Nancy Pelosi in Muslim country
Just what is our Pelosi doing over there exceot trying to do, impersonate Englands Neville Chamberlain from the late 1930's to
appease the Germans ? Even wearing their head scarf to kowtow to them.
Looks exactly like back in the start of WW 2 again when appeasent was
tried on the Krauts and didnt work either. All it did was give them more time and many easy conquerings of countries. Yes, I saw all this happen during the late '30's when I was a teen ager and see the same thing happening now. Back then our Military was at a low in comparison to hostile countries forces. Same as now. Unless we bring back the draft to beef up our Military we will be in the same shape we were in 1940. When WW 2 started for us our poorly trained troops were shipped overseas with little but basic training. During the middle of the war I was shipped overseas as a Infantry rifleman with about 17 weeks of training to Europe. At least think about whether you want your kids to go into combat without decent training as many of us did.
We MUST have a large ready and well trained Military to show our strength in this day and age before it is too late. Remember also, back then we were fighting against mainly Germany, Japan and Italy.
Not the whole damn bunch of Muslim countries.
appease the Germans ? Even wearing their head scarf to kowtow to them.
Looks exactly like back in the start of WW 2 again when appeasent was
tried on the Krauts and didnt work either. All it did was give them more time and many easy conquerings of countries. Yes, I saw all this happen during the late '30's when I was a teen ager and see the same thing happening now. Back then our Military was at a low in comparison to hostile countries forces. Same as now. Unless we bring back the draft to beef up our Military we will be in the same shape we were in 1940. When WW 2 started for us our poorly trained troops were shipped overseas with little but basic training. During the middle of the war I was shipped overseas as a Infantry rifleman with about 17 weeks of training to Europe. At least think about whether you want your kids to go into combat without decent training as many of us did.
We MUST have a large ready and well trained Military to show our strength in this day and age before it is too late. Remember also, back then we were fighting against mainly Germany, Japan and Italy.
Not the whole damn bunch of Muslim countries.
0
-
Where did she go ? Detroit ? 0 -
I wonder how she feels about "female circumcision"? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCorvers
Where did she go ? Detroit ?
LOL
I don't remember too many people kicking up a big fuss when the boys working for Reagan were being buddy buddy with Saddam over in Iraq, to say nothing of giving away all of the weapons to Afganistan. Did anyone see Nancy dropping off loads of arms and ammunition during her visit? What we are seeing now is a bad policy, but we had a much worse policy back then and we are paying dearly for it today.0 -
Maybe Nancy didn't drop off a load of guns because- she hasn't confiscated ours yet. That is her plan you know, to get our guns.
Talk about a hoe!0 -
That makes two American women I wish the "militant muslim's" would have found.
The other is my 'ex wife. She's doing convoy duty in Iraq.[:p]
Joe,
What separates the Boy Scouts from the USAF...
........the Boy Scouts have adult supervision.
If you saw what has been going on in the AF you'd be baffled at how technology has made American's stupid.
Training.....oh the AF figured out how to get training in and support the mission....CBT's. Computer based training.....you let yer new Airmen point and click until the screen says you passed....then side effects of this "training" are on the Secretary of Defense's desk right now.
The AF accidentally destroyed a piece of Naval property that is very very important.
Who was on shift that led to this....accident...an airmen straight outa tech school....a irate airmen they are kicking out....and about nothing else. No leadership.
They could have called me in....but there was no one there to say "holy chet we ain't got enough people to support these planes"....and they wouldn't have called me in since it is the Commanders policy of no overtime for civilians.
Paying me $60 for two hours of work would have been alot cheaper than the $30 million they lost destroying the Navy's asset.
Ahh but that's just another day in Govt. waste.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kristov
quote:Originally posted by SCorvers
Where did she go ? Detroit ?
LOL
I don't remember too many people kicking up a big fuss when the boys working for Reagan were being buddy buddy with Saddam over in Iraq, to say nothing of giving away all of the weapons to Afganistan. Did anyone see Nancy dropping off loads of arms and ammunition during her visit? What we are seeing now is a bad policy, but we had a much worse policy back then and we are paying dearly for it today.
Or, what about the Republicans that went there around the same time?0 -
Who are the Republicans went there at the same time and who did they meet under what pretenses? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
quote:Originally posted by kristov
quote:Originally posted by SCorvers
Where did she go ? Detroit ?
LOL
I don't remember too many people kicking up a big fuss when the boys working for Reagan were being buddy buddy with Saddam over in Iraq, to say nothing of giving away all of the weapons to Afganistan. Did anyone see Nancy dropping off loads of arms and ammunition during her visit? What we are seeing now is a bad policy, but we had a much worse policy back then and we are paying dearly for it today.
