| Author |
 Topic  |
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 08:45:58 AM
|
Warmskin said:
"I would divide the aggegrate territories of Israel and Palestine. Give each entity equal value in the land and coast."
This is what the 1947 UN plan envisaged, which the authorities who became Israel accepted. The result was invasion by ALL the surrounding Arab states. Updating for demographic changes since then would be critical, and the main result would be return of some of the West Bank area. Then, too, there are other problems including the rights of the current landowners and whatever residuals might be there for the descendents of those owners dispossessed, often voluntarily, 70-odd years ago. The Arabs who remained, without abandoning their property, have full Israeli citizenship, etc. Most of the dislocation was totally unnecessary if the UN plan had been accepted by the Arabs.
No nation could agree to settlement of a huge hostile minority up to a quarter of its population, within its midst.
Meanwhile, the current Arab ferment sweeps on.
|
Edited by - balataf on 03/18/2011 09:29:55 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 03/20/2011 : 05:41:38 AM
|
I would agree that the original plan should have been maintained. Yes, I have seen war maps showing nations to the east going after Israel. That was highly objectionable, and the UN should have enforced those original boundaries.
However, what happened in the ensuing decades is not appropriate. We need to get back to the UN plan, both for Israel and Palestine.
If I were dictator for a day, and there is a scary thouhgt, haha, I'd guarantee sovereign territories for both Israel and Palestine. I'd move the troops out of Iraq and place them in and around Israel and Palestine to move people around to form the UN plan, and enforce it once and for all. The settlements in Palestine would have to be vacated by the Israelis and ceded over to the Palestinians. In exchange for guaranteed US military presence on the edges of Israel, Israel would compensate Palestine for having ruined so many farms, and for war crimes committed, minus any damages committed by the Palestinians.
I would arrange it so that each side got a deal they could not refuse. I figure that a happy, contented, busy people, making a decent living are not very likely to make attacks. If I had a profitable job where I had to work 60 hours a week to fairly okay for myself, I don't have time to make pipe rockets, or the inclination to do so.
I'd build American walls to keep people from wandering from county to country, in that area of the world. The appartheid walls would come down, and all Palestinians would have complete free access to their own hospitals, schools, markets, jobs, and the like.
The Israelis would be guaranteed American military support should they be attacked. The USA would also guarantee the safety of the Palestinians. That right there would put a stop to Israel and the USA from being a thorn in the side of the whole area, as well as the Arabs from being a thorn in the side of Israel.
It all has to be a comprehensive arrangement, wherein the USA would no longer be a strong partisan, but a country who once again had the will to make peace. I don't like to come too close to the Wilsonian or FDR activism overseas, but we have to make amends to that part of the world.
Imagine the Palestinians loving America. Also, imagine the great PR we would have in that area of former friends, by forcing the UN agreement, and sticking to it.
Also, in this very touchy area, let's remember the Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust. The Nazis were. The Palestinians should be respected as full humans, and not less than anybody else.
With treaties in place, and enforced, we could stop giving out aid to some of the nations there.
In the end, the average person wants peace. He or she has no say in long wars.
As for the struggles against the dictators in the Mideast, I welcome them. Although, given the current situation at large, Israel should not look at these changing situations with 100% happiness. Egypt may end up with a leader who won't buy the USA's line of reasoning over there, or won't be paid to act the way the USA wants it to act. Mubarak was our boy for a good while, and was paid for certain foreing policies in Egypt. The question now is what kind of leader will these countries end up with, and what will be their attitude towards us.
The world spins on.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/20/2011 : 3:29:00 PM
|
Warmskin,
Did you see the news of yesterday's Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli villages? After two years of quiet, this is what we got. No provocation seen or alleged.
The Soviets and the 20 or so Arab and Islamic nations blocked UN action in 1947. The Israeli forces won freedom alone, after asking the UN to enforce it.
