Pelosi is being used by Syria ( from Anonymous postings )

Speaker Pelosi is being used by Syria and the other leaders cheering on her visit to Syria. Assad, Ahmadeijad, et al. want Democrats in power, because they know the Democrats will cut the funding to the war and remove our troops from Iraq.

Right now, Iraq is graduate school for terrorists. If you want to learn to make a roadside bomb, go learn in Iraq. If you want to learn how to kidnap, go to Iraq. All of the terrorists are in Iraq right now, training for the stage of the war. Once trained, they are returning to their own countries. When the situation in Iraq winds down, the fight will begin elsewhere. Namely in the US and Europe.

Assad, etc. are playing up Pelosi's visit to get involved in our political system. They'll commend the Speaker for her job well done, and then stab the US in the back after the troops are out of their way. Anyone who actually buys into this idea that these leaders really want to play nice with the West and America has been the bully has got it all wrong.

Al Qaeda has planned this out, and we're playing into their hands. They hit us with 9/11 to raise the battle cry among Islamic nations that Islam is under attack. Muslims are obligated to defend their religion. The bigger mess they create in Iraq, the more support they get from other muslim countries, the more havoc they create among the American and European communities in regard to politics. They've divided us politically. And we all know about a house divided, right?

I don't agree with Bush's policies, but I do agree with his stance that as long as the fighting is happening over there, it isn't happening over here. I wish those in power, like Speaker Pelosi, would realize this. If Democrats get their way and we leave this business half-finished, we're inviting them to hit us back home.

I thought this was very well written by a poster who chose not to register.

Enjoy.

M.Agenda!

I find it strange that Pelosi is being used by Syria but the Republicans that visited after Pelosi aren't being held to the same standard.

www.voanews.com...

any ideas?

I think the Republican lawmakers who went there have been drawing criticism, but it's not as fierce since these people weren't in House leadership roles. Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, should rightly be held to a higher standard. Plus, the Republicans didn't say they were acting as a diplomatic go-between bringing a message of peace from Israel (something Israel quickly denied).

She's the highest level official to visit,
If they have a problem with her being there, fine. Send someone else.
Talk is always better than not talking.

Good on her, everyone expected this sort of crap to come out in the media.
soon she'll be labeled a terrorist collaborater, and a Anti-semantic for talking to someone who doesnt hold Israel in the same regards as we do.

I mean, if GW Snr can continue relations with the Saudi leaders, even though he's out of office and that sends a majorly mixed signal, I dont see the problem with a currently in power official visiting.

Like i said, atleast she's talking to them, and trying to find mutual ground.
This whole ignore them because they dont agree with us act isnt very good for a political leader.

And Nixon was a Communist for talking to Mao?

Please...

Hmm, I think the problem is she's not the President.

Nixon was...that was his job.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hmm, I think the problem is she's not the President.

Nixon was...that was his job.

Excellent, so lets get Bush over there talking, trying to find peace and a diplomatic agreement to the strife in the ME.

So far, he has refused to talk to 2 major ME leaders that are a major reason behind the problems in the ME.

Saddam, and Ahmjadine.
Yet no one else is allowed to?

It really is as if he doesnt want peace.

The President and his state department have decided that it is not in the best interest of the U.S. to hold any talks with certain nations for various reasons until they've made policy changes that have been well publicized.

Just because you may disagree with that decision doesn't change the law or the Constitution.

Its not that I dont agree,

But I mean jee's, If you really want to figure out a reasonable answer to the issues between the two nations, talk.
Its that simple.

clinton managed to talk to arafat, I dont see why its so hard for Bush to talk to Assad or Ahmajadine.

I think it would be a WIN WIN Situation for the President no matter what his agender.

Make it LIVE, thats what counts.
Let the world see exactly what is said.

That way, we dont have to take anyones word for what happened.
the public will see which nation is truley desired for peace or not.

Im curious. How was it that arab guy who was renditioned by the CIA ended up being held and questioned in Syria if we aren't already on speaking terms with them.

Karl you got to quit this anonymous posting and just fess up, we all know who you are.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Im curious. How was it that arab guy who was renditioned by the CIA ended up being held and questioned in Syria if we aren't already on speaking terms with them.

We do have diplomatic relations with Syria. We just don't want endless talks with them about subjects where our position has already been made clear.

Returning a Syrian citizen to Syria doesn't take that much diplomacy-wise.

Post removed

[edit on 4/8/2007 by centurion1211]

because they know the Democrats will cut the funding to the war and remove our troops from Iraq.

Awsome. The syrians are psychic.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

We do have diplomatic relations with Syria. We just don't want endless talks with them about subjects where our position has already been made clear.

This is the very heart of the problem and the very reason why talks are so essential to moving forward from conflict. Your position has already been made clear, what does that mean - that you cannot or will not change? We all need to seek and find common ground if we are to move forward from conflict. Governments should be representatives of their people, not simply the people who make decisions. Do ALL the people want conflict? Should those who don't shut up and just accept the will of governance or should they get up off their butts and seek dialogue to ensure that there is a truer representation of beliefs.