting a different face on America, might not have been the worst thing ever.[/QUOTE]

Don't attempt to characterize my arguments as simplistic and naive when they are not. You are making an ass of yourself with your idiotic assumptions that are based on nothing I've written at all, and it's pathetic.

Did I say he was an idiot? No...so where did that come from?

Did I say we should bomb him? No...so where did that come from?

So stop posting bullshit.

The one thing I'm certain of about Pelosi's visit was that it was demeaning to all Americans that the speaker of our House of Representatives wore a fucking headscarf while there even though she is not Muslim.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The one thing I'm certain of about Pelosi's visit was that it was demeaning to all Americans that the speaker of our House of Representatives wore a fucking headscarf while there even though she is not Muslim.[/QUOTE]
I'm certain you'll agree then that it was just as, if not more, demeaning when the First Lady and Secretary of State covered their heads as well.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']AFAIK the Contras were freedom fighters against a communist Nicaraguan government, not terrorists.[/QUOTE]

If Firefighters fight fires than what do Freedom fighters fight?

They definitely fell under terrorists what with the whole nun raping thing, Unless you know, you think they were asking for it since they were wearing tight habits.


I don't care what people blind to reality consider them to be.
Click to expand...

Considering what you just said about the Contras and Iran I cannot believe you can say this without your head imploding.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Your attitude leaves something to be desired, especially given your false claims below.[/quote]

It wasn't meant as an insult, just saying that there's more to the picture then most people realize.

So it's okay for him to order a continued attempt to dominate Lebanon because that policy started before he was president? I strongly disagree on that one.
Click to expand...

There was no attempt, they dominated Lebanon. There was no reason for him to leave (even though there was 'officially' a withdrawal underway, not more then a token though really). And when the Cedar Revolution happened he pulled his troops out without firing a shot. He certainly could have.

I don't care what people blind to reality consider them to be. The reality is they are a terrorist organization, one that has killed hundreds of U.S. peacekeeping forces and a heck of a lot of civilians. You can take their ill-gotten money and blow it out your ass.
Click to expand...

Think of it from their perspective, they rolled into Lebanon and poured millions and millions of dollars (from Iran) into the poorest of communities, what are the people living there supposed to do? Starve?

Don't attempt to characterize my arguments as simplistic and naive when they are not. You are making an ass of yourself with your idiotic assumptions that are based on nothing I've written at all, and it's pathetic.

Did I say he was an idiot? No...so where did that come from?

Did I say we should bomb him? No...so where did that come from?

So stop posting bullshit.
Click to expand...

I never implied you said or thought he was an idiot, or that we should bomb him. Just because I say that I don't think he's an idiot doesn't automatically imply that you do. I was speaking generally (and more to Mr. RollingSkull) about how there are often more options then military ones.

The one thing I'm certain of about Pelosi's visit was that it was demeaning to all Americans that the speaker of our House of Representatives wore a fucking headscarf while there even though she is not Muslim.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to a bar mitzvah or a bris? Guess what, you have to wear a yarmulke even if you're not Jewish. It's a sign of respect, not belief. She only wore the scarf when she went to a 1,700 year old mosque. Seriously, being respectful isn't being demeaning.

PS - The contras were terrorists. Without a doubt. Pro-Democracy terrorists, but terrorists all the same.
 
The one thing I'm certain of about Pelosi's visit was that it was demeaning to all Americans that the speaker of our House of Representatives wore a ing headscarf while there even though she is not Muslim.
Click to expand...

Condi wears one when she goes to mosques.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']AFAIK the Contras were freedom fighters against a communist Nicaraguan government, not terrorists. Please correct me if I'm wrong (really).

Selling arms to Iran is not the same as giving arms to Hezbollah. I think it is wrong for us to have done that, but it's not the same thing.