It is very interesting that the liberal interventionists like Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice guided the military support for Libya's people. The few remaining Neocons were divided on the point, and have no real representation in Congress, much less the Admin. Essentially, you just wached the death of the basic Neocon movement, killed off by other Hawkish factions, most of which are not conservative at all, much less Neocon. John Kerry for one.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
rahel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/20/2011 : 9:32:19 PM
|
Balataf, Warmskin. Please watch this link, before it gets out of internet. http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk. It is regarding some arms intended to be sent to Gaza and the Hamas.
For you Warmskin, I am giving up on you as you do not understand what is going on in the Middle East. President Yatnyahu was interviewed yesterday by Piers Morgan, and explained very well that it did not matter what, the Palestinians refuse to have peace. The Palestinian children still get at school very heinous lecons on how to hate the Jews, just because they are jews.Please read Balataf, and learn.
Rahel
rahel
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 93 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/20/2011 : 10:05:20 PM
|
Hi Balataf,
No, I didn't hear about that actually. Probably because I turned off the cablevision 6 years ago. (saved $3,000 to date!!)
Given the long-term circumstances, versus current events, I could understand the human factors in shooting off those inaccurate the rockets into Israel. If ever there were a desperate people, it would be the Palestinians, within the last 65 years, or so. Still, it is most unfortunate that they did to that, and I don't like what they did at all.
Refering back to my post with the map of the Israeli seizing of Palestine land, to a great degree, that exceeded the borders of the UN plan.
One great source of anger for the Palestinians is the Israeli tanks and soldiers inside of Palestine. For instance, if a Palestinian had to go to a hospital, he or she might have to go through a gaggle of Israeli checkpoints to get medical treatment in an emergency. Any one of those checkpoints could say no, you can't go to a hospital in your country. That is cruel and sick, to me. If a person needs emergency treatment, and an Israeli guard, stationed in foreign land prevents you from going (and this happens all time), someone just might really get mad and fire off a rocket at the state who is preventing you from your moving about your own homeland regarding ordinary acitivity.
Actually, Hamas is an Israeli invention. They created Hamas to offset the PLO. The old divide and conquer thing.
If Israel really wants the rockets to cease, all they have to do is get out of Palestine, the 1948 version) and leave those hapless people alone. I.e., give them their life back. Get rid of the horrible checkpoints, get the tanks out, recall the Israeli soldiers from their occupation of Palestine.
Imagine Canadian troops, tanks, Air Force, etc., roaming through American cities and killing people just because. Would we get angry. I would think so, if we are normal people. We would do all we could to repel them. That being the case, why would we not expect the same of people in other countrie?
The Israeli occupation of Palestine was never a panacea for Israelis seeking peace. I don't think either group of people are capable of finding peace, unless America imposes a peace plan on them. I remember reading quotes from the early Zionist leaders that the original intent was to crush all Palestinians like insects. My guess would be that this would not be a good way to start off, but Menachem Begin said just that. Then he went on to commit crimes against humanity by his leadership in mass murders against hundreds of Palestinian families, that could only be equalled by the Nazis. Rather ironic. I never knew all this until several years ago. I was a big Israel fan. I loved their victories in 1967.
That all changed in later decades, as I began to see both sides of the quandry.
I had conversations with a couple of Israeli folks. I asked them about their general attitude in life. This was several years ago. Dummy me, back then!! They told me that their group was under great pressure, thus the desperate acts. I asked them about what kind of pressure, but got no answer. Still, though I do remember a few facets of our conversation.
There is no question that Israel had a tough time in starting off. Naturally, they had been there for a long time in smaller numbers, and they seemed more at peace back then compard to after 1947. It's too bad that a general agreement could not have been hammered out by all Arabs, the allies of WWII, and possibly others. I had also heard that the Zionists had jumped the gun, as it were and proceeded without UN approval at that time.
I definitely agree with you about the question of the neocons. Let's say the GOP wins the next presidential election. It would be interesting to see where the neocons end up. Still influential, even though not holding appointments, or would the GOP cave in and allow these neocons back in. The necons are powerful advocates, although they have no clue about the outcomes of their plans.
