Pelosi is an idiot, she is trying to get another nation pissed at the US by dredging up some crap thats 92 years in the past, the stupid bitch should be working on the problems we have today instead of worring about what happened at the beginning of the last century!
Pelosi and Reid in just a short time have done more damage to the Democratic party name than all the Republican's combined.
Since becoming the Democratic leaders, those two have done absolutely nothing, and now its time for her to shut up..
READ ON.
During the First World War, the Ottoman Turks might or might not have committed genocide. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with her Armenian-American constituents in California, believes they did. And they want Congress to pass a resolution saying so.

So what's the problem with this? Well I will tell you.

The problem is modern-day Turkey's feelings are now officially hurt.

And while it is the only legitimate Middle-Eastern democracy among Islamic states, the bastion of freedom and the model American disciple in the region - the prodigal son or teacher's pet, if you will - surrounded by potentially hostile monarchies and dictatorships, the last thing we want to do is hurt its feelings.

Especially when its government is mobilizing troops along the Iraqi border and threatening to invade in order to quell Kurdish separatists and retaliate against the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist group that has been accused of attacking inside Turkey.

Critics of Pelosi's symbolic resolution of century-old history said bad timing. Others said really bad timing.

But whether you're for or against her entirely nonbinding decree, one thing is clear: Iraq is well on its way from being a "nightmare with no end in sight," as Retired U.S. Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez recently described it, to whatever comes after that on the s--- scale.

If the Turks were to invade, America would be faced with an interesting dilemma. Do we intervene? We are nation-building here and we can't have other countries undermining our efforts. Especially when they're our allies.

To make matters worse, Turkey is home to Incirlik, a large and strategically crucial air base used as a staging area for American and British troops as well as to route supplies into Iraq. Access to this base would more than likely be in jeopardy should the U.S. be forced to intervene amid a Turkish invasion.

The Armenians, meanwhile, have been pushing for passage of the genocide bill for years.

House Resolution 106 was co-authored by a fellow Democrat and statesman of Pelosi's, Rep. Adam Schiff of California's 29th district, which is home to the country's largest Armenian community, according to The Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, the president has been an outspoken critic of the proclamation and said Congress is merely wasting its time.

"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day," George W. Bush said at a recent press conference.

And for what has to be the first time in seven years, I agree with the man.

For a group of men and women to actually have lower national approval ratings than both Bush and Dick Cheney - as our current Congress incredibly does - one would logically assume Capitol Hill would be planning ahead rather than looking back 92 years solely to label events of the past.

Turkish parliament, meanwhile, voted by an overwhelming majority to authorize troops to enter Iraq late last week. Whether or not they will remains to be seen.

After being asked by a reporter if the government should ask permission before invading, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is quoted as saying, "Without asking or receiving permission, the U.S. traveled thousands of kilometers to hit Iraq," he said. "No one should give us any advice."

Ben Zenitsky is a senior in journalism. He can be reached at zenitsky.1@osu.edu.
The Lantern, Ohio State University

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:22:04 -0700
From: "Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn.org Political Action" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by list.moveon.org. Learn more
To: "Harold Johnston"

Subject: Hope is not a method.
Right now the progressive movement's main strategy for preventing war with Iran is simply to hope that it doesn't happen.
This war would be a catastrophe, and it may be imminent. So we're proposing a major campaign stop it. Can you chip in$25?

Contribute Here
Dear MoveOn member,

To be honest, I don't even like to think about the possibility of war with Iran. But here's the unfortunate truth—plans for an aerial attack have been drawn up.1 There's nothing stopping Bush from launching that attack any day. And right now the progressive movement's main strategy for preventing it is simply to hope that it doesn't happen.

To paraphrase my ninth-grade sex-ed teacher, "Hope is not a method." We need to do something. There are increasing indications that war with Iran may be imminent. And experts agree it would be a catastrophe.

So today we're proposing a major campaign to expose the danger of a new war with Iran (see below for details). It'll cost about $200,000, and if we can raise the money, we'll start today. Can you chip in $25?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/irandonate.html?id=11491-8629770-up7fhd&t=2
**********************************************************************
War would be a disaster. Military officials who've gamed-out a war with Iran say it's a very, very bad idea. "Iran would hit back against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and activate terrorist allies in the Middle East, further destabilizing a region already struggling with two major wars."2 US troops in the region, Israelis and American civilians abroad and at home would all be at risk.
**********************************************************************

And it's a real possibility. For months, there's been a stream of leaks and revelations by former Bush administration officials that paint a scary picture: Vice President Cheney and the neocons are quietly maneuvering us toward war with Iran—just as they did with Iraq.

