No. of Recommendations: 17
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And the US uses it's influence and extends the hand of confusion
in Myanmar.

Fearless leader leading?

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
One thing quite comical is how libs and the UN and the world community suggest moral equivalence between a group of terrorists who lob rockets inside Israel for the sole purpose of killing innocent people and Israel who is merely defending itself and who does its best not to kill innocent people, which is difficult when the terrorists use their own people, including innocent men, women and children, as human shields.

I've never understood the stupidity of those who attempt with a serious face to make that argument. Clearly, the Jews are hated by the world. And Captain Kicka$$ has dissed them several times and is a Muslim sympathizer. Too bad one of our staunchest allies has to wonder whether or not we have their backs.

I've heard the theory that Israel will go forward with a ground offensive to extract the tunnels and kill the terrorists to render them impotent as a preemptive move to prevent Iran from responding to Israel when it decides to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Smart move. Two birds with one stone.

The sad thing is that when Hezbollah attacked Israel during the Bush administration, Israel's liberal leaders caved to world public opinion and did not finish the job. I said at that time this was a mistake and would enable the terrorists to fight another day down the road. I'm sure Israel is aware that this whole Hamas situation could be an attempted diversionary tactic to get them to marshal their troops and equipment to the south in Gaza while Hezbollah will attempt to take advantage to the north with another terrorist attack. If you remember that time, Hezbollah was dug in and were very difficult to defeat and there were some Israeli casualties. I don't think Bibi will cave. He knows these snakes need to be finished once and for all. Nevertheless, Iran is behind all of this. They are supplying this proxy war and they really want to get nukes and annilhilate the Jews. The Jews will do what they have to do with or without our help, but it sure would be nice if they knew we had their back if they get attacked on all fronts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've never understood the stupidity of those who attempt with a serious face to make that argument. Clearly, the Jews are hated by the world. And Captain Kicka$$ has dissed them several times and is a Muslim sympathizer. Too bad one of our staunchest allies has to wonder whether or not we have their backs.

We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" He knows these snakes need to be finished once and for all."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Careful.
The one thing that Israel cannot and will not do is "annihilate"
the opposition.
Taking out Hamas leadership - taking out the PLO leadership - although
possible does not solve the issues.
It may be a Gordian Knot but there needs to be a solution between
"reasonable" parties. Difficult to get to "reasonable" while
lobbing rockets from either direction.

One can hope that there is an option to mutually assured destruction.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I've never understood the stupidity of those who attempt with a serious face to make that argument. Clearly, the Jews are hated by the world. And Captain Kicka$$ has dissed them several times and is a Muslim sympathizer. Too bad one of our staunchest allies has to wonder whether or not we have their backs.

We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------
That's a very difficult situation for me. I go back and forth on it, if we do nothing and Russia and China and Iran arm, for instance, Syria. Aren't we just delaying the inevitable confrontation when they're much stronger and we have one fewer ally? Under your scenario are we allowed to sell Israel anti-missile defenses and weapons using free market principles or are we to refrain from that because then Iran will see us as the enemy? My biggest concern with Libertarianism is it's, in my view, somewhat naive view of foreign relations. Like if Ron Paul was president and Iran took over the middle east and blew up Israel with a couple well placed nukes would he do absolutely nothing? Would he have entered WW2?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.

I'm sure Russia would be delighted to hear that our country would stay completely out of "it" if "it" meant they sided with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. WW2 would have been real fun if we had no allies to help us. Isolationism is nuts, kinda like Ron Paul.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I'm sure Russia would be delighted to hear that our country would stay completely out of "it" if "it" meant they sided with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. WW2 would have been real fun if we had no allies to help us. Isolationism is nuts, kinda like Ron Paul." - JoshRandall

--------------------

Israel has nuclear weapons. Before they allowed themselves to be annihilated they'd turn every country surrounding them to a sheet of glass. Their motto is "NEVER AGAIN!"

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'm sure Russia would be delighted to hear that our country would stay completely out of "it" if "it" meant they sided with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. WW2 would have been real fun if we had no allies to help us. Isolationism is nuts, kinda like Ron Paul." - JoshRandall

--------------------

Israel has nuclear weapons. Before they allowed themselves to be annihilated they'd turn every country surrounding them to a sheet of glass. Their motto is "NEVER AGAIN!"

Art
-------------------
The problem is they'd never do it first, just check out the cries of the UN from Israel defending itself from over 300 missiles lobbed over the border by nutjobs, "Israel must show restraint".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.

I'm sure Russia would be delighted to hear that our country would stay completely out of "it" if "it" meant they sided with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. WW2 would have been real fun if we had no allies to help us. Isolationism is nuts, kinda like Ron Paul.