My favorite fantasy is air-dropping all the necons, who never served in the military, into Afghanistan, wearing uniforms with one canteen, and an M-14. Let's see them advocate for senseless wars after they serve one year over there.
After those awful years of the neocons literally running the White House, with an obedient president, the GOP took a pounding in 2006 and 2008. That led to the crowning of Obama and let him give is Obamacare. I remember Julie Nixon Eisenhower voting for Obama, because she was sick of the actions of the GOP during those disastrous years. I could only wonder what her dad would have thought about that.
Assume that Palin gets elected to office. She knows who gives her money for her war chest. Can she afford to neglect them (AIPAC)? Will she choose Goldwater types, or Cheney types? Or for that matter, whoever wins the presidential office by any GOP type. Guiliani would be a complete sellout to his foreign contributors. I am trying to conceive who would be their own man or woman. Hard to say. Romney, Guliani are too beholden to their influencers.
Ron Paul is a guy I really like. He is straight out of the Constitution and would bring back the Founders' advice, except for Hamilton. Huckabee is a big question mark to me.
Palin is simply riding on being picked to offset McCain's age and lack of conservative credentials. I think she needs more experience, and the way she quit her office did her a lot of damage. Her opponents could tag her as possibly quitting her job as president in the middle or her term. Maybe she could run for Alaska Senator and become more of a veteran. She is still young.
Then there are the newbies to the race, like Pawlenty and his contemporaries. As Geo. Washington said, with his usual far-sightedness, "Few men can withstand the highest bidder." Not sure any politician can do that today, with the exception of Ron Paul. I think it's time to have a president who really can withstand the highest bidder.
We need a poll taken among the Tea Party to see who there choice is of today. Maybe there is one, but I don't know. One great website I follow is http://www.realclearpolitics.com It has a good selection of polls and bi-partisan commentary.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/21/2011 : 08:47:01 AM
|
Israeli, in defensive fighting, took land after the Arabs rejected the UN plan. This is like the Americans, in self-defense, taking the Pacific Islands in defensive war. Instead of winning in WW2, should the US have left them alone? Your reasoning is sadly defective.
Some of the territory should have been given back with a peace treaty in 1948, exccept that the Arabs refused to have one. Note that the Sinai was returned when Egypt made peace, and that Israel was willing all along. That situation is the product of Arab refusal to even talk to them.
Egypt, who made peace, got back Sinai, but Syria still won't talk, and Golan is still occupied.
My answer for Golan is long-term joint occupation by a joint authority, because it is geopolitically quite different from Sinai.
The Arabs killed the UN plan, that Isarel accepted. Where is that in your calculation? Updating the plan fairly to current time would have Israel give back part of the West Bank.
The Israeli checkpoints are the product of Arab suicide bombers. The answer to your concern is for the Arabs to stop the violence. Every time the Arabs start another round of violence, the checkpoints increase, when things are calm it decreases.
(By the way, the Hamas attacks were on network news) I'm an addict of Real Clear Politics, probably the bet all-around single source.
//////////////////////////////
From National Review:
On ABC’s This Week, columnist George F. Will and Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy Secretary of Defense, sparred on whether U.S. forces should intervene in Libya.
“It is not worth war,” Will argued. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we have taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand, for the purpose — not avowed, but inexorably our purpose — of creating a political vacuum by decapitating the government. Into that vacuum, what will flow we do not know and cannot know.”
Wolfowitz disagreed. “What we have prevented, for one thing, is a bloodbath in Benghazi, which would have stained our reputation throughout the Arab world at a time when our reputation really matters,” he said. “I understand George’s hesitations. But it would seem to me, if you followed those hesitations, you would say, ‘It is better to keep this devil that we know than the unknown.’ And I don’t see how any unknown could be worse than the devil who is in Tripoli right now.”
