PastaJoe
-
Posts
11,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PastaJoe
-
-
I'd call it a completely different situation. From all accounts, the Iranians entered Iraqi waters to detain the British sailors. At worst, there's a dispute as to exactly where the sailors were. There's no dispute that Iranians were detained in Iraq.
Had US forces actually crossed the border into Iran and "detained" five Iranians...yeah, that would be kidnapping. Detaining them in Baghdad...not so much.
It wasn't in Baghdad, it was in the north, and the U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate, which was considered sovereign territory which can't be entered without permission, like an embassy.
-
I have a picture on my other computer from the helicopter over the ship that the British had boarded. The picture shows the GPS receiver in the sailor's hand with the ship below him. The coordinates are clearly visible. The error in location is 46 feet. I have the next model down in price and it is still working fine being 3.5 years old. When I get a chance, I will post it.
They were 2 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.
I saw the same picture, but it will be disputed as phony or inaccurate. Who's to say if the picture was taken at the same time of the incident, or if the ship had moved, or if the equipment was manipulated to show that data. Or great things can be done with photoshop. All I'm saying is that it can be disputed as being doctored by Iran because it's not from an independent source.
-
Right, they wear a yahmaka in a JEWISH TEMPLE. Not when they enter a jewish country!
I don't think the English woman was in mosque when she was video taped.
And Diane Sawyer wasn't.
As far as "If you don't want to respect others customs, don't go there", man I wish that would apply here!
Customs extend beyond religious buildings. Some countries that are more diverse are more liberal with their customs than others. When in Rome...
-
They already kidnapped people. I highly doubt rights groups are the first thing on their mind.
They weren't kidnapped, they're detained because they're accused of crossing into Iranian territorial waters, just as Mexicans who cross our border (except the Iranians are better at defending it). Would you call the 5 Iranians that the U.S. took out of their consulate in Iraq (which is supposed to be soverign territory) and are still being held kidnapped hostages? Put the jingoism aside and try to be objective.
What I can't believe is that the British would leave a group of Marines alone without any backup support so close to disputed waters in the first place. That's just asking for trouble in a bad neighborhood.
-
Actually, I believe that the Bush White house was upset with some of them because of the midterm election. Seems several of the democrats were under investigation and the Bush WH wanted the indictments served before the election. Cases like Johnson etc... were moving too slow and it was felt the Attorneys were holding it up, either to spite the WH or just inept at their jobs. Either way it's felt that they caused the election to swing into the favor of the dems and now the dems are sticking up for them knowing how much they cost the repubs the election.
Not quite. This all started because the Justice dept. said they fired the DAs because they were underperforming. The DAs (all Republican appointments by Bush) took exception to this slander on their performance and said there was no notification or documentation to them stating that they underperformed, in fact they did quite well on their performance reviews. It just so happened that these DAs were recently or in process of investigating Republicans and Democrats. In one case in California the DA that prosecuted Duke Cunningham was just about to indict a couple more Republicans, and was fired before she could do so. In another case in New Mexico the DA was called by both Sen Dominici and Rep. Heather Wilson, who inquired about the status of an investigation on a Democrat before the election, and wanted to know if an indictment would occur before the election. Shortly after the conversations the DA was fired. In Washington state the DA who was eventually fired was called and asked by Harriet Myers "why are so many Republicans in the state mad at you?". The bottom line question is not IF the president can fire DAs, but was it done after trying to apply political influence in what and how fast the DAs should be investigating political corruption against the respective parties. It also opens up the question of if these DAs were fired because they didn't follow the political desires of the White House, are there others that kept their jobs because they did. And if that's the case, what confidence can any of us have that in the future a DA will make an indictment based on the facts, not for political advantage. As John Ashcroft said, once a DA takes the oath, they have to be objective and not do the White House's bidding, but serve the nation.
-
Why do they always make women, who aren't even Iranian or Muslim, wear that head scarf?
I saw an interview with Diane Sawyer and she was made to wear it.
Image making a muslim reporter in the US wear jewish or christian symbols?
Disgusting that it is not noticed by so called "rights groups"
Diane Sawyer was not "made" to wear it, she chose to wear it as a sign of respect for their customs, as do other women reporters in Muslim countries when meeting with officials. Just as non-Jewish men wear a yahmaka (sp?) when in a Jewish temple. If you don't want to respect others customs, don't go there.
