# Decrying ‘insult,’ House Democrats seethe after Netanyahu address



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AKA; The pathetic, sad, phony outrage of the petulant, childish Left of the Democrat Party.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was met with rounds of applause and repeated standing ovations Tuesday while addressing a joint meeting of Congress but make no mistake: Democrats were by no means joining in the acclaim.
With their hands, their feet and their mouths, Democratic members made clear during and after that they had to Netanyahu's remarks - both in how they were delivered and in what they contained. 
_ [] _
President Obama said that Netanyahu didn't offer any "viable alternatives" to the during his speech to Congress.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wore a fierce expression during much of the speech and left the House floor before Netanyahu did, without greeting him, and saying later that she was insulted by the speech.

Of course, there was no "insult" and the only "political theater" was put on by the accusers.

BN did propose alternatives including the most obvious, no deal at all!!

I respect the Democrats that didn't participate in the foolishness of their Leftist minority.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The patheticly genuine outrage of the petulant childish Republicans, delighting in the self-serving and prejudice reinforcement of Netanyahu's speech, a speech that included stuff that even Mossad had reported as not true, and delighting in hearing anything, anything at all that challenges the status of the President, as long as he's a democrat..


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Imagine politicians being political!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I don't know how to portion out the blame (Netanyahu, the media, etc.), but the bad result of all of this is that few are debating what needs to be debated, which is Iran's nuclear program and what can/should be done about it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Is there a real debate on this even? It sounds like the administration needs to speak with one voice on this. 

On one hand the POTUS can't go around saying that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon while on the other hand negotiating with them in such a way as they will have the necessary capacity to produce. And could someone please explain to me how China and Russia are helpful in doing this? Either could care less to whom they sell technology and weapons.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

There's no debate in our media. There should be. Questions:

1. Is there a point in negotiating? If not, what's the alternative?
2. What would it take to get a "good" deal? How do we make that happen?
3. What do we know about the current draft of a deal? Let's debate the particulars, assuming we decide to agree that having a negotiated deal is not, in principal, a bad thing.

PS. I find much of the criticism coming from the Right a bit ironic given that after 9/11, instead of going after the two countries with real nuclear programs and real and significant ties to international terrorism, they went after a country that had neither and in so doing weakened significantly our ability to deal, now, with Iran, in the manner in which they insist that we do.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

At least more people are becoming aware of the fact that so many U.S. politicians are bought and paid for by the Israeli Lobby.

Will anything ever be done about Dimona? Unlikely.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> PS. I find much of the criticism coming from the Right a bit ironic given that after 9/11, instead of going after the two countries with real nuclear programs and real and significant ties to international terrorism, they went after a country that had neither and in so doing weakened significantly our ability to deal, now, with Iran, in the manner in which they insist that we do.


Wrong.

Following the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran was surrounded.

Obama, having abandoning the region *WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT* has weakened significantly our ability to deal, now, with Iran, in the manner in which they insist that we do.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> 3. What do we know about the current draft of a deal? Let's debate the particulars, assuming we decide to agree that having a negotiated deal is not, in principal, a bad thing.


The same thing we knew about net neutrality and Obamacare.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Following the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran was surrounded.


Afghan terrorists were formed and armed by the USA in the first place. They thought they would just get rid of the Russians for them.

Same thing in Iraq. Destroy a functioning dictatorship and leave the country with a power vacuum and huge amounts of abandoned armaments and the result is what you see today.

Maybe US will decide to leave things alone for a while. If the vested interests that seek further wars will allow them.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorized support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests ... would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.	
The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter". 
Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah -- who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help -- was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.	
The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/o...Fascism-is-Again-the-Issue-20150226-0018.html


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Same thing in Iraq. Destroy a functioning dictatorship and leave the country with a power vacuum and huge amounts of abandoned armaments and the result is what you see today.


Remind us who abandoned them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm of somewhat two minds on this.

On the one hand we could argue that the same thing happened in Germany after the war, and in fact it did become two countries. Post WWII Europe was quite chaotic despite the Marshall Plan. Somehow stasis was developed (albeit not ideal) and there was relative peace in Europe until the break up of Yugoslavia. 

On the other hand, these were internecine wars within Western civilization. The invasion of Iraq was a war pitting the West against the East. Different religions and cultural values. Completely different political systems. I think what we did in Japan should have been a model where we install a strong US military dictatorship and bring together different political elements under the protection and guidance of a strong military presence. 

Instead we were so eager to let the Iraqis solve the problem that we forgot the way they solve problems over there is by killing each other and beheading the men, enslaving children and raping the women. We should have had a heavier foot print and a much more muscular presence. Without the security guarantee of the United States no one is going to go out on a limb.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Following the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran was surrounded.
> 
> Obama, having abandoning the region *WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT* has weakened significantly our ability to deal, now, with Iran, in the manner in which they insist that we do.


Hardly. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan made us acutely vulnerable to Iran while also diminishing our deterrence power against it. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran had the capacity to dial up or down US casualties at will. Anything we did to strike at Iran would have translated rapidly into huge spikes in American losses. If there is a good aspect to our withdrawal from the region it is that our exposure with regard to US soldiers being easy pray for Iranian weapons (ATGMs, MANPADs, EFPs) or Iranian fighters (IRGC) is much reduced. Which is not to say Iran doesn't remain capable of bombing embassies or causing other mayhem world wide.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Hardly. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan made us acutely vulnerable to Iran while also diminishing our deterrence power against it. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran had the capacity to dial up or down US casualties at will. Anything we did to strike at Iran would have translated rapidly into huge spikes in American losses.


Are their examples of sanctions translating rapidly into huge spikes in American losses??

Even so, without the possibility of military action to back it up, diplomatic and economic sanctions are meaningless.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Don't worry folks. This all bs. American welfare checks to pariah countries will still increase. The democrats will still betray their public for more of the Hollywood campaign finance. Alll American politicians will continue to take funds for their campagins form non.-american SIGs... No change here... but.... At least Benji claimed himself as more importatnt than average americans.... 

Can any of the righties show examples of other foreign leaders that we invited to speak for our country Under their duress of élections?

The correct thing... as "friends of America" would have been to back out as soon as the controversy arrived...... Of course bibi wouldn't do so... Friend of himself, and demanding friendship from the GOP.... Who else should (would) we allow to directly influence of own democracy? Were the words of his speech insulting? Perhaps not... But that he did so was beyond appropriate. He used the U.S. for his own means and the GOP allowe him to do so. Disgusting... No bibi...You go away.. We have serious American business that seems too hard to finish between bs party one and bs party 2.......