“We have paid the price of intervention, sometimes we have paid the price of nonintervention, in Bosnia, for example,” Wolfowitz continued. “One of the things that makes this situation so unique is the monstrous quality of the Tripoli regime, the monstrous quality of Qaddafi and his sons. I know people say, ‘What about Bahrain? What about Yemen?’ This is a totally different case, where a man is actually slaughtering his own people, has no regard for his own people, and uses mercenaries to kill them. It is a unique case and it is being watched around the Arab world.”
“There is no limiting principle in what we have done,” Will replied, commenting on the global implications of U.S. policy. “If we are to protect people who are under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we are not only logically committed to help them, we are inciting them to rise in expectation. The mission creep began, Paul, before the mission began because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not effect the end, which is obviously regime change.”
/////////////////////
Neoncon vs Neocon. The devilish thing is that I can't disagree with either. Both are absolutly completely correct. Should one be cautious or gamble to support freedom?
Palin is much more attrative to the Christian Right and Social Conservatives, she has almost zero Jewish or Neocon support. Bachmann and Palin's support is equally pro-Israel, but has nothing to do with those forces noted. An adminstration of those forces would be very Hawkish, without Neocons. In fact, as I project, the relative end of the Neocons opens space and oportunity in that direction. Polling among Tea Party groups shows great preliminary support for Paul and Bachmann, who are pretty well polar opposites.
At this point, I have no single favorite for Pres. Recently, I sat down and came up with 27 names of possibles for President or VP. I lean to governors, like Daniels, Kasich and Christie.
Kasich had a tremendous record as a Congressman in the '90s, and looks great as a beginning Governor, but needs a bit more experience.
2012's election is not likely to revolve around foreign policy issues. The biggest single point is Obamacare's disaster.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/22/2011 : 04:06:52 AM
|
It would seem that the Palestinians have always been the underdog, because of their lack of military power. While Israel has had billions of $$ of military aid, I'm trying to recall what weapons the USA has given them. That is not to say that some arms have been smuggled into Palestine.
The collective punishment inflicted on the Palesitinians is over the top as far as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The way innocent lives in Palestine are cruelly treated by occupying Israeli troops is horrible. The troops mock, bully, assault innocent families, and deny basic human needs to innocent families in Palestine. This is criminal. The soldiers are sick people, but Israel is okay with what they do.
Israel has always made it clear that when they do these things, their PR department will cover up these atrocities. What most Americans see and hear is the Israeli version that has been well-crafted before it hits the news.
There is a website that counters this with facts, in a general and historical sense. It's:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
Another webpage that is within the last URL is this:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/download/synopsis.pdf
The map shows the the seizing of Palestinian land has been a fervent desire since before UN plan. Israel wants it all. There is nothing defensive about Israel's actions in Palestine. It's all about making Palestine a horrible place to live. One thing Israel did not count on was the tentacity of the Palestinians people, and their high fertility rate. Israel wanted to make Palestine so horrible that they would all leave their homeland in fear.
The person who authored this website had a death-threat made to her. The caller said there was a bomb set to go off in her office.
One could see this from just the mass murders of Palestinians back in the 1940s. That was not a defensive move, because the victims in those mass murders were not soldiers, but innocent families.
Naturally, Israel is losing support around the world, especially after their attack on the flotilla that carried food, medicine, and toys to the Palestinian people. At some point, Israel will only count on US support.
I would suggest to Israel that they learn to treat others like they want to be treated, in the very long run. Their attitude that the rest of us are animals must come to an end if they want to do well in the long run. The Palestinians are not insects, as Israel has said. They are people. Something is desperately wrong with a state who thinks of people in terms of hatred. The Nazis did the same, and of course, we rejected that whole-heartedly.
Turning to politics, I'm glad you like realclear politics. It's the best. Something for everybody.
It's a huge toss-up at this point on the GOP side. It must get back all those voters it lost a few years ago. I wonder how successful they'll be.