The British woman detainee is not there by choice, so in her case I'm sure they insisted she respect their custom.
-
There's clearly only one solution to this dilemma: I must go back to just naturally assuming that PastaJoe is the retard.
Aaaah...that feels much better now.
Normally I would take offense and respond, but I have to go watch Wheel of Fortune. Big money, big money.
-
Since you are a bunch of gutless pussies who are too scared or weak to defend our nation, we've decided that you'd still be slaves to England if it was left up to you. Thus we've arranged for you to be shipped back there and put to work in the fields.
Good luck.
That must be what Dick Cheney was doing during the Vietnam War when he said he got multiple deferments because had more important things to do. Now I know what he meant when he said he was out standing in his field.
-
Plus, elevating Al Queda as representative of Sunni insurgents in Iraq is only going to get Pasta Joes & Molsons believing it.
I wish we were smart enough to realize how smart you really are.
Now that the Senate has joined with the House in approving funding for the troops, all that remains is for a compromise on language and for Bush to sign it and the money can get to the military. Otherwise Bush will be denying the funds he says they desperately need. And since we were told the surge is supposed to be a short-term tactic with results by the end of summer, it should be over before 2008 anyways, so the deadlines will be met. No way to spin it, the balls in Bush's court to fund or deny funds.
-
HUAC is the house. McCarthy was a senator. He was right. Get Ann Coulter's book Treason and check out the references. The USSR's own files show he was right.
Ann Coulter and the U.S.S.R.; two great ways to check facts.
-
I have no problem with using undisclosed "terror alerts" for military and civil personnel, as it gets them to a certain level of preparation in case they are needed. But I never thought they should be made public; all it did was raise concerns among the general public but never told us what we should do differently. In the end I believe it was mainly a feable P.R. attempt to show the public that the gov't was doing something, and it turned into an on-going late-night talkshow joke.
-
Don't be naive. It is part of the Bill of Rights, because the Founders knew well that government can and will hang citizens, figuratively and literally, to suit their particular political purposes.
You must have been asleep or absent when things like the H.U.A.C. or the Alien and Sedition Act were discussed in history class.
All the Justice dept. and administration officials had to do from the start is tell the truth. Libby got in trouble by not doing so. He was even given a chance to change his statements and he declined. Rove was given the same opportunity by Fitzgerald and did change his statements, and that's why he wasn't charged. If they're not willing to tell the truth, then the truth must be worse than the consequences of lieing. It will come out eventually, as it always does, so why not just cut their losses now and get it over with. Even if they aren't charged with crimes, the court of public opinion will view them as guilty due to this continual resistance to answer questions in public, and therefore they will no longer have to confidence of the public to represent us in the Justice department. At the end of the day they're supposed to be working for us, not Bush.
-
Sorry to hear this. Hope you get well.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Tony...amp;oref=slogin
Liver cancer is pretty bad. Snow and Edwards; it puts things in perspective. Just last night I saw a repeat of the final episode of the show "Six Feet Under". It showed how each of the cast ends up dieing in the future. No matter what, in the end we all die, it's just a matter of when. It makes you think.
-
Rosie opened up her enormous maw on this today. When is BaBa WaWa going to can her fat ass?
Of course the most disturbing aspect of this is that you actually watch "The View".
-
whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world.
You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now.
-
If you were a terrorist what would you do?
This is what I would do if I were one.
• I would fund the Democratic Party to the hilt using dummy corps, legal resident contributions and any other means that I could think of.
• Fund and Stage anti-war rallies in the US.
• Keep on utilizing the MSM as the propaganda tool for our message.
• Lie low for awhile around the world and concentrate on recruiting and gathering intelligence.
• Gather the capability to deploy WMD (Chemical, biological, nuclear – dirty bomb, etc.)
• Wait until the Democrats come into power and pull the troops out of Iraq and the Middle East.
• Take over those countries abandoned by the U.S. using violence and other terror methods
• Strike the US with the WMD and other techniques
• Laugh all the way to the bank as the price of oil escalates to over $200/barrel and the U.S. economy falls into a deep depression unable and unwilling to do anything about it.