Hidden gifts and funds are one thing... directly destroying the idea of the people for the people with your apearance is another. That you as a foreign leader are more important than half the U.S... Is an insult to half the u.s.

Let's be honest... crossed arms and fake tears are no where near taking away the welfare checks.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are their examples of sanctions translating rapidly into huge spikes in American losses??
> 
> Even so, without the possibility of military action to back it up, diplomatic and economic sanctions are meaningless.


The potential for military action was much greater prior to the Iraq invasion, which made us militarily vulnerable to Iran...and arguably is greater now that we are less vulnerable because far fewer of our people are within easy reach.

I have no idea if the casualties related to Iranian supplied arms/Iranian backed actors rose or fell in time with the ebb and flow of sanctions/negotiations. What I do know is that there were a few such casualties, but not nearly as many as there could have been had Iran chosen to turn the dial up. So a few MANPADs. A few ATGMS. A few EFPs. The presence of the channels through which such things flowed is/was indisputable. Turn up the flow, and all those Chinooks fall from the sky and armored vehicles start getting breached in large numbers. Iranian backed groups go hot...Anyway, having lots of ground forces makes it easy to invade, but anything we'd do would have a serious price.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Remind us who abandoned them.


USA abandoned them. Face-saving exercise was to pretend there was an effective Iraqi army in place defending democracy.

Never mind. U.S. can still be leaders in privatised warfare. Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves now, are grateful for new business opportunities.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> ...Anyway, having lots of ground forces makes it easy to invade, but anything we'd do would have a serious price.


But none more serious than letting Iran have ready to make a-bomb capability now or in ten years.

Can we agree??


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> But none more serious than letting Iran have ready to make a-bomb capability now or in ten years.
> 
> Can we agree??


That's precisely the sort of thing that should be debated. I dislike the sabre-rattlers because they seem so ready to disregard the price of a military action against Iran, which would be high. Let's be open about the high price and ascertain it in its true proportions; then we can talk for real about whether that price is greater than the price of 'doing nothing' or the risk associated with attempting, say, a negotiated solution. Or is the idea simply threatening in order to win a better deal at the negotiating table? Can that work? What's the risk? Also, regarding military action, what does one gain? I am 100% certain that an air campaign of some sort would achieve very little with regard to degrading Iran's capabilities..and how would we even know? Are we talking about a ground operation? Then the price goes way up. Anyway, cost, benefit, options, risk. Let's debate these things. I hear very little such debate in the media these days.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> That's precisely the sort of thing that should be debated. I dislike the sabre-rattlers because they seem so ready to disregard the price of a military action against Iran, which would be high. Let's be open about the high price and ascertain it in its true proportions; then we can talk for real about whether that price is greater than the price of 'doing nothing' or the risk associated with attempting, say, a negotiated solution. Or is the idea simply threatening in order to win a better deal at the negotiating table? Can that work? What's the risk?


Isn't that the reason you have poiticians? and all the expensive lawyers that go with them? You're not asking for an actual popular vote on the issue are you? Your choice now is to believe bibi or believe in your own government's capabilities.......


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Isn't that the reason you have poiticians? and all the expensive lawyers that go with them? You're not asking for an actual popular vote on the issue are you?


Yes, and that's why we have things like a National Security Council to figure this stuff out. But to the extent that there is value in public debate, I'd like it be more substantive. Now everyone's going on about Netanyahu, Obama, Boehner, blah blah blah.

By the way, this is also why I tend to support Obama's foreign policies. I think they reflect consideration of the pros/cons/etc, the stuff I've been talking about. Most of the criticism I hear of his policies from the right tends not to have taken into account the "yes, but" that I know Obama's weighing.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Which is why Bibi should have backed down if he had any respect as to the independant political system of the U.S.....

Public debate? What other issues do we have public debate on? In which areas of the governement and its workings does the public have any direct say? And "élections" don't particularly count.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Yes, and that's why we have things like a National Security Council to figure this stuff out. But to the extent that there is value in public debate, I'd like it be more substantive. Now everyone's going on about Netanyahu, Obama, Boehner, blah blah blah.
> 
> *By the way, this is also why I tend to support Obama's foreign policies. I think they reflect consideration of the pros/cons/etc, the stuff I've been talking about. Most of the criticism I hear of his policies from the right tends not to have taken into account the "yes, but" that I know Obama's weighing*.


There's nothing wrong with weighing options and not rushing to judgment. It's an entirely different thing to vacillate and appear as indecisive, particularly with foreign policy. One ought not draw red lines and do nothing when those red lines are crossed. One ought not to proclaim certain terrorist groups as "The JV squad" only to have those words stuffed down his throat less than a year later.

One ought not to go on TV and proclaim that we're safe when members of your own administration go out and proclaim that we face great dangers, and when one member of your administration says that Americans should be concerned about going to the Mall of America.

Obama likes to play out these dramas and wrestle with these things so publically as though he were acting out a scene from Hamlet. In the end, there's just no confidence in his decision making either here or abroad.

At some point decisions need to be made and the back and forth of debate come to an end. Obama seems to think the debate itself if the final product and that the answers will just naturally evolve as a result of consensus. Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made and sometimes, unfortunately, those decisions don't always end up playing out the way they were intended. This is the result of inexperience and not knowing how to make decisions and leading.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Plenty of childish behavior on both sides. There were all sorts of ways the communication could have happened. The right and the left were both more interested in slapping each other than communicating. That led to this.

Eventually, while these two sets of idiots keep training their crap on each other, we will start facing things that we can't handle without the ability to produce a united front. Unfortunately, when it happens, the right and left will take much delight in blaming each other. There won't be a real attempt to solve any problem. Right and left just take turns disgusting me.

Now I wait to get flamed by everyone in the thread - - -


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

All this is good for someone. The idiotic rancor produces millions and millions of dollars for people like Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> There's nothing wrong with weighing options and not rushing to judgment. It's an entirely different thing to vacillate and appear as indecisive, particularly with foreign policy. One ought not draw red lines and do nothing when those red lines are crossed.


I agree in this instance. He shouldn't have issued a red line the first place, but once in place...and I hated hearing people in his Admin at the time publicly air different points of view and say things like, "Well, if we were to strike against Syria, maybe we'd only strike against this target at this time on that day and not do anything serious." Jesus. First, shut up. Hem and haw, but keep it classified. Second, if you're going to strike, make it hurt.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> All this is good for someone. The idiotic rancor produces millions and millions of dollars for people like Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck.