Unfortunately for the GOP, there is no Reagan waiting in the wings. There is Ron Paul, who was a great friend of Reagan's, but the GOP ridicules him, and the philosophy of our Founders, as well as the philosophy of freedom. That should be frightfully worrisome for the GOP, in that they are still where they were in the era of 2006 - 2008, to a good degree. I tend to credit their overall victory in 2010 to a rejection of Obama's excesses. The GOP was handy to use to beat up on liberalism. Also interesting is how the GOP and the mass media both thought quite the same about Paul. The media and the GOP thinking alike??? Whaaaat. Hahaha. Ya never know.
I think I have seen a few changes in Will's tone; it's very subtle, but he seems to be drifting away from the main chicken-hawk crowd of the GOP, to a degree. Wolfowitz disgraced himself in previous duties, so I would highly discount anything he says. He said the Iraq war would cost only $50 bilion, and would last for a short while, and would be paid for by oil. Hmm, I think he was bit incorrect. So, seeing as how those two debated, it figures. I would take Will's side.
Palin would get the support of the Zionist-Likud types. She has ardently seeked it from the start, especially when one of her first speeched was to AIPAC in 2008. Why them, I wondered. Why not to her own constituents in Alaska, or to the Press Club.
As for other GOP possibles, I would agree with you, my friend. The new governors are fresh, and are bright spots, and I would support them if I were in the GOP. The crowd of 2006 to 2008 need to go; they were disasters. They caused me to leave the GOP, if I might use myself for a microcosm. Paul has the college age folks locked up; they love him. They didn't love McCain very much. After the 2008 debacle, the candidates for RNC chairman went to great lengths to stop denigrating Ron Paul. Big step for them. They still did not agree with him, but recognized his being a true pied-piper for bringing in college students - the future voters.
So, right on with the new governors. I fully agree, Balataf. Maybe they can help the movement as a whole.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
rahel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/22/2011 : 04:32:08 AM
|
You know Warmskin, you are so ignorant, it is unbelievable. You do not know any facts, and you want to ignore the reality. Wake up and go to the library.
rahel
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 93 |
|
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/22/2011 : 11:07:31 AM
|
San Diego talk show host and former San Diego mayor Roger Hedgecock visited the Israeli parliament (Knesset) and was pleased to see duly elected Arab members in the parliament. How many Jews are important government officials in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya et al?
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/22/2011 : 6:56:42 PM
|
W,
We disposed of that map earlier, and you dont make any more sense this time with it. ALL OF THE ISRAELI EXPANSION WAS INITIATED BY ARAB ATTACKS. These maps do not show how Sinai was given back when Egypt made peace. ARAFAT TURNED DOWN THE RETURN OF PALESTINIAN LANDS RATHER THAN MAKE PEACE WITH ISRAEL. ISRAEL WITHDREW FROM GHAZA, AND HAMAS ATTACKS CONTINUALLY as a thank-you. Syria refuses to negotiate on Golan, or they'd have gotten thqt back, also.
As more time goes on with Palestinian intransigence, their position gets weaker. The answer is to make peace. Clausewitz: "Nobody got anything from a peace treaty that they could not enforce on a battlefield." If you don't like him, try Sun Tzu, for similar truth.
Isreal has repeatedly shown that it will deal fairly, BUT IT CAN'T WHEN THE PALESTINIANS WILL NOT TALK AT ALL.
Hamas's unprovoked rocket and artillery attacks on Israeli villages continued today. If it follows their pattern, it will have been fired from a residential area. If Israel fires back defensively, will you pretend it's their fault?
Are you really that morally blind?
///////////////////////////
As to the qualities of any particular potential president, you have to judge from each person's past record, accomplishments and policy outlook. Read magazines and newspapers from before FDR was elected in 1932, and see how sadly he appeared
I doubt that Palin will run, and while she may ask for Jewish support, she's gotten very little. They will not go with her against most Republicans, but would grudgingly accept her versus Obama.