Or, what about the Republicans that went there around the same time?
1.) Being "buddy buddy" with Saddam was deemed to be a geopolitical necessity at the time. He was fighting an aggressive, expansionist, revolutionary ideology in the form of the Iranian mullahs and we judged Saddam (correctly, I might add) to be the lesser evil. The same applies to the Afghans. We were under no illusions about the mujhadeen, but the fact that they were willing to fight the Soviets for us made them acceptable, and we needed to make a push back against their destabalizing invasion and installation of an enemy government in Afghanistan. By your logic, we shouldn't have supported Stalin (who got entire armies' worth of equipment and arms from us) over Hitler because of what he did subsequently with those arms and aid. Policy makers have to make decisions in the here and now and calculations of interests and returns and short and medium term threats always influence those decisions.
2.) The republicans that were there at the same time weren't trying to usurp the Commander in Chief's Constitutional role, trying to cozy up to a dictator and enemy, or lying by trying to pass themselves off as spokesmen and brokers for Israel, all of Pelosi WAS doing.0 -
quote:2.) The republicans that were there at the same time weren't trying to usurp the Commander in Chief's Constitutional role, trying to cozy up to a dictator and enemy, or lying by trying to pass themselves off as spokesmen and brokers for Israel, all of Pelosi WAS doing.That was the point I was going to make--that Pelosi went over there acting as if she was in the State Department instead of just one of 435 Representatives and, to my knowledge, no Republican was trying to negotiate separately with any foreign power.
Foreign policy is not the province of the Legislative Branch--it belongs to the Executive Branch. Individuals from the Legislative Branch may, at the request of the President, be sent on missions of this sort, but it is not their prerogative to undertake such missions on their own.
This woman is drunk with imagined power. Just because that political position has been deemed to be third in line in ascension to the Presidency does not mean that that person is the third most powerful person in the Executive Branch. She is nothing but one of 435 in the Legislative Branch. Someone needs to make that abundantly clear to her.0 -
Then, do tell, what were they doing there? They were there in the same capacity as Pelosi. I think you need to wake up to the political situation in the world; neither party has any respect for the current administration. And, with that situation, they are trying to distance themselves from it as much as possible. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
Then, do tell, what were they doing there? They were there in the same capacity as Pelosi. I think you need to wake up to the political situation in the world; neither party has any respect for the current administration. And, with that situation, they are trying to distance themselves from it as much as possible.
well, if you know so much, why don't you tell us what they were doing there and why there was no coverage of THEIR antics? Maybe because the republicans didn't engage in any of the asininery that Pelosi did? Maybe because they acted like a Congressional delegation and didn't try to force their own policy preferences down everyone's throats like Pelosi did? Maybe because they knew their role, unlike Pelosi? Maybe because if they carried any "message" at all it was one CONSISTENT with the President's, which stands in start contrast to Pelosi telling everyone within earshot how she stand diametrically opposed to the President? Maybe because they didn't have delusions of grandeur like Pelosi did? Maybe because they didn't actively seek to undermine our national interests and give hope and aid and comfort to our enemies like Pelosi did?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
quote:Originally posted by kristov
quote:Originally posted by SCorvers
Where did she go ? Detroit ?
LOL
I don't remember too many people kicking up a big fuss when the boys working for Reagan were being buddy buddy with Saddam over in Iraq, to say nothing of giving away all of the weapons to Afganistan. Did anyone see Nancy dropping off loads of arms and ammunition during her visit? What we are seeing now is a bad policy, but we had a much worse policy back then and we are paying dearly for it today.
Or, what about the Republicans that went there around the same time?
You mean like this guy?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53421
Of course he has only America's best interests at heart so anything he might have done will be quickly excused by the gang! Since the person making the claims against Baker is Jewish, Gun Broker law states clearly that he must be telling the truth...That is just the way it is around here.0 -
Pelosi's coverage wouldn't have anything to do with her being the first female head of the senate, would it? Nahh, that'd be to simple of an explanation for this place. 0 -
Aspen, it's the House, but she's still a treasonous pile of fetid, rotting, maggot crap. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Iconoclast
Aspen, it's the House, but she's still a treasonous pile of fetid, rotting, maggot crap.
Sorry, couldn't quite recall. I've been wrestling a plugged sink and the resultent mess all day.
I agree she's not a great representative, but who is?0 -
What office does Jim Baker hold? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
quote:Originally posted by Iconoclast
Aspen, it's the House, but she's still a treasonous pile of fetid, rotting, maggot crap.
Sorry, couldn't quite recall. I've been wrestling a plugged sink and the resultent mess all day.
I agree she's not a great representative, but who is?
Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo . . . .0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
17 comments