State department tells the crazy people running for president to shut up

[Sportsdude]

[a href="vny!://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy"]vny!://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy[/a]

good grief.
Scary thing is Tom Tancredo is the average conservative voter here in 'middle america'.
If we keep this up lets just abolish this system and go to a parliamentary system. This is getting ridiculous picking idiots after idiots who never have to answer to the public.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]
The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up

"Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.[/p] "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said."[/p]
In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Sens. Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.[/p] It is a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," he said.[/p] Obama, D-Ill., said last week he was willing to sit down with pariah leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and on Wednesday said he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan after Osama bin Laden and other extremists.[/p] On Thursday, he ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan but was quickly derided by Clinton, D-N.Y., who signaled she would keep the option on the table.[/p] At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said.[/p] In 1979, rumors that Israel was going to bomb Mecca and Medina led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in European publications prompted violent protests two years ago.[/p]  

[PostMonkee @(^_^)@]

This is what American politics has come to. And yeah, I realize that this is not even a low point when you compare it to the anti-communist hysteria in the 50's for instance, but considering how far most Americans believe we have evolved past that point, it's still shocking.

  And it clearly demonstrates how far to the right our political landscape has shifted when the "liberal" candidates are engaging in pissing contests, trying to prove how ready they are to kill foreigners. I liked Obama at first, but this is just one more bit of evidence that he's a f*cktard. He's talking about INVADING Pakistan. What else do you call inserting your troops into a sovereign country over the objections of that country's government for the purpose of killing people? Under international law that is an act of war. No wonder we won't sign on to the international criminal court. War crimes, and international law in general, are strictures that apply to the rest of the world. Pax Americana is, naturally, above such things.

[Sportsdude]

well I seem to remember that "Contract with America" back in '94 that the 'new republicans' had things like evicting the UN from New York, leaving the UN.

Basically we don't give a shit about international rules. Hell we even make up rules and trap countries into signing them (free trade agreements) then we say hahaha idiots they apply to you and not to us. And we break them, willingly.

I keep watching the British House of Commons Question period every week and I must say that system while it has its faults is pretty much idiot proof. No way in hell does a Bush survive in that system.
 

[Vivek Golikeri]

Sportsdude wrote:
well I seem to remember that "Contract with America" back in '94 that the 'new republicans' had things like evicting the UN from New York, leaving the UN.

Basically we don't give a shit about international rules. Hell we even make up rules and trap countries into signing them (free trade agreements) then we say hahaha idiots they apply to you and not to us. And we break them, willingly.

I keep watching the British House of Commons Question period every week and I must say that system while it has its faults is pretty much idiot proof. No way in hell does a Bush survive in that system.
 


It may be true that someone like Georgie Porgie might not survive in the British system, but that's because Jolly Old England is no longer a global power. Consequently, she no longer has global interests and concerns to protect. While I don't agree with everything our country America does, educate yourself as to the chicanery and robbery Britain practiced in the days of their Empire.  

[P.C.]

I don't have much to add to this thread....but I just wanted to say that although you don't post here often,Vivek, I always enjoy reading your posts.    

[Vivek Golikeri]

Normally, I too would be disgusted by the thought of bombing holy places, and would disapprove of invading someone's country. But Pakistan is different. That wretch of a country, officially our "ally" like Saudi Arabia, is harboring people who plot to terrorize and murder us in its borderlands. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia funds terrorists under the guise of "Islamic charity."

  If it came to that, we would need two simulatenous strikes. Bomb Pakistan's nuclear reactor, then launch a massive strike in Waziristan, where Bin Laden is said to hide. Then, once the nukes are out, occupy some parts of Pakistan and ask India to invade and occupy other parts. Pakistan is a patchwork of different linguistic groups like Baluchistan, Punjab and Sind. The proposal to dissolve Pakistan itself would delight India, because Pakistan has been one of their biggest headaches since 1947.

  While I also don't like Tancredo, as I sense he's a right-winger, his proposal is not that of a madman. Israel has warned Egypt that if Egypt ever attacks Israel again or lets Egypt be used to do so, Israel will bomb the Aswan Dam. The accumulated water, unleashed, would flood practically all of inhabited Egypt a la Atlantis. Bombing Mecca and Medina is going too far. But if we bombed, say, the Saudi highway leading to Mecca plus the port of Jiddah where pilgrims land, the FEAR that actual destruction of holy sites might occur would chill the jihadists' passions.  

[P.C.]

Wow.....that sounds like a lot of bombing. Nothing could convince me this is the answer.  

[Sportsdude]

that's what americans like to do P.C.  

[P.C.]

[img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="vny!://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/traurig/a010.gif" border=0]                                                                    .

[Sportsdude]

hehe. should clarify, american administrations like to do. We've never had a 'peaceful' administration or congress. Its all hawks all the time.  

[Sportsdude]

but then doesn't that make us like our admistrations we elect? Its like the saying you are what you eat. We elected these people in the first place. hmm  

[Gopher]

I know, it sometimes makes me question the desirability of democracy, but then what more acceptable  form of government could take its place?

[P.C.]

I'll handle things.  [img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="vny!://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/more/bigs/a170.gif" border=0]

[Sportsdude]

 well democracy doesn't exist in the states. Its a two party dictatorship. That's how this country was founded as. And both parties are under the same political philosphy liberalism. So when you go to the polls and question people they're all cynics. The answer you'll get is "I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils." or you get the people that don't vote "why should I vote, the two parties don't care about me and they're both the same".

US isn't a democracy in the most democratic sense.
   

[Vivek Golikeri]

P.C. wrote:
 Wow.....that sounds like a lot of bombing. Nothing could convince me this is the answer.

 
 P.C., believe me, I do not enjoy the topic. I am not a warmonger or a bloodluster. But I am even less some pacifist like Mr. Mohandas K. Gandhi ( I refuse to call him "Mahatma" ) who is questionably credited with ending British rule in India. I believe that using the sword is a legitimate right when attacked. The terrorists attacked us, and are determined to destroy our way of life if possible. America didn't start the war, and we have to do what it takes to strike terror right into the heart of terror. Pacifism is not enlightenment, but suicide in the name of a misguided idealism.