What you mention is domestic welfare....This particular idiotic rancor produces billions and billions of dollars in international welfare for people like.....Bibi..... He was afterall prety much the only one to profit from such nonsense (unless the gop can somehow claim a clear win)...

And again. No matter how upset anyone claimed to be... I saw no suggestions as to cutting off the welare checks....Which is a pretty good sign that no one was actually overly upset...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Plenty of childish behavior on both sides.


Not so.

Only a minority of Dems acted like babies.

Once again, the side of consensus is the side opposing another bad Obama policy.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so.
> 
> Only a minority of Dems acted like babies.
> 
> Once again, the side of consensus is the side opposing another bad Obama policy.


You think that the ovation and the roaring and cheering was a mature reception?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You think that the ovation and the roaring and cheering was a mature reception?


Indeed. It reminded me of the Arsenio Hall show on a good night & a Jr. High volleyball game on a bad one ....whoop whoop whoop!!! In the end it's all equal to the worship of false idols


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so.
> 
> Only a minority of Dems acted like babies.
> 
> Once again, the side of consensus is the side opposing another bad Obama policy.


No, you, just like most lefties are unable or unwilling to admit to any bad behavior from your side, no matter how awful or destructive it is. Your history here shows that.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> No, you, just like most lefties are unable or unwilling to admit to any bad behavior from your side, no matter how awful or destructive it is. Your history here shows that.


WouldaShoulda a leftie???? Lololol. Now I've heard it all. While You are correct in saying that his hisory here shows a destructive viewpoint, it is on the side of the gopers. Wouldshoulda loves god, republicans, & his own private viewpoint as to what is american versus what isn't. I assure you that there isn't a liberal bone in his body.

He wasn't defending democrats versus trying to claim most demoxrats somehow agreed with the gop .....and he's right... the thought of campaign checks were enough to keep most democrats in line again... any disdain shown was smoke & mirrors


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> No, you, just like most lefties are unable or unwilling to admit to any bad behavior from your side, no matter how awful or destructive it is. Your history here shows that.


You are misinformed.

I am willing to admit bad behavior.

I am unwilling to accept that all bad behavior is equal.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm sorry. If you read what I said more carefully you will see what I really meant - - - if you want to.

Everyone who has read more than one or two of his posts knows his political ideology. 

Nice try. I'm not biting.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You are misinformed.
> 
> I am willing to admit bad behavior.
> 
> I am unwilling to accept that all bad behavior is equal.


No one who has seen you post for more than a day or two will agree with that. I'm not biting. (for either of you - - - you really don't think we see most of what you post?????)

Sigh. Nice try.


----------



## herfitup (Mar 4, 2012)

Chouan said:


> You think that the ovation and the roaring and cheering was a mature reception?


It just showed how starve the US is for any real leadership.

We don't have a functional independent government anymore. We have a House that can only pass what the Senate and President will allow. It was good to see the House stand up for something.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> I agree in this instance. He shouldn't have issued a red line the first place, but once in place...and I hated hearing people in his Admin at the time publicly air different points of view and say things like, "Well, if we were to strike against Syria, maybe we'd only strike against this target at this time on that day and not do anything serious." Jesus. First, shut up. Hem and haw, but keep it classified. Second, if you're going to strike, make it hurt.


I agree with this. I have told both of my sons (and I would have told my daughters the same thing if I had any). Don't fight, it is wrong.

But, if you do decide to fight, don't wade in. Throw the best first punch you can.

The same thing can be said for countries.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ As quaint as the notion may sound, a countries prestige still matters and the inability or unwillingness to a leader to make good on a promise damages that prestige and in turn gives the appearance that said country cannot be trusted or depended upon. 

I don't think this was a calculus that OBH considered when drawing his red line. Another mark of an amateur.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

herfitup said:


> It just showed how starve the US is for any real leadership.


How? By cheering the leader of a pariah state that US taxpayers prop up?



herfitup said:


> We don't have a functional independent government anymore. We have a House that can only pass what the Senate and President will allow. It was good to see the House stand up for something.


What, anything? As an outsider I found the performance cringe-worthy; that the Legislators of a great Nation should have behaved publicly in such a ridiculous way was an embarrassment! Even if the recipient of such an ovation was worthy of it, it was still a ridiculous performance, especially as it was obviously deliberately calculated to undermine the Head of State. Such a deliberate partisan performance shows indeed that there is a serious problem in the current government.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Too funny.. On the same trip Bibi asked for another $300 million in separatley funded missiles ( Iguess welfare types aren't very good at budgeting)...Sure biib...Let's get out the ole welfare checkbook. Should we make it $400 million just in case? Not like our kids need it or anything... We have more children going hungry than you have citzens but heck...What's a bit more misappropriation of public funds between friends? We alll have élections to get through afterall.

And according to the U.S. governement.....2014 was the biggest year of U.S. Israeli welfare on record.....

Just a few facts about our best buddies and "guest" speakers of the house....

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern...has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies...."

Just more proof as to the "give an inch, they take a mile" theory....

We spend about the same amount on Israel as we spend for our entire public education system...

Per capita the U.S. spends about $72'500 per year for each Israeli.... yet only $12'500 per american student... Shouldn't those numbers be reversed? & to think that the gopers cried about the welfare queen who bought a new car every year.... This situation is much worse and much more dentrimental to the fabric of American society....American citizens first!!! U-.S. taxpayer dollars for Americans... Let those that claim religious holy lands fight it out. the 1st adm disallows the U.S. to do so....

Can any of the righties defend that $60'000 more per capita for overseas welfare is actually advantageous versus spending the same on our own children?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> How? By cheering the leader of a pariah state that US taxpayers prop up?


Pariah state? Seriously?

I have as many problems with Israel (including its creation), but to say it is a pariah is laughable and only fuels the anti Semitism inferiority it has. Especially when these statements come from Europeans.



> What, anything? As an outsider I found the performance cringe-worthy; that the Legislators of a great Nation should have behaved publicly in such a ridiculous way was an embarrassment! Even if the recipient of such an ovation was worthy of it, it was still a ridiculous performance, especially as it was obviously deliberately calculated to undermine the Head of State. Such a deliberate partisan performance shows indeed that there is a serious problem in the current government.