Sounds exactly what is happening now. The only thing they can't control are the many American's who won’t fall for this BS and vote Republican in 2008. If this happens, and our candidate wins, we will continue to fight these bastards until they can no longer be effective and radical Islam becomes a pimple on the ass of Mohammad.
If you were a terrorist, especially Al Queda, you would want a continuation of the current Bush policies, since your strength has grown since the Iraq invasion and your leaders are still safe and sound in Pakistan. Your ranks are growing due to the decisions made by the Bush administration, and the worldwide support for the U.S. that really threatened your influence in the Muslim world has be squandered so that a large portion of the world now see's the Bush administration as a bigger threat. The relatively moderate government in Iran was replaced by a more radical one less willing to negotiate, the Palistinian issue that helps you gain recruits has made little progress in being resolved and again because of Bush unwilling to support the Palistinian moderates more radical leaders are now in charge, and in Afganistan the Taliban and terrorists are making a comeback because Bush redirected forces to Iraq.
So bottom line, find the Republican that most believes in continuing the Bush policies, and you'll be assured of another 4-8 years of progress towards your goals. Don't forget to add in a rubber-stamp Republican Congress and you'll really be in good shape.
-
They aren't "attempting to bring them home" because this has zero chance of working. As DC already pointed out, this is almost certainly unconstitutional because Congress isn't in the chain of command. This is basically a publicity stunt. And for what? To bring the troops back in 17 months? If Pelosi really believes the war is such a disaster, why wait 17 months? More importantly, how does doing this ensure success for what our troops are trying to do over there? Do you think General Petreaus is happy about this?
This is pretty much the last thing you'd want Congress to do when you're trying to achieve your goals in a military conflict and the fact that they had to sweeten this thing up to grab the extra votes needed to barely make this thing pass confirms it's a complete abortion.
There aren't enough votes to bring them home now. The majority of Democrats are representing the views of the majority of Americans who don't say bring them home now, but begin the process to draw down combat troops by next year, which is what the appropriation calls for. And this is no longer a U.S. military conflict, it's playing referee in a shooting civil war. Our military conflict ended when Saddam was ousted and there were no W.M.D. found. It's now up to Iraqis to step up.
-
Oh yeah...Joey....but the tons of PORK loaded into the bill, used to BRIBE congressmen to get the damn thing on Bush desk in the first place...thats OK.
!@#$ing dolt.......
I agree Bush is a dolt, but regarding the so-called pork, it's actually funding for drought, hurricane, and flood relief that was promised by Bush and the Republicans in their soundbytes but never funded until now. Just another instance of the Democrats making Bush put the money where his mouth is. Regardless, Bush and the Republicans would have opposed the appropriation to fund the troops anyways.
-
By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.
-
I don't know the man personally so liking him isn't an issue. I respect all White House Press Secretary's because it takes skill to make lemonade out of lemons, which is their main job. By default you can't really trust any press secretary to give "the whole truth", they only give the spin they're told to give. But with Tony Snow in particular he comes across as a smart-alack who is prone to make faces whenever he doesn't like the questions.
-
So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?
Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.
Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.
-
Here we go again. The White House wants Rove to testify to Congress without being under oath, behind closed doors, and with no transcript, on an issue that doesn't have to do with national security. But they have nothing to hide and promise to tell the truth. Yeah, sure, because the White House has been so honest about everything else they tell us.
-
Come on...it's been a long six years for the Dems. You didn't really expect them to not find something worthy of 'investigation' did you? Kinda sad that this is the best they can come up with.....but it's gonna be tough getting those impeachment hearings going in the next 20 months at this rate.
The Dems have only been in the majority for a few weeks, and look at all the problems already uncovered by turning over a few rocks that have been left alone for the past 6 years. Imagine all the issues about this administration's actions that will be brought to light by next year.
-
Since home openers are usually a sellout, they should play a less attractive team like the Lions or Cardinals who wouldn't draw as well in cold weather or if the Bills are out of playoff contention, and play against more interesting teams later that would draw more fans to the games.
Iran releases video of British hostages
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You would follow the Bush policy of shooting first and asking questions later. I'm just trying to set a good example for others. What would Jesus do?