Now, the New York Times reports that Freedom's Watch, a $200 million propaganda machine headed by former White House insiders, has started to press for an attack.
And this past week, Bush and Cheney upped the ante with aggressive statements, even invoking the specter of "World War III."

Observers across the political spectrum, from Senator John McCain to former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, say the threat is closer than it appears. And it's never a good idea to underestimate this president's capacity for recklessness.

We can't run the risk that they're crazy enough to do it. That's why it's so important that we make sure policymakers understand the cost of war, and we pressure Congress not to roll over on Iran. If we can raise the money today, here's what we'll do:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There has been speculation in Iran following Larijani's remarks that Putin has asked Tehran to at least give in to a temporary suspension in return for Moscow's support.

The Iranian president added that he "expected" the Russians to complete the joint nuclear power plant in Bushehr, indicating that no guarantee was given by Putin on the plant's completion in southern Iran which is already eight years behind schedule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Below is a post I did A year and A half ago!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Thursday May 11, 2006

IRANIAN MINDSET Back to Full Blog


the Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad in a letter to Bush accused him of portraying Iran's nuclear program as a threat to Israel.
well what the hell does he expect,everytyime anyone mentions any action against Iran he threatens to attack Israel.
in his letter he say's that the world is tired of corruption and poverty and have joined an ever-increasing global hatred of American government. well he got that right!
what the whole letter expresses is mainly focused on religion,and any government that is based on religion cannot be swayed to except any other form of government.
Russian Pres.Putin has said that Russia is the best friend that the
islamic world has,thats because they attempt to suppress all religions,Iran hates christians and jews.
Scott McClellan said Tuesday,the international community is concerned about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. the battle lines are being drawn.
the Europeas nations have offered a package to give Iran low-grade
uranium for fuel...they refused.they intend to build nuclear weapons.
that leaves the U.S in a tough position,if we attack Iran they will attack back, and Israel as well as the U.S. will have to defend their own turf. and this is going to happen!
if you ever wondered what hell looks like, very soon you will get a view of it.

Harold J.

Posted by RealWorld at 12:02 PM - 5 Comments Add a Comment
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There has been speculation in Iran following Larijani's remarks that Putin has asked Tehran to at least give in to a temporary suspension in return for Moscow's support.

The Iranian president added that he "expected" the Russians to complete the joint nuclear power plant in Bushehr, indicating that no guarantee was given by Putin on the plant's completion in southern Iran which is already eight years behind schedule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The first part of this post is an email i received today from MoveOn, seems that they are finally catching up to me on the war with Iran! where the hell have they been?
I made a comment to them when i did this post, and have made contribution to various endeavors, however never to a political campaign.

You read the "World War III" remark that Bush made, does anyone understand that W W III has already began, why do you think Putin was in Iran? He has supported Iran from the beginning!
Can Iran and Russia defeat the US in this war? certainly!
You must remember that they watched the 9/11 and Katrina, and realize that if 19 so called terrorist and a hurricane can put this nation in chaos, what would we do in the event of several similar attacks at the same time?
Our president is just idiotic enough to attack Iran,and Putin will back Iran!

War crimes defined!

Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.

International Criminal Court

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:


Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

Torture or inhumane treatment

Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property

*Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power

Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

Taking hostages

As you read the above note it is well documented that the present administration has comitted all those acts except the one marked. *

So what was the real reason Vladimir Putin went to Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad? It wasn't to discuss Iran's nuclear program, my view, the plan was to stack the deck against the US and our western allies. And Russia has the nuclear trump card.
Ahmadinejad is Iran's Hitler, of course the US have their own in George Bush.
However Putin made it very clear that he would not back stronger UN sanctions imposed on Iran, and that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

Putin and Ahmadinejad have an eye on forming a Caspian coalition with the other three states that landlock the Caspian Sea,Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. If this comes about those five nations would control an area that has been described as one of the worlds riches oil reserves with upwards an estimated 250 billion barrels, and widely known as the worlds largest natural gas reserves. It is fact that region has approximately 180 trillion cubic feet of reserve, and could produce another 290 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And of course Iran and Russia would be the two majors players.