Perhaps you should pull up a youtube of Obama's first SOTU address. Something tells me that you aren't going to label that cringe worthy.....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Pariah state? Seriously?
> 
> I have as many problems with Israel (including its creation), but to say it is a pariah is laughable and only fuels the anti Semitism inferiority it has. Especially when these statements come from Europeans.
> 
> Perhaps you should pull up a youtube of Obama's first SOTU address. Something tells me that you aren't going to label that cringe worthy.....


I'm an American and claim that israel is nothing but a welfarr driven pariah state. Better?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I'm an American and claim that israel is nothing but a welfarr driven pariah state. Better?


Full Definition of _PARIAH_1
*:* a member of a low caste of southern India

2
*:* one that is despised or rejected *:* outcast

See pariah defined for English-language learners

_See pariah defined for kids

 
Examples of PARIAH

He's a talented player but his angry outbursts have made him a pariah in the sport of baseball.
<I felt like a pariah when I wore the wrong outfit to the dinner party.>
For decades, African states longed for the day when South Africa would be liberated from its status as the apartheid pariah and become the economic engine that would pull Africa out of its mire of poverty and underdevelopment, much as Japan did for the Pacific Rim. -Allister Sparks, Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2001
Even as her star was rising in the outside world, she was becoming more and more a pariah in her own village, where her isolation and sense of rejection made her, for a time, a prisoner in her house, a victim of agoraphobia. -Judy Oppenheimer, New York Times Book Review, 3 July 1988
Once they began to migrate to the United States, especially after this country conferred citizenship on them in 1917, they discovered what it meant to be a pariah in the country that had adopted them. -John Hope Franklin, "The Land of Room Enough," 1981, in Race and History, 1989
[+]more[-]hide

Origin of PARIAHTamil paṟaiyan, literally, drummerFirst Known Use: 1613

Related to PARIAHSynonymscastaway, castoff, leper, offscouring, outcast, rejectRelated Wordsuntouchable; outsider; deportee, exileNear Antonymsinsider
[+]more

_


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am sorry, but I do not think that definition fits.

And if you think it does, then I would say that you need to seriously ask yourself if you are anti Semitic.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> What, anything? As an outsider I found the performance cringe-worthy; that the Legislators of a great Nation should have behaved publicly in such a ridiculous way was an embarrassment! Even if the recipient of such an ovation was worthy of it, it was still a ridiculous performance, especially as it was obviously deliberately calculated to undermine the Head of State.


Yet, instead of acting like a grown up, our Head of State repeated this oddly paranoid sentiment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am sorry, but I do not think that definition fits.
> 
> And if you think it does, then I would say that you need to seriously ask yourself if you are anti Semitic.


It's really better to ignore the tantrums.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am sorry, but I do not think that definition fits.
> 
> And if you think it does, then I would say that you need to seriously ask yourself if you are anti Semitic.


Ah. The race card. Well played for someone in your position. I suppose the majority opinion on the matter is nothing but the world being anti-semitic?

"hands up, don't shoot".... Americans are such obvious racist bastards....

https://imageshack.com/i/f0VLvLN6j

https://imageshack.com/i/ipeLMAhKj


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Pariah state? Seriously?
> 
> I have as many problems with Israel (including its creation), but to say it is a pariah is laughable and only fuels the anti Semitism inferiority it has. Especially when these statements come from Europeans.


Seriously. Israel has been the subject of more UN Resolutions condemning its actions than any other state.



vpkozel said:


> Perhaps you should pull up a youtube of Obama's first SOTU address. Something tells me that you aren't going to label that cringe worthy.....


Why? I'm sure that he can be embarrassing at times, but I was commenting on the subject of the thread. Obama being embarrassing doesn't change the fact that I thought the "performance" of Congress embarrassing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am sorry, but I do not think that definition fits.
> 
> And if you think it does, then I would say that you need to seriously ask yourself if you are anti Semitic.


Thinking that Israel's repeated illegal acts and being the recipient of so many UN Resolutions against it makes it a pariah state does not mean that one is anti-semitic. We're not talking about individuals or people or a race, we're talking about a state. Israel and Jews are not synonymous.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's really better to ignore the tantrums.


It's acually better to inform your opponents of your Superior knowledge.... OOPs. Now I understand your issues....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Thinking that Israel's repeated illegal acts and being the recipient of so many UN Resolutions against it makes it a pariah state does not mean that one is anti-semitic. We're not talking about individuals or people or a race, we're talking about a state. Israel and Jews are not synonymous.


Amen... Such a hard thing for many to understand....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Has no one noted that while the Republicans consider the speech a great success and the Democrats decry insult, a substantial majority of the American republic seem to have received The Israeli Prime Minister's words very favorably, seemingly in agreement with the conclusions he preached! Perhaps the Dems should check in with the constituencies they were elected to serve? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Has no one noted that while the Republicans consider the speech a great success and the Democrats decry insult, *a substantial majority of the American republic seem to have received The Israeli Prime Minister's words very favorably*, seemingly in agreement with the conclusions he preached! Perhaps the Dems should check in with the constituencies they were elected to serve? :icon_scratch:


Are you sure? From what evidence do you draw such a conclusion? In any case, that Netanyahu spoke the words that you suggest that many Americans wanted to hear doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that he was cleverly playing to his audience.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Has no one noted that while the Republicans consider the speech a great success and the Democrats decry insult, a substantial majority of the American republic seem to have received The Israeli Prime Minister's words very favorably, seemingly in agreement with the conclusions he preached! Perhaps the Dems should check in with the constituencies they were elected to serve? :icon_scratch:





Chouan said:


> Are you sure? From what evidence do you draw such a conclusion? In any case, that Netanyahu spoke the words that you suggest that many Americans wanted to hear doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that he was cleverly playing to his audience.


Simply the fact that not all Dems acted childishly, only a minority of them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My source was last nights evening newscasts, but you conveniently miss the central point made in my post which was our elected representatives seem to be ignoring the voce(s) of the people they were elected to represent...including the present occupant of the White House.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Simply the fact that not all Dems acted childishly, only a minority of them.


Indeed. The campaign checks need to flow in soon right? Othrwise such a move is clearly against the autonomy of the u.s. itself.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> My source was last nights evening newscasts, but you conveniently miss the central point made in my post which was our elected representatives seem to be ignoring the voce(s) of the people they were elected to represent...including the present occupant of the White House.