It's funny that you should use Ron Paul as an example, considering that on July 17, 2001, he predicted that our interventionist foreign policy would lead to terrorist attacks. We all know what happened only two months later.

"The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war."

"The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us."

"We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it's dealing with Milosevic , Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger.

A policy of nonintervention, friendship and neutrality with all nations, engagement in true free trade (unsubsidized trade with low tariffs) is the best policy if we truly seek peace around the world. That used to be the American way."


Text: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNNTPfAzo4Y
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I've never understood the stupidity of those who attempt with a serious face to make that argument. Clearly, the Jews are hated by the world. And Captain Kicka$$ has dissed them several times and is a Muslim sympathizer. Too bad one of our staunchest allies has to wonder whether or not we have their backs."

We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.

--------------------------------------------------------
That's a very difficult situation for me. I go back and forth on it, if we do nothing and Russia and China and Iran arm, for instance, Syria. Aren't we just delaying the inevitable confrontation when they're much stronger and we have one fewer ally? Under your scenario are we allowed to sell Israel anti-missile defenses and weapons using free market principles or are we to refrain from that because then Iran will see us as the enemy? My biggest concern with Libertarianism is it's, in my view, somewhat naive view of foreign relations. Like if Ron Paul was president and Iran took over the middle east and blew up Israel with a couple well placed nukes would he do absolutely nothing? Would he have entered WW2?


Ron Paul would follow the Constitution, and Congress would decide whether or not to declare war.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I've never understood the stupidity of those who attempt with a serious face to make that argument. Clearly, the Jews are hated by the world. And Captain Kicka$$ has dissed them several times and is a Muslim sympathizer. Too bad one of our staunchest allies has to wonder whether or not we have their backs."

We shouldn't "have their backs." We should mind our own business and stay the heck out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------
That's a very difficult situation for me. I go back and forth on it, if we do nothing and Russia and China and Iran arm, for instance, Syria. Aren't we just delaying the inevitable confrontation when they're much stronger and we have one fewer ally? Under your scenario are we allowed to sell Israel anti-missile defenses and weapons using free market principles or are we to refrain from that because then Iran will see us as the enemy? My biggest concern with Libertarianism is it's, in my view, somewhat naive view of foreign relations. Like if Ron Paul was president and Iran took over the middle east and blew up Israel with a couple well placed nukes would he do absolutely nothing? Would he have entered WW2?

Ron Paul would follow the Constitution, and Congress would decide whether or not to declare war.
----------------------------------------------------
Well let me cut to the brass tacks then, what would a congress full of Ron Pauls and Gary Johnsons say about selling missile defenses to Israel, or weapons? And if say Iran nuked half of Israel would Ron Paul and the Ron Paul congress help defend our trading partner or would we wait and then trade with the winner? If Israel is too polarizing imagine Italy instead. I'm not being a smart-ass, although i have the capacity <g>, i'm really trying to understand the libertarian viewpoint.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ron Paul would follow the Constitution, and Congress would decide whether or not to declare war.
----------------------------------------------------
Well let me cut to the brass tacks then, what would a congress full of Ron Pauls and Gary Johnsons say about selling missile defenses to Israel, or weapons? And if say Iran nuked half of Israel would Ron Paul and the Ron Paul congress help defend our trading partner or would we wait and then trade with the winner? If Israel is too polarizing imagine Italy instead. I'm not being a smart-ass, although i have the capacity <g>, i'm really trying to understand the libertarian viewpoint.


I have no idea what Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would do.

Israel already has nuclear weapons, so they can defend themselves.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The problem is they'd never do it first, just check out the cries of the UN from Israel defending itself from over 300 missiles lobbed over the border by nutjobs, "Israel must show restraint"." - 2828


Restraint as in "please don't go in and obliterate, annihilate, and commit genocide against all the Palestinians."

I'm fairly certain Israel could do it if they wanted to. Israel is showing restraint. Trust me. Make them mad enough and the Muslims surrounding Israel might unleash the Whirlwind.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Israel already has nuclear weapons, so they can defend themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system. Does Ron Paul pull the plug?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Restraint as in "please don't go in and obliterate, annihilate, and commit genocide against all the Palestinians."

I'm fairly certain Israel could do it if they wanted to. Israel is showing restraint. Trust me. Make them mad enough and the Muslims surrounding Israel might unleash the Whirlwind.
-------------------------------------------
No, i agree, they are showing restraint, what i'm saying is they're showing so much restraint (alot of it due to the "international community") they will be nuked before they get a chance to nuke. And i don't think we're dealing with rational people when we speak of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Israel already has nuclear weapons, so they can defend themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system. Does Ron Paul pull the plug?