I stated on another blog over a year ago that Iran and Russia would come to terms on an agreement that would be benificial to both nations, and if that happened Iran would have no reason to produce nuclear weapons, they would have instant access to that.
At that point those two nations would have total control of the Caspian Sea with only 700 mile seperating them, and the rest of the world would be cut off from the region.
Ahmadinejad does not care about controlling his neighbors, he only wants to keep the region in turmoil until Iraq's oil resources are depleted, and the U.S. runs out of war funding.

Russia already has a virtual monopoly on the natural gas flow to the region, and a huge portion of Europe, and if those two nations reach an agreement they would be the two biggest players in world energy game, and this is what Bush does not want.
This being said, a U.S. military invasion of Iran using the excuse that they want to produce nuclear weapons is a myth, so do you think Bush would create false intelligence for that purpose?

Hillary seemed rattled.


Up until now, she has displayed remarkable imperturbability — gliding along with the help of good lighting, a hearty guffaw and a clever husband.

But on Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, Hillary lost her cool at last. Sparring with a voter on Iran, she sounded defensive and paranoid.

A Democrat, Randall Rolph, asked Senator Clinton why he should back her when she did not learn her lesson after voting to authorize W. to use force in Iraq. He did not understand how she could have voted yea to urge W. to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, possibly setting the stage for more Cheney chicanery.

Hillary said that “labeling them a terrorist organization gives us the authority to impose sanctions on their leadership. ...I consider that part of a very robust diplomatic effort.”

Fearful that her questioner was an enemy spy creeping into her perfect little world, she suggested that he had been put up to the question and did not have his information right.

“I take exception,” Mr. Rolph insisted. “This is my own research. ... I’m offended that you would suggest that.”

Hillary apologized and said that she had been asked “the very same question in three other places.” She explained that she had signed on to a rewritten version of the amendment that did not, as he claimed, give a green light for combat.

In the original “sense of Senate on Iran” document, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and the Republican Jon Kyl last month, there was a paragraph that supported “the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments, in support of the policy with respect to” Iran. That original draft, called “tantamount to a declaration of war” and “Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, was softened.

Even so, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted no, and Barack Obama would have voted no if he had voted.

If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can’t believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?

The schism in the administration is deepening in a way that should alarm Hillary. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper report in today’s Times that Cheney and his hawks are arguing that the Israeli intelligence about Syria’s nascent nuclear capabilities that led to last month’s Israeli strike on Syria was credible and should dictate a harsher policy toward Syria and North Korea, while Condi, Bob Gates and calmer heads “did not believe the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.”

Hillary’s hawkish Iran vote was an ill-advised move, especially given her private view that Cheney is untrustworthy and given Sy Hersh’s New Yorker report claiming that Cheney had pushed to devise a plan to attack the Revolutionary Guard facilities in Iran.

She made a course correction on Oct. 1, co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Mr. Webb to prohibit the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.

Her opponents have sounded the fool-me-once-shame-on-you, fool-me-twice-shame-on-me drumbeat. Obama chided Hillary for her willingness “to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt.” John Edwards wondered if in “six months from now he goes to war in Iran, are we going to hear her once again say if only I had known then what I know now?”

When Hillary voted to let W. use force in Iraq, she didn’t even read the intelligence estimate. She wasn’t trying to do the right thing. She was trying to do the opportunistic thing. She felt she could not run for president, as a woman, if she played the peacenik.

By throwing in with Joe Lieberman and the conservative hawks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issue, she once more overcompensated in a cynical way. She’d like to paint Obama as the weak reed who wants to cozy up to dictators, while she’s the one who will play tough. It was odd, given her success in the debates conveying the sense that she is the manliest candidate among the Democrats, that she felt the need to man-up on Iran.

But maybe she knows that Rudy will hurl thunderbolts at her, as he did in the debate yesterday, suggesting that she doesn’t have the guts to use a military option to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Voters seem more concerned with Hillary’s political expediency — which the vote underscored — than with her ability to be manly.

Her camp seems to think her vote was a safe one because W. and Cheney do not have the time or support to bomb Iran, and that Bob Gates can stop it. But she may be underestimating W. and Cheney. She should be at least as paranoid about that pair as she was about an Iowa Democrat.

By: Maureen Dowd