So in your thought boner asked his constiuants before playing such a political card?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Has no one noted that while the Republicans consider the speech a great success and the Democrats decry insult, a substantial majority of the American republic seem to have received The Israeli Prime Minister's words very favorably, seemingly in agreement with the conclusions he preached! Perhaps the Dems should check in with the constituencies they were elected to serve? :icon_scratch:


Sources please....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Thinking that Israel's repeated illegal acts and being the recipient of so many UN Resolutions against it makes it a pariah state does not mean that one is anti-semitic. We're not talking about individuals or people or a race, we're talking about a state. Israel and Jews are not synonymous.


Whoa there, Tex. Why do you say that they are illegal acts?

And the fact that Israel has so many more than egregious violators like China, Russia, and other totalitarian states is laughable. You know it and I know it.

If you don't think that the criticism of the Jewish state is often motivated by the fact that they are, you know Jewish and everything, then you are deluding yourself.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Whoa there, Tex. Why do you say that they are illegal acts?
> 
> And the fact that Israel has so many more than egregious violators like China, Russia, and other totalitarian states is laughable. You know it and I know it.
> 
> If you don't think that the criticism of the Jewish state is often motivated by the fact that they are, you know Jewish and everything, then you are deluding yourself.


While Bibi may want to claim such, israel speaks for all the jews as vatican state speaks for all catholics...

Most european jews were against bibi's "come home" speaches. Altough it is hard for the antisemitic americans to admit.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> While Bibi may want to claim such, israel speaks for all the jews as vatican state speaks for all catholics...
> 
> Most european jews were against bibi's "come home" speaches


I don't think that he has ever claimed to speak for all Jews. Do you have a source for that? Hell, he doesn't even speak for all Israelis.

He does however speak as the leader of Israel.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Whoa there, Tex. Why do you say that they are illegal acts?
> 
> And the fact that Israel has so many more than egregious violators like China, Russia, and other totalitarian states is laughable. You know it and I know it.
> 
> If you don't think that the criticism of the Jewish state is often motivated by the fact that they are, you know Jewish and everything, then you are deluding yourself.


That's easy!!

The UN finding Israel in violation more frequently than other States proves they are a pariah, just as the excessive arrests of Black persons in Missouri prove that Black people are more violent and more prone to criminal behaviors.

Silly!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Whoa there, Tex. Why do you say that they are illegal acts?
> 
> And the fact that Israel has so many more than egregious violators like China, Russia, and other totalitarian states is laughable. You know it and I know it.
> 
> If you don't think that the criticism of the Jewish state is often motivated by the fact that they are, you know Jewish and everything, then you are deluding yourself.


Bombing or invading the territory of a sovereign state without declaration of war is usually regarded as an illegal act. Using banned weapons, like WP against civilian targets is usually regarded as an illegal act. Targeting civilians is usually regarded as an illegal act. Assassination is usually regarded as an illegal act. Dispossessing people at gun point of their legally held property, without right of redress or compensation, is illegal even in Israel, yet the Israeli government does it on a regular basis to provide land for new immigrants and settlers.
Just because Russia has committed illegal acts and has been condemned by the UN in Resolutions doesn't excuse Israel. The thread is about a racist Prime Minister of a pariah state addressing Congress, and being wildly applauded. 
If you wish to start a thread condemning the human rights record of China or Russia, please feel free to do so.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Bombing or invading the territory of a sovereign state without declaration of war is usually regarded as an illegal act. Using banned weapons, like WP against civilian targets is usually regarded as an illegal act. Targeting civilians is usually regarded as an illegal act. Assassination is usually regarded as an illegal act. Dispossessing people at gun point of their legally held property, without right of redress or compensation, is illegal even in Israel, yet the Israeli government does it on a regular basis to provide land for new immigrants and settlers.
> Just because Russia has committed illegal acts and has been condemned by the UN in Resolutions doesn't excuse Israel. The thread is about a racist Prime Minister of a pariah state addressing Congress, and being wildly applauded.
> If you wish to start a thread condemning the human rights record of China or Russia, please feel free to do so.


But these are "the good guys" you anti-semite


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Whoa there, Tex. Why do you say that they are illegal acts?
> 
> And the fact that Israel has so many more than egregious violators like China, Russia, and other totalitarian states is laughable. You know it and I know it.
> 
> If you don't think that the criticism of the Jewish state is often motivated by the fact that they are, you know Jewish and everything, then you are deluding yourself.


I don't boycott "jews"... I boycott "Iraelis"...no anti-semitism... but man oh man is there a huge difference in thought. Too bad you and other zionists can't admit the difference as well.

China & Russia have killed less non-combatants together in 20 years as Israel has in 5. What a horrible thing to compare... Even the current Ukrain issue has killed less civilians...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Bombing or invading the territory of a sovereign state without declaration of war is usually regarded as an illegal act. Using banned weapons, like WP against civilian targets is usually regarded as an illegal act. Targeting civilians is usually regarded as an illegal act. Assassination is usually regarded as an illegal act. Dispossessing people at gun point of their legally held property, without right of redress or compensation, is illegal even in Israel, yet the Israeli government does it on a regular basis to provide land for new immigrants and settlers.


I thought we were talking about Israel, when did you switch the topic to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations. We really need a dancing banana smiley....



> Just because Russia has committed illegal acts and has been condemned by the UN in Resolutions doesn't excuse Israel. The thread is about a racist Prime Minister of a pariah state addressing Congress, and being wildly applauded.
> If you wish to start a thread condemning the human rights record of China or Russia, please feel free to do so.


Perhaps you could tell me where I said that it excused their actions. What I am saying is that if you care nothing about the actions of one party doing something and decry the other party doing the exact same thing, then it is not the action that you are condemning, so it must be something else.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I don't boycott "jews"... I boycott "Iraelis"...no anti-semitism... but man oh man is there a huge difference in thought. Too bad you and other zionists can't admit the difference as well.
> 
> China & Russia have killed less non-combatants together in 20 years as Israel has in 5. What a horrible thing to compare... Even the current Ukrain issue has killed less civilians...


You sure about that?

And it is fewer, not less.....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> And it is fewer, not less.....


Thanks for your point of view on the grammar. I hope you can do the same elsewhere. But it seems as if the answer is no.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I don't boycott "jews"... I boycott "Iraelis"...no anti-semitism... but man oh man is there a huge difference in thought. Too bad you and other zionists can't admit the difference as well.
> 
> China & Russia have killed less non-combatants together in 20 years as Israel has in 5. What a horrible thing to compare... Even the current Ukrain issue has killed less civilians...


You boycott Israelis? What does that mean?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> You boycott Israelis? What does that mean?


Pogrom. Probably.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> You boycott Israelis? What does that mean?