Well, I gotta have a central nervous system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"No, i agree, they are showing restraint, what i'm saying is they're showing so much restraint (alot of it due to the "international community") they will be nuked before they get a chance to nuke." - 2828


Not for me to decide. It's up to them. I doubt they'd listen to me anyway? Like they are going to call me up and say "Hey Art, what do you think we should do about all these crazy Muslims surrounding us?"

Trust me, very few people take me seriously.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's funny that you should use Ron Paul as an example, considering that on July 17, 2001, he predicted that our interventionist foreign policy would lead to terrorist attacks. We all know what happened only two months later.

What interventionist policy led to the attack on 9/11?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's funny that you should use Ron Paul as an example, considering that on July 17, 2001, he predicted that our interventionist foreign policy would lead to terrorist attacks. We all know what happened only two months later.

What interventionist policy led to the attack on 9/11?


Our military presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions against Iraq, and support for Israel. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were pretty explicit about the motivation behind the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_L...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivations_of_the_September_11...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system. Does Ron Paul pull the plug?

Hopefully he would ask why the heck anyone thinks the US government should be involved in that question - or in paying for the decision.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system. Does Ron Paul pull the plug?

Hopefully he would ask why the heck anyone thinks the US government should be involved in that question - or in paying for the decision.




SHELLBACH: Situation number four. You're breathing on your own, you're conscious, but with no muscular function.

KRAMER: Well, would I be able to communicate?

SHELLBACH: I don't see how.

ELAINE: Ach, I don't like the sound of this one.

KRAMER: Huhh, yeah, let's pull the cord.

ELAINE: Yank it like (pops open soda can) you're starting a mower.

SHELLBACH: Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system.

Kramer looks at Elaine, who gives a double thumbs-down.

KRAMER: Well, I gotta have a central nervous system.

SHELLBACH: Okay. One lung, blind and you're eating through a tube.

KRAMER: Naw, that's not my style.

ELAINE: Bore-ing.

SHELLBACH: Alright, you can eat. But machines do everything else.

KRAMER: (hesitant) Uhm...

Kramer looks to Elaine, who nods.

ELAINE: I'd stick.

KRAMER: Yeah, yeah. Stick. (to Elaine) 'Cos I could still go to the coffee shop.

ELAINE: (points to Kramer and smiles in agreement) That's right.

http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheComeback.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Israel already has nuclear weapons, so they can defend themselves.<<
-------------------------------------------------------
Moving on. You have liver, kidneys and gall bladder, but no central nervous system. Does Ron Paul pull the plug? - 2828


---------------------

Thumbs down, you gotta have a central nervous system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The sad thing is that when Hezbollah attacked Israel during the Bush administration, Israel's liberal leaders caved to world public opinion and did not finish the job.

I trace it back even further than that, when Israel had Arafat trapped like a rat in Beruit and US/World pressure made them back off. What did the world get out of that? More terrorist attacks and Arafat got the Noble Peace Prize. What a freaking joke.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What interventionist policy led to the attack on 9/11?

Our military presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions against Iraq, and support for Israel. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were pretty explicit about the motivation behind the attack.


The problem with radical islam is that they are like Dem/liberals with weapons. If we weren't ever in Saudi, they would find some other excuse. We could be entirely within our borders and they would use the excuse of our women running around without bedsheets covering their bodies. Or that we let women drive cars. Or we eat bacon. Or who knows what.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What interventionist policy led to the attack on 9/11?"

Our military presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions against Iraq, and support for Israel. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were pretty explicit about the motivation behind the attack.


The problem with radical islam is that they are like Dem/liberals with weapons. If we weren't ever in Saudi, they would find some other excuse. We could be entirely within our borders and they would use the excuse of our women running around without bedsheets covering their bodies. Or that we let women drive cars. Or we eat bacon. Or who knows what.

JLC


It's possible, but when it comes to Bin Laden (who really set the direction for Al Qaeda), I doubt it. He was pretty consistent about fighting occupation of the Middle East by non-Muslim countries. He and Al Qaeda basically got their start fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan for the same reason. Then when the Soviet Union left and we began to occupy the Middle East in the early 1990s, he turned his attention to us.

I also think that it would have been much harder for Bin Laden to "sell" terrorism against us if we weren't intervening in the Middle East. Our intervention there was something that they could easily rally behind. We were "infidels" interfering with and occupying their region of the world. It wasn't difficult to develop broad support to fight this interference.
Print the post Back To Top