- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 23,086
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
:2rofll:
Man you people and that anti-Semitic crap. Please, give me a break.
Ha. Here's the record you might want to update your thinking about.
A Complete Timeline of Obama's Anti-Israel Hatred - Breitbart
First of all, I wasn't talking to you. Second, you don't have a clue what I know. Finally, I'm not that interested in what you have to say. :shrug:I know the difference but you do NOT.....
**** Breitbart, of course he would frame holding Israel accountable as anti-Israel. So back when he became president, he told Israel they needed to stop building their illegal settlements.
It was Israel's land to build on. It was either given to them by God and/or the United Nations, or won in a war when Israel was attacked. They want to screw with Israel then they get what they get.
Actually, that's all changing. :spank:
1. You're Lying, you Respond all the time, including in this section and in the last few days, a back-and-forth in the M-E.First of all, I wasn't talking to you.
Second, you don't have a clue what I know.
Finally, I'm not that interested in what you have to say. :shrug:
Well, perhaps if you act like you want to be treated then maybe you will. But as it stands, you're quite condescending yourself.
Although we may have some common values, what is more important is common interests. And it is becoming quite apparent that the interests of Israel are quickly diverging from those of the United States. No doubt about it. Therefore, Israel is becoming a net liability relative to U.S. interests rather than an asset. Republicans need to realize this. To see how this is indeed the case, note the following words of the wise statesman, James Baker.
Although Netanyahu and his right-and-center coalition may oppose a two-state solution, a land-for-peace approach has long been supported by a substantial portion of the Israeli body politic, by every American [administration] since 1967 — Republican and Democratic alike — and a vast majority of nations around the world,” If Israel sees its future with Netanyahu, it is becoming quite apparent that the interests of the United States are rapidly diverging from those of Israel.
Here's something of interest
William Kristol has made the following boast
Has support for Israel become the new GOP litmus test?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/republicans-criticize-james-baker-for-speech-on-benjamin-netanyahu.html?_r=0
I return what I receive. Go back and read your first response to me.
If only Israel will give up it's defensive zone making Israel indefensible - as demanded by Israel's enemies who vow to kill all Jews and by Western powers lead by the USA, there will be "peace in our time."
"Peace in our time" means the 2nd mass murder of the largest Jewish population in the world now in Israel (the first was in Poland in the 1940s) and another world war - ultimately with nuclear weapons.
Hopefully, Israeli Jews will continue to oppose their own mass murder and be wise enough not to rely on the USA or the West for any military alliance or support if attacked. The lessons learned in WW2 include absolutely not believing anything Western powers and the USA says in terms of peace and military alliance. Every country that relied upon such reliance and made concessions accordingly as demanded by Western powers and their potential enemy promising peace if they conceded was annihilated.
Rather than giving up its defensive zones, Israel should be building/buying ballistic missile submarines with nuclear tipped warheads.
And how was Ukraine "under the protection of the US"?
When the Ukraine gave up its nukes, to promote this, the US and the Ukraine entered into a treaty.
It was in all the papers.
Unusua, in that case, that the incisive intellect in the White House seems to have missed it. I thought he read all the papers and THAT is where he and his staff discover things. Apparently everything that they discover.
This shows, once again, that with Obama in the White House it is far more dangerous to be an ally of the US than it is to be an enemy.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control[citation needed]. The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5]
<snip>
One reason is that the GOP hasn't seen a war that they do not like. That suits Israel's purposes well in the Middle East.
The only lesson they seem not to have taken away from WW11 is the crime of oppressing the weak.
Right, but for the wrong reason. Israel is constantly attacked and wants a partner that will come to their defense.
When the Ukraine gave up its nukes, to promote this, the US and the Ukraine entered into a treaty.
It was in all the papers.
Unusua, in that case, that the incisive intellect in the White House seems to have missed it. I thought he read all the papers and THAT is where he and his staff discover things. Apparently everything that they discover.
This shows, once again, that with Obama in the White House it is far more dangerous to be an ally of the US than it is to be an enemy.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control[citation needed]. The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5]
<snip>
Yes, but the problem with that assertion is the fact that Russia hasn't done what they've been accused of in Ukraine. The US supported a coup in Kiev in the fall of 2013. And the violent overthrow of the elected government. Not a democratic move, at all. Russia's response in Crimea was to that EU/US interference and to secure their interests and people's. I'm not the only one that disagrees on this, there's plenty that do not consider Russia in breach of the BM.
The GOP is being led by people such as John McCain who are warmongers, and Dick Cheney while Bush was in office.
What is it that Israel does when they regularly engage in the activity that they call "mowing the lawn?"
Just how is it that over one million people ended up in Gaza in those wretched conditions?
The only lesson they seem not to have taken away from WW11 is the crime of oppressing the weak.
I don't want it smaller at all. From the time of the 67 war, I wish that Israel was able to pull back to defensible borders and stop there. I don't think most Israelis want to hold onto most of the West Bank.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?