She is extremely opposed by the Neocons, as they agree on almost nothing else.
|
Edited by - balataf on 03/22/2011 7:25:28 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 04:40:15 AM
|
I'm just not a fan of states that commit torture, imprisonment without a trial, preventing people in getting adequate health care, deliberately dumping their raw sewage continuously for decades, settling on foreign lands without permission, dropping illegal white phosphorous on families -only for the families to have to witness a loved one's skin burn right off, dropping cluster bombs on families contrary to internationial law, refusal to abide by Geneva conventions, offering deliberately defective peace plans that divide up a country into thousands of fragments where people are tightly controlled, threating to exterminate a particular people, calling people who are not of the same ethnicity insects and animals, denying an adjacent state adequate water, and nutrition, attacking ships that carry food, medicine, and toys for chidren, committing mass murders against villages who did nothing to them, running one of the world's largest concentratioin camp, insisting that the extant people of an adjacent state do not exist, attacking another nation's ship that had no armament and then pressuring that nation to claim it was an accident when in fact the NSA has smoking-gun evidence that it was deliberate, threatening the life of people who dissent, and much more.
Are the Palestinians all innocent? Hardly. They have engaged in stupid activities that buy them nothing but trouble -but it should be measured trouble. They don't understand public relations, and how their actions affect their image -neither does Israel. Between ineffective rockets, and suicidal bombs blowing up in Israeli busses, they have not acquitted themselves well. I would thoroughly condemn their actions and give them no fig leaf of covering up their violence.
However, by using means of proportionality, the Israelis' acts of violence, and human rights, denial dwarf what the Palestinians have done. That does not excuse them, naturally, but the score is heavily in Israel's favor as to oppression of a mostly innocent people. The innocents never grab headlines. The statistics in that website I posted do point out the complete imbalance of victims of the advent of Zionism. A lot of Israelis and rabbis are completely against what Israel is doing, and has done. They think that Israel's actions have hurt the entire Jewish community undeservedly. Rabbi David Weiss, for example, is one who definitely thinks so. There are many more rabbis of conscience who think the whole Israeli experience has been wrong from the start.
That said, I'm hardly alone in my observations of the subtleties and the obvious, although there is certainly room for exploration and disagreement as to which facts are dominant. I can say with confidence that if a neutral person were given the choice between those two states to live in, almost all of them would pick Israel, because the Israelis are so much better off. They are over-achievers, place high value on education, and they work hard.
My main objection is that they often disobey international laws, and that causes them a lot of PR damage. Who would want to live in a state that has generally not quite enough water for good health, or have raw sewage running iin their property, or have Israeli troops running through your house, threatening your safety unless you leave your home immediately?
I don't think of myself as an immoral person. I am just a fan of the underdog.
We are running a fascinating dialogue, given the high number of readers of this thread. It takes some endurance to keep in this "tennis game" of dialogue. Maybe both of us should be paid. Administrator -- hint, hint.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 04:54:42 AM
|
Whoops, I forgot the Tea Party angle. Palin will get the support, or perhaps share it for her stand on our speciall ally. Today she was at the wailing wall, doing her political rounds. That is fine, and is a time-honored activity. I do think that she did that for political reasons than for religious ones. I believe it was Jay Leno who joked very recently that when Palin was at the wall, she asked if the wall kept out illegal aliens. So much for the entertainment world.
The one thing that I can count on is that politicians place their highest value in getting to office and don't want to relinquish that glory to anyone, if they can help it. They will cater to whoever has the money and the power.
Jefferson once said that a rotteness takes over a man's soul when he seeks public office. Maybe he had something there. Although I would not say all politicians are that way, but it sure happens in the presidential race.
Still, if I were a GOP member, I would take your side and let some new blood into the party's presidential race. Out with the old and in with the new, and a new broom sweeps clean, and that sort of thing.
Obama was the best thing that happened to the GOP in the 2010 election. I would feel divided about that, in that the more damage that Obama does, the less his chances for re-election. But that also means we would have to sustain more unlawful ideas that he will put into effect, although not so much anymore with the GOP's hold on the house.
Ironically, if the Democrats retained all the government, they would lose in 2012, because by then, too much damage would have been committed for them to hold their seats. Then the GOP would take a lot of seats, and be in power.