Is such a fact too hard for basic conversation? I will go to a local store owned/run by someone of the jewish faith 
but I will not buy israeli goods( i.e avocadoes)... Clear enough now?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Thanks for your point of view on the grammar. I hope you can do the same elsewhere. But it seems as if the answer is no.


No, you aren't sure about your claim of civilian deaths?

And the less/fewer thing is just something that drives me batty.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Pogrom. Probably.


Shame on you for progressing such fallacies.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> No, you aren't sure about your claim of civilian deaths?
> 
> And the less/fewer thing is just something that drives me batty.


But batty has nothing to do with the actual debate. Facts are facts beyond less/fewer. Unless you mean to derail the conversation over such of course..


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Is such a fact too hard for basic conversation? I will go to a local store owned/run by someone of the jewish faith
> but I will not buy israeli goods( i.e avocadoes)... Clear enough now?


What if the owner was born in Israel?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Shame on you for progressing such fallacies.


A shanda fur die goy.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> No, you aren't sure about your claim of civilian deaths?
> 
> And the less/fewer thing is just something that drives me batty.


And yes. The israelis kill more per year than any other "member state".


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> What if the owner was born in Israel?


And the honest answer.....The money goes where?

To jews? Who cares? To Israelis? Total boycott.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> But batty has nothing to do with the actual debate. Facts are facts beyond less/fewer. Unless you mean to derail the conversation over such of course..


I would bet anything that China has killed more Falun Gong than Israel has Palestinians. Then there is Tibet. And I am not even bringing up political prisoners. As for Russia, did you forget about Chechenya?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> At some point decisions need to be made and the back and forth of debate come to an end. Obama seems to think the debate itself if the final product and that the answers will just naturally evolve as a result of consensus. Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made and sometimes, unfortunately, those decisions don't always end up playing out the way they were intended. This is the result of inexperience and not knowing how to make decisions and leading.


When Obama is weak, who can the region rely upon??

Iranian Military Mastermind Leading Battle to Recapture Tikrit From ISIS

https://www.newsweek.com/iranian-military-mastermind-leading-battle-recapture-tikrit-isis-311516



> A notorious Iranian commander is spearheading the Iraqi offensive on the ISIS-held city of Tikrit, providing tactical expertise and a key link to Tehran for supplies to the Iraqi militias advancing on the terror group's territory.
> This week, a combination of 30,000 Iraqi security forces, Sunni and Shia militiamen launched a campaign to retake the Sunni-majority city, the hometown of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, from the terror group after it swept through northern Iraq last summer. Iraqi security forces, backed by the majority-Shia Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), are advancing on the city from three directions, north, east and south, where the main entry points into and out of the city lie.
> Major General Qasem Soleimani, the shadowy former leader of the elite Quds Force, the special operations arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC), is directly overseeing the eastern offensive on Tikrit. The Iranian general has been pictured on the outskirts of the city in photos shared widely on social media.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I thought we were talking about Israel, when did you switch the topic to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations. We really need a dancing banana smiley....


Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?



vpkozel said:


> Perhaps you could tell me where I said that it excused their actions. What I am saying is that if you care nothing about the actions of one party doing something and decry the other party doing the exact same thing, then it is not the action that you are condemning, so it must be something else.


If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I would bet anything that China has killed more Falun Gong than Israel has Palestinians. Then there is Tibet. And I am not even bringing up political prisoners. As for Russia, did you forget about Chechenya?


Again, the "They did it too" defence.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Again, the "They did it too" defence.


It isn't really a "they do it too" moment as the Russians and Chinese don't have neighbors launching rockets into population centers or denying their right to exist.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?


Not at all. I am also not denying that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, or Germany.

Are we a Pariah as well?

Better yet, since that is the claim and you are defending it - how about you give me a list of all of the countries that you consider to be pariahs.



> If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.


What is THIS thread about? I could have sworn it was about a speech.

And quick question - who brought up illegal actions? Hint: Wasn't me.

BTW - what is WP?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?
> 
> If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.


Funny how it never is "that thread." It's always "this thread."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

:beer:


tocqueville said:


> Funny how it never is "that thread." It's always "this thread."


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Not at all. I am also not denying that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, or Germany.
> 
> Are we a Pariah as well?
> 
> ...


White Phosphorus. Used by Israel in bombardment of Gaza. Banned by the UN in built up areas or on civilians.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

About that speech, here's a particularly good analysis of it. I must confess I've neither read the speech nor watched it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/obama-israel-netanyahu-speech-iran-nuclear-agreement/

I deplore the political context of the speech, the motives of the GOP on one side, and Netanyahu's crass (or simply clueless?) willingness to be Boehner's dance partner. Ultimately it sets back the Israeli position rather than advances it. On the other hand, unless we read Netanyahu as nothing more than a cynical creature seeking re-election, one can argue that he was doing what any country's leader would do if he/she were convinced that a nation bent on its destruction was on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, i.e. whatever he could.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> About that speech, here's a particularly good analysis of it. I must confess I've neither read the speech nor watched it.
> 
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/obama-israel-netanyahu-speech-iran-nuclear-agreement/
> 
> I deplore the political context of the speech, the motives of the GOP on one side, and Netanyahu's crass (or simply clueless?) willingness to be Boehner's dance partner. Ultimately it sets back the Israeli position rather than advances it. On the other hand, unless we read Netanyahu as nothing more than a cynical creature seeking re-election, one can argue that he was doing what any country's leader would do if he/she were convinced that a nation bent on its destruction was on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, i.e. whatever he could.


Indeed. It's a pity that the thread became somewhat derailed.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> White Phosphorus. Used by Israel in bombardment of Gaza. Banned by the UN in built up areas or on civilians.


Thank you. Could you please point me to the UN resolutions banning this use?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Thank you. Could you please point me to the UN resolutions banning this use?


Look it up; I'm sure you're capable. In any case, I didn't say that UN Resolutions banned its use. However, if you think the use of WP against civilians is acceptable then I have nothing more to say.

Try this as a starter:
"On 25 March 2009, United States based human rights organization Human Rights Watch published a 71-page report titled Rain of Fire, _Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza_ and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.[SUP][56][/SUP]
White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza - many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire - but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks. [SUP][56][/SUP]​


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ed-troops-to-fight-with-white-phosphorus.html

Although I thought we were going to to talk about the speech.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Look it up; I'm sure you're capable. In any case, I didn't say that UN Resolutions banned its use. However, if you think the use of WP against civilians is acceptable then I have nothing more to say.