And please do tell me if you find any political assassinations ordered by Reagan, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.[/QUOTE]
I liked Reagan, but the Sandinistas replaced a dictatorship and instituted a constitutional Democracy in Nicaragua, one that still exists today. They were their legally elected government by any standard. Reagan supported the Contras, who were mainly former military loyal to the Somoza dynasty of dictators. (Wouldn't be the first time the US overthrew a democratic government to institute a dictatorship, see Operation Ajax. You could argue that the precedent was set by Eisenhower, but we're still dealing with the results of that action today.) The Contras were absolutely a terrorist organization. The Sandonistas were not Communists, they instituted a pluralistic Democracy whereas Communist governments typically only allow the Communist party. They were clearly leftists and had instituted land reform among other things, they also had ties to Cuba. Socialists would be pretty accurate.

Additionally, Reagan funded the Contras with arms sales to Iran and by working with the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the US. The arms sales violated the Arms Export Control Act. Funding the Contras violated the Boland Amendment, which specifically banned it. Using the CIA to work with Noriega and the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the US is also highly illegal and morally reprehensible.

The Sandinistas are today one of the two leading parties in Nicaragua, and their leader in the 80s, Daniel Ortega, is again their President.

Anyone else would've been impeached, but he was Teflon Ron. He did a lot of great things in his Presidency, but Iran Contra to me is worse than Watergate. He supported terrorists by means of selling arms to Iran and dealing cocaine in the US.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm certain you'll agree then that it was just as, if not more, demeaning when the First Lady and Secretary of State covered their heads as well.[/QUOTE]

Wait, did Pelosi only wear it to visit a mosque? I still think it was a mistake if she did, but if that's the only time she wore it I could understand. The picture of Rice seems to indicate she did it to visit a mosque. I'm not sure about Laura Bush and religious customs. Anyone have clarifying info here?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I liked Reagan, but the Sandinistas replaced a dictatorship and instituted a constitutional Democracy in Nicaragua, one that still exists today. They were their legally elected government by any standard. Reagan supported the Contras, who were mainly former military loyal to the Somoza dynasty of dictators. (Wouldn't be the first time the US overthrew a democratic government to institute a dictatorship, see Operation Ajax. You could argue that the precedent was set by Eisenhower, but we're still dealing with the results of that action today.) The Contras were absolutely a terrorist organization. The Sandonistas were not Communists, they instituted a pluralistic Democracy whereas Communist governments typically only allow the Communist party. They were clearly leftists and had instituted land reform among other things, they also had ties to Cuba. Socialists would be pretty accurate.[/quote]

http://www.jorian.com/san.html

I would say that you are simplifying things a lot. I admit to not being extremely knowledgeable about Nicaraguan history, but from this seemingly well-balanced essay what you're sayiing isn't really what happened -- i.e. the Sandnistas did not allow elections until more than 11 years after they seized power.

I'm certainly not one to excuse Iran-Contra, however.

Oh, and Cheese, thanks for clarifying...I think I misinterpreted some of what you wrote. Even though we often disagree, I've pretty much always respected your arguments as honest and reasonable opinion.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.jorian.com/san.html

I would say that you are simplifying things a lot. I admit to not being extremely knowledgeable about Nicaraguan history, but from this seemingly well-balanced essay what you're sayiing isn't really what happened -- i.e. the Sandnistas did not allow elections until more than 11 years after they seized power.

I'm certainly not one to excuse Iran-Contra, however.

Oh, and Cheese, thanks for clarifying...I think I misinterpreted some of what you wrote. Even though we often disagree, I've pretty much always respected your arguments as honest and reasonable opinion.[/QUOTE]
That is incorrect, they held Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 1984, as well as in 1990. In my opinion, holding national elections within 5 years, while fighting a major US backed terrorist group, is fairly reasonable. I'm not arguing that they were perfect, or even that great for a number of years, but they should not have been the target of our irrational fear of potential communism. What warranted US support of the Contras? What warranted a complete trade embargo and the mining of their ports? They had substantial support from Cuba, and certainly had left leaning tendencies, but they stopped well short of Communism or even single party rule.

The government of Nicaragua today is not that much different from 1984. The Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, but they retained control of their parliament and continued to be the dominant party.

Reagan, with Thatcher and John Paul II won the Cold War, but Nicaragua was one of his greatest excesses.

Pardon my... zeal, but I had a Nicaraguan roommate for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top