It breaks down into either a win-win, of lose-lose situation. If the GOP is smart, they will elect someone who can change the direction of America, and change the direction of the GOP into a more nationalistically conservative direction. Paging Bob Taft!
Just my 2 cents worth, but I only got a penny for my thoughts. I can't keep that going very long.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 1:49:31 PM
|
I first became politically active in the 1963 election, altho I had been following political events since 1950, when I was three and Korea started.
Having run for office five times, (nominated in four,) and managed a dozen compaigns, including three of my Wife for School Board, I can tell you something about political candidates.
Polticians are less oriented to the raw getting elected, than they are towards advancing cherished ideas and their view of the public good. The money and support are tools,and candidates just about never change their base platforms to get it.
Candidates announce, and donors then shop around for whoever they want to support. They will back people who already are moving towards their own position. Alterntely, donors will move to oppose someone who already opposes what they see as their own interests.
At this time, I do not see that any of the major Republicans mentioned are sell-outs to any forces beyond their own convictions. If think someone is, give us some evidence.
Bob Taft (Sr.) is dead, but there are a dozen good ones now.
Palin may ask for Jewish support, but is very unlikely to get it, unless the choice narrowed down to her vs. Obsma. In that csse, she'd get about 30% in November. My guess is only about 2 percent of the Jewish Republican primary vote if she did run. They tend to prefer Neocons instead, like Bolton.
///////////////////////////
Part of the generous offer Arafat turned down was to jointly build sewage treatment for Ghaza. Israel itself is being impacted by the stuff, much less those who live there. But the Arabs turned it down, once again. There is next to nothing in your list where Israel does not have a much better record than the Arabs.
Repeated from page 16.
Warmskin, let me ask this question. when Israel was needlessly attacked and defended itself. How would YOU have handled the problems? Israel preferred peace, as in the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has not been aggressive. When Hezbollah used massive rocketry and artillery based in civilian areas, against Israeli home territory, how should Israel have fought back?
Israel's actual tactics were closely targeted counter-battery fire. If Hezbollah fired from residential buildings, that is not Israels fault. What would YOU have done?
Israel's strategy of retaliating by wrecking all the bridges, sewers, water plants, and other infrastructure was a way of avoiding civilian neighborhoods and casualties. Excellent humanitarian thinking? If not, how would YOU have responded to such an unprovoked attack?
////////////////
This applies to several other unanswered questions on the last few pages. It is a real situation, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? HOW SHOULD ISRAEL PROTECT ITS CITIZENS, WHEN THE PALESTINIANS WON'T EVEN TALK TO THEM?
Either give us some sort of practical answer to deal with this terrible conundrum, or admit that you have none, and have become seriously morally corrupt.
We are waiting for some PRACTICAL answers, that are within Israel's control, before we declare you bankrupt, and I, for one, stop responding on this subject.
We are talking about the situation on the ground TODAY, not dreaming about might-have beens that the Arabs torpedoed in 1948.
|
Edited by - balataf on 03/23/2011 2:03:03 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 6:42:01 PM
|
I take deep umbrage in your calling me seriously immorally bankrupt. That is pure personal insult, and nothing less. If that is how you like to discuss things, then there is no room for intelligent discussion. Game is over, I win, because I never resorted to that sort of dialogue, and I refuse to do it here.
When you decide to elevate your words to above the ad-hominen level, please let me know. Thank you.
I will continue on with my defense in any forum of a people who do not have 200+ nukes, the 4th largest military in the world. It's my humanitarian nature. I'm saddened that you think that is immoral, and that I am immoral.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
|
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 9:54:01 PM
|
I did not say that you were so, only thqt if you could not answer the simple questions that indicated a certain blindness. Will you answer?
You do not need to accept the category, that is up to you, which id wehat I said firwt. It is up to you. The problem is not ad-hominem, it is a lack of responsible analysis, after you repeated;y ignored a few simple questions. Reply responsibly and you have my apology. Irresponsibility will not get it.
Anyone else is invited to comment on either/both of us.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 0 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