You said it was illegal, did you not?



> Try this as a starter:
> "On 25 March 2009, United States based human rights organization Human Rights Watch published a 71-page report titled Rain of Fire, _Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza_ and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.[SUP][56][/SUP]White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza - many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire - but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks. [SUP][56][/SUP]​


That is great. what specific law did it break?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan, what's your recipe for dealing with Iran's nuclear program? Let's pretend you were Obama for the day. More sanctions? Less? Do we attempt a grand bargain, perhaps to contain ISISI?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ed-troops-to-fight-with-white-phosphorus.html
> 
> Although I thought we were going to to talk about the speech.


Where is the fun in that, lol.

It was an overtly political and one sided speech, but that really is not the point.

The point is that some people claim it was an affront to the President to allow someone he does not agree with to address Congress, which is controlled by a party other than the President's own.

Some think that the righteous indignation is funny.

Others feel that the leader of Israel apparently has not right to speak because his country has a lot of UN violations, but they don't want to talk about any other country's violations to put things in context.

One likes to by things from Jewish shops, but not if the money goes to Israel.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Where is the fun in that, lol.
> 
> It was an overtly political and one sided speech, but that really is not the point.
> 
> ...


Happy Purim, everyone.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

This one's nice. From yesterday.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'll bite.

What, exactly, did the Democrats in Congress expect Netanyahu to say? He said what he's been saying for several years. Complaining about his comments had about the same effect as my complaining about all this got-dam snow we've gotten this winter.

OTOH, what did Netanyahu expect the Democrats to say in response?

Neither the Congressional Democrats nor Netanyahu had any reason to expect to hear anything other than what they did. Neither side has a right to be offended. JMHO.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan, what's your recipe for dealing with Iran's nuclear program? Let's pretend you were Obama for the day. More sanctions? Less? Do we attempt a grand bargain, perhaps to contain ISISI?


My opinion, no more. 
More sanctions will make the situation worse, and push Iran into a more drastic response. I'm inclined to think that further sanctions could only be political, in the sense of trying to bring about "regime change", to break the Iranian government. We've already seen how successful that has been in Iraq!
A firm timetable, as it were, of regulation and inspection, with clearly laid down consequences if conditions are broken, so that all parties know where they are. Perhaps a reduction in sanctions might have the effect of Iran's government becoming more understanding of the West's view. Certainly an agreement vis a vis ISIS/ISIL, which is a far bigger threat the the Middle East than Iran. Agreements with Iran might mean that Iran's attempts to gain power in the region through Shiite militias might be curtailed, and Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah could be reduced. The US and Iran are already operating against ISIS/ISIL together, wouldn't it be better for "World Peace" if Iran and the US were seen to be cooperating?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

And to you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

You know, if it wasn't for the Middle Ages "kill the infidels" mindset of murdeorus, barbaric Arabs in the Middle East wanting to wipe Israel off the map there wouldn't be a Middle East problem! 

It gets no simpler than that!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You mean it's not a nefarious Zionist conspiracy dating back centuries with the Rothchilds being in the center of it?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Why is there such a fuss about Iran when a blind eye has been turned to Israeli nuclear weapons for decades? It is not for Netanyahu to pontificate on this subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Or for that matter France, right? 

Are you serious?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm not worried about France having nuclear weapons. An established, rational western democracy, without any chance of religious fanatics or fundamentalists of any kind ever having political control isn't a threat to world peace. 
Nuclear weapons in the hands of a state in which a significant majority believe a fairy tale that they're God's Chosen People, who believe themselves and their very existence to be under threat (whether true or not), with a history of military aggression and racism, which has elected politicians who speak of expermination of their enemies, and the potential to be under control of religious fanatics and fundamentalists is very much a threat to world peace.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I love how you phrase "who believe themselves and their very existence to be under threat (whether true or not)"!

I suppose it doesn't really matter that their are countries in their neighborhood who have either vowed or actually have tried to destroy them. Currently, there's at least one country who wants to exterminate them from the earth and who controls a proxy army in its borders who repeatedly launch homemade missiles into neighborhoods. 

But that's a fictitious concern regarding one's existence I suppose.

I don't even know why I bother engaging in these discussions.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Indeed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Kingstonian said:


> Why is there such a fuss about Iran when a blind eye has been turned to Israeli nuclear weapons for decades? It is not for Netanyahu to pontificate on this subject.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal


Indeed the present day membership in the nuclear club is far too extensive, but how is adding to the mix going to contribute to a favorable conclusion. As said membership expands, the hazards to our individual safety/security increase exponentially. We should all be literally terrified by any additions (particularly Iran) to the nuclear clubs membership roster! It takes but one miscalculation and we could find ourselves in the midst of a large scale exchange, which would bring to an abrupt end life as we presently know it.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed the present day membership in the nuclear club is far too extensive, but how is adding to the mix going to contribute to a favorable conclusion. As said membership expands, the hazards to our individual safety/security increase exponentially. We should all be literally terrified by any additions (particularly Iran) to the nuclear clubs membership roster! It takes but one miscalculation and we could find ourselves in the midst of a large scale exchange, which would bring to an abrupt end life as we presently know it.


Very well stated, eagle.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> who believe themselves and their very existence to be under threat (whether true or not),


I know, right?!? What on earth would ever give them the idea that people wanted to exterminate them? Silly people.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I know, right?!? What on earth would ever give them the idea that people wanted to exterminate them? Silly people.....


You and your mates *can* read English can't you? Perhaps you should all read my post again. It is quite easy to understand.

It might help you if you can understand that there is a difference between wishing to destroy a state and wishing to destroy a whole people. Or are you conflating the state of Israel with the Jewish people again?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You and your mates *can* read English can't you? Perhaps you should all read my post again. It is quite easy to understand.
> 
> It might help you if you can understand that* there is a difference between wishing to destroy a state and wishing to destroy a whole people*. Or are you conflating the state of Israel with the Jewish people again?


I'm just curious how you propose to destroy the state without the people living in it? Would you care to explain how this has ever happened in human history without a body count?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm just curious how you propose to destroy the state without the people living in it? Would you care to explain how this has ever happened in human history without a body count?


I'd also be curious to know why Chouan is so convinced Israel's enemies make such a distinction.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You and your mates *can* read English can't you? Perhaps you should all read my post again. It is quite easy to understand.
> 
> It might help you if you can understand that there is a difference between wishing to destroy a state and wishing to destroy a whole people. Or are you conflating the state of Israel with the Jewish people again?


