• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US speaker meets Assad despite Bush anger

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what's the problem with Bush? She took a message to Assad from Olmert, who would like to discuss peace with Syria, and Assad says he would also like to discuss peace. Looks like a good start to me.

This is something the Bush administration should have been doing in the first place, but it is good to know that, if some leaders refuse to behave responsibly and work towards trying to solve the problems in the Middle East, then at least there are others who are willing to fill the void, and do Bush's work for him.

Article is here.
 


Isn't this what the joint commission recommended? :roll:
 
Bush is a hypocrite as are many right wingers on this issue. Its funny how they can be critical of her, but not of the republicans that have gone before her, with her and will go there after her... doing exactly the same thing.
 
PeteEU said:
Bush is a hypocrite as are many right wingers on this issue. Its funny how they can be critical of her, but not of the republicans that have gone before her, with her and will go there after her... doing exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

With only three posts in this thread, I don't see where a right winger has been critical of her.
 
 


As I said, With only three posts (now 5) in this thread, I don't see where a right winger has been critical of her.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
As I said, With only three posts (now 5) in this thread, I don't see where a right winger has been critical of her.
Click to expand...
If you'd take the time to read post #3 more closely you'll see that PeteEU did not say "in this thread," he said "on this issue." What's your point anyway? I haven't seen a more blatent red herring in a long time.
 
Binary_Digit said:
If you'd take the time to read post #3 more closely you'll see that PeteEU did not say "in this thread," he said "on this issue."
Click to expand...
Correct. Then in post 4, I pointed out that no one had yet criticized her in this thread. They still haven't.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Correct. Then in post 4, I pointed out that no one had yet criticized her in this thread. They still haven't.
Click to expand...
And your point is?
 

Hitler said he wanted to discuss peace too, good for Assad, you people are so naive it would be almost laughable if it wasn't so frightening that people like you actually exist and believe the crap you're saying. Pelosi violated the separations of power and went to negotiate with a state terror sponsor to pursue a separate foreign policy from that of the executive. Oh and she wore a Hajib:



There's some people that are happy about the trip right along with their ideological counterparts here in the U.S. I speak of course the other people who seek Americas defeat in the WOT IE the leader of numerous terrorist groups:

WorldNetDaily: Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue'

Good to see that all of those terrorists are on her side.
 

How do you think this brand of terrorism is going to end? Through democracy or through annihilation? Your posts suggest annihilation as you are blatantly against democracy.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
That is the point. Sorry you're not able to understand.
Click to expand...
I guess I did understand, but I wasn't sure. I thought there was more to it and I just didn't realize something. Because as it stands right now, your point is kind of... pointless.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I guess I did understand, but I wasn't sure. I thought there was more to it and I just didn't realize something. Because as it stands right now, your point is kind of... pointless.
Click to expand...
then be assured, you missed it.
 
Back on track, I'm with Pelosi on this. Diplomacy is something we should never give up on. You can't resolve differences with people by refusing to talk to them. And as for the Hajib, big deal. When in Rome, etc. It's called being polite and respectful.
 
Yes, and we all know how polite and respectful those terrorists can be.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Yes, and we all know how polite and respectful those terrorists can be.
Click to expand...
If you can prove that she met with terrorists I might be inclined to agree.
 
Gibberish said:
How do you think this brand of terrorism is going to end? Through democracy or through annihilation? Your posts suggest annihilation as you are blatantly against democracy.
Click to expand...


Actually it is Assad and the Mullahs that are against Democracy, Pelosi is playing right into their hands, she reminds almost to a T of Neville Chamberlin and his "peace in our time," bullshit, it seems she and the Democrats would like nothing more than to sign another Munich agreement and sell out Iraq to the Iranians, Syrians, and insurgents.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism namely Hezbollah, their government is a terrorist entity.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about that. I was thinking more along the lines of actual terrorists and not necessarily state sponsors of terrorism. I know you think that's crazy, and that there's no difference, but there is and I think the ISG recommendations should be followed.

Terrorism will not be eliminated by simply killing all things terrorism. The only way to remove the conditions that feed terrorism is through dialog. Sure it's easy to just be hateful, that's my first instinct too. But putting aside emotions and thinking logically and honestly, how many disagreements have you resolved by being hateful about it?

And before you say it, dialog does not mean cowering to all their wishes either. It means explaining our positions and why we hold them, listening to their positions and why they hold them, and working together like adults to reconcile the differences. And this process should continue indefinately, until there are no differences.

One question: If Pelosi shouldn't have gone to Syria because they sponsor Hezbollah, wouldn't that mean Israel should stop trying to repair relations with Palestine since Hamas is in the parliament?
 

Oh my God!!!!!!!!

She is wearing an Arabic scarf and is in a mosque. What a traitor. Who would have thunk it! Wait, wait just a minute. That is Laura Bush!

As you were saying?


NOTE: Picture of Laura Bush, wearing scarf required by Islam, inside mosque, courtesy of the White House.

NOTE2: Jeez, what an unabashed hypocrite you are.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about that. I was thinking more along the lines of actual terrorists and not necessarily state sponsors of terrorism. I know you think that's crazy, and that there's no difference, but there is
Click to expand...

No there's not what the hell is the difference between terrorists and those who fund and support their cause?

and I think the ISG recommendations should be followed.
Click to expand...

A) Those were recommendations to the President not Nancy Pelosi it is the Presidents perogative to follow the recommendations or not, but Pelosi has taken it upon herself to violate U.S. foreign policy and negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism.

B) There once was this guy who thought along the same lines you did, his name was Neville Chamberlin.

Terrorism will not be eliminated by simply killing all things terrorism. The only way to remove the conditions that feed terrorism is through dialog.
Click to expand...

The conditions that fuel terrorism are Islamism (which contrary to popular belief is mainstream in the M.E.) and those regimes which you are seaking to negotiate with and give even more legitimacy.

Sure it's easy to just be hateful, that's my first instinct too. But putting aside emotions and thinking logically and honestly, how many disagreements have you resolved by being hateful about it?
Click to expand...

How many disagreements have been resolved by negotiating with tyrants?


Given the regimes which you seak to negotiate with that is impossible, you're saying that negotiations can resolve all difference between two diametrically opposed ideologies, on the one side you have rational Democratic nations and on the other you have totalitarian and irrational nations. It's just not going to happen but keep dreaming.

One question: If Pelosi shouldn't have gone to Syria because they sponsor Hezbollah, wouldn't that mean Israel should stop trying to repair relations with Palestine since Hamas is in the parliament?
Click to expand...

I believe they do refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian governent these days I know we have.
 

Wait oh wait, Laura Bush was meeting with our allies with the consent of our President and was not negotiating anything and Nancy Pelosi was meeting with our enemies against the wishes of our President to negotiate with a state sponsor of terrorism in order to set up a secondary foreign policy contrary to that of the President.

Jeez what an unabashed moron you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…