I can indeed read English. Quite well actually.

Well enough in fact to notice that you used the plurals of them and their as opposed to the singular of it and its. And, when referring to the country itself since you would not write then sentence "Israel are", you would use "Israel is" it is quite clear you were referring to the citizens of said country (e.g., the majority you referenced) who, amazingly enough, are Jewish.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

And let's not forget Chouan's casual negative (and incorrect) characterization of Jewish theology and attribution of said theology to the state as part of the explanation for why that state is bad.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I can indeed read English. Quite well actually.
> 
> Well enough in fact to notice that you used the plurals of them and their as opposed to the singular of it and its. And, when referring to the country itself since you would not write then sentence "Israel are", you would use "Israel is" it is quite clear you were referring to the citizens of said country (e.g., the majority you referenced) who, amazingly enough, are Jewish.


I was referring to the state, as you well know. The citizens of Israel aren't necessarily Jewish.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I was referring to the state, as you well know.


No, I did not know.



> The citizens of Israel aren't necessarily Jewish.


But "God's chosen people" are.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I was referring to the state, as you well know. The citizens of Israel aren't necessarily Jewish.


But most are. By the way, though most are, there are still Christians and Muslims living there. There are Muslim members of the Knesset, albeit obviously a minority.

I wonder if the idealized Sharia state ISIS pines for would allow Christians and Jews as citizens, let alone holding government office?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> But most are. By the way, though most are, there are still Christians and Muslims living there. There are Muslim members of the Knesset, albeit obviously a minority.
> 
> I wonder if the idealized Sharia state ISIS pines for would allow Christians and Jews as citizens, let alone holding government office?


Well, we all know that it's perfectly acceptable among humanitarians for Jews to live as persecuted second-class citizens. What's wrong with living in a sharia state? Or Iran? Syria? Once Jews challenge their status the same humanitarians upgrade them to the status of threats to world peace.

Iran loves Jews, I hear. Bombing the AMIA was a love letter.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I've said this before: A Shia Muslim is freer to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm just curious how you propose to destroy the state without the people living in it? Would you care to explain how this has ever happened in human history without a body count?


I've made no such proposal.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I meant "you" in the global sense. 

You indicated something about the difference and distinction between destroying the state vs. the people in it. I'm just curious if you'd care to expand on that?

Do you have something in mind in the event someone consults you?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Americans need to take back control of their own country.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

From whom?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> From whom?


Ziocons, plutocrats, banksters, globalists, Israel Firsters, warmongers.....

*▶ 3:15*​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

​​


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Why don't you just say the Jews? 

I mean, why beat around the bush? Why pretend otherwise.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The Economist has an excellent podcast discussing Netanyahu's speech and its political ramifications for both Israeli and US elections. One might conclude that the whole thing was cooked up primarily for Israeli domestic politics, in order to help enhance Bibi's election chances.

The podcast can be accessed at

__
https://soundcloud.com/
. Sorry I don't know how to link the specific podcast.

All in all, The Economist is rapidly becoming my go-to source for intelligent commentary on a wide range of topics.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm not above prescribing political motives to a politician. Any politician from any country. It's the one constant that cuts across national boundaries and cultures.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Why don't you just say the Jews?
> 
> I mean, why beat around the bush? Why pretend otherwise.


As as you well know, it is not just jews.

Netanyahu issue is zionists and their shills and fellow travellers like John Bolton.

Other issues are various types buying influence.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

It might be helpful if participants in this discussion were to read the linked item from Al Jazeera.

<https://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/3/9/what-46-republican-senators-may-not-understand-about-iran.html>

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> It might be helpful if participants in this discussion were to read the linked item from Al Jazeera.
> 
> <https://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/3/9/what-46-republican-senators-may-not-understand-about-iran.html>
> 
> ...


Again, embarrassing, isn't it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> As as you well know, it is not just jews.
> 
> Netanyahu issue is zionists and their shills and fellow travellers like John Bolton.
> 
> Other issues are various types buying influence.


Yes, but if you can be accused of targeting "just Jews" then you can be accused of being anti-Semitic. It's always easier if critics can be easily pigeon holed and dismissed as being anti-Semitic than trying to argue with the actual arguments. Criticism of Israel will so often bring an accusation of anti-Semitism as it's the easiest way of silencing it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Ziocons, plutocrats, banksters, globalists, Israel Firsters, warmongers.....
> 
> *▶ 3:15*​
> 
> ...


Illuminati, Rothschilds, NWO, Global Elite, Reptilians....?

.
.

.
.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Illuminati, Rothschilds, NWO, Global Elite, Reptilians....?
> .


To go beyond the initial Netanyahu theme, the basic problem is the buying of influence. That seems to be completely shameless and untrammelled in the US. Britain is a client state of the U.S. so gets some of their consequences.

However, UK also has a separate thing of its own going on. Our politicians are completely biddable. Rifkind was the latest example. Tony Blair has made the most money from it. UK has sold the family silver to the highest bidder with no notion of national interests. London property market has been allowed to become a secret safe deposit box for overseas funds.

As Carlin points out in the video, influence buyers want more for themselves at the expense of everybody else. Politicians seem happy to oblige - for a fee.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Gurdon said:


> It might be helpful if participants in this discussion were to read the linked item from Al Jazeera.
> 
> <https://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/3/9/what-46-republican-senators-may-not-understand-about-iran.html>
> 
> ...


Israel has never signed up to the NPT, but I doubt that will trouble the senators unduly.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There appears to be what looks like a curious double-standard about many Americans with regards to Israel. Because Israel is seen to be a faithful US ally, and because American politicians dare not risk losing the support of Jewish people in America, it seems that Israel cannot be criticised. My perception. There appears to be a closing of eyes and of minds, such that unpleasant things that Israel does cannot be countenanced as such. Have American politicians always been as forgiving of other regimes that are their allies? When Iraq was an American ally, for example, did American politicians turn such a blind eye to Iraq's civil rights issues? Did they turn a blind eye to Pinochet and Syngman Ree, or the various gangsters who ran South Vietnam? I'm inclined to think that they were always fully aware of the kind of people and state that they were dealing with. But, given the near adulation of Israel and the ovation given to Netanyahu, do they genuinely believe that Israel can do no wrong, that Israel is *always* justified? Or do they deliberately and consciously ignore the problems, despite being aware of them, because they want to be viewed as Israel's friend, and therefore can't acknowledge the issues?


----------

