The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Remember how Obama was going to save America's terrible global image thanks to that good for nothing Bush? Well, turns out that was a lot harder than it sounded. Shocker!

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/071...Arab_world.html

 

Wow, lower than Bush. That hurts.

[GoSox05]

Remember how Obama was going to save America's terrible global image thanks to that good for nothing Bush? Well, turns out that was a lot harder than it sounded. Shocker!

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/071...Arab_world.html

 

Obama has continued Bush's foreign policy. Why should poll numbers change?

[Balta1701]

Maybe he should acknowledge that the Palestinians don't deserve a state. I'm sure that would help right?

 

(Interesting timing of those 2 discussion points)

[Jenksismyhero]

Obama has continued Bush's foreign policy. Why should poll numbers change?

 

Because it's change we can believe in.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know if anyone here actually supports Obama.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know if anyone here actually supports Obama.

 

Balta?

 

But you all bought into the hype that he was somehow different. Same thing. If we could all realize the system is a failure perhaps we could fix it. Term limits whhhhhhhhhat?

[StrangeSox]

Balta?

 

He's argued for pragmatic reasons for voting for him but they amount to "anything to block the inevitably terrible Republican option," so I didn't really take him for a big supporter.

 

But you all bought into the hype that he was somehow different. Same thing. If we could all realize the system is a failure perhaps we could fix it. Term limits whhhhhhhhhat?

 

I didn't vote for him.

[Balta1701]

Balta?

 

But you all bought into the hype that he was somehow different. Same thing. If we could all realize the system is a failure perhaps we could fix it. Term limits whhhhhhhhhat?

Would you really support the type of policies it would take for the U.S. to improve its standing in the Middle East? Ending overseas adventures, throwing support strongly behind pro-democracy movements everywhere (including Saudi Arabia), ending military support of Israel and strongly supporting a Palestinian state? You might be one of the "Withdraw from Afghanistan" people and you might have a problem with what we've been doing in Yemen, Libya, etc., but I don't think you'd be too happy if Saudi oil stopped flowing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Would you really support the type of policies it would take for the U.S. to improve its standing in the Middle East? Ending overseas adventures, throwing support strongly behind pro-democracy movements everywhere (including Saudi Arabia), ending military support of Israel and strongly supporting a Palestinian state? You might be one of the "Withdraw from Afghanistan" people and you might have a problem with what we've been doing in Yemen, Libya, etc., but I don't think you'd be too happy if Saudi oil stopped flowing.

 

On one hand I'd like to believe that we should pull ourselves out of the world completely, and especially in the Middle East. On the other, I realize that our security depends on our involvement just about everywhere, especially in the Middle East. But my feelings have been growing more and more that we continue to fear this extreme reaction if we were to "pull out" and be at the mercy of the Saudi oil kings. But is it that much better than spending trillions a year to maintain the status quo? I dunno, tough question.

 

I'd also add that I could give a flying f*** what the world thinks of us. We're the hegemon of the world and we'll ALWAYS be disliked by someone, regardless of what we do. So why bother caring? I just thought it was hysterical that liberals tripped over themselves to vote for a guy that promoted himself as this world changing leader, someone so completely opposite from Bush (who ruined the world and the view of the US forever), despite knowing full well that he probably couldn't change a damn thing and that we (rightly) will do whatever is in our best interests as a country, consequences be damned.

[Balta1701]

despite knowing full well that he probably couldn't change a damn thing and that we (rightly) will do whatever is in our best interests as a country, consequences be damned.

There are things that he could change that he is choosing not to change. The lack of pressure on Israel, the bombing campaign in Libya, the bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, the seeming completely ignoring of uprisings in Bahrain, Syria.

[The Sir]

Argue what you want, but if the arabs never fired another shot, launched another missle or blew up another bomb, there would be zero aggression from Israel towards them. If Israel were to drop their weapons, they would be committing suicide.

 

This.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu has said it himself, "If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel."

 

The Israelis don't hate the Palestinians from the get go. Israel is a democratic state that would accept any person, regardless of their creed, as long as that person didn't insist on murdering them. But do you see any Jews living freely and openly in Palestine? Or in other Muslim lands like Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Nope. That's because those people hate Jews. They want nothing more than to see them all dead and it really doesn't even have much to do with the Israelis living in their space. From 1921-1948, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was Mohammad Amin Al-Husayni, a devout Palestinian nationalist. He told his followers to kill Jews wherever they found them, and he certainly did his part in that statement by helping recruit Muslims to the Waffen SS. A core value of Palestinian nationalism is anti-semitism.

 

Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians is purely defensive. If Palestinians just let their hatred go, everything would be fine. There wouldn't be any Jews going out to murder Muslims just out of some psychotic, intrinsic hatred for their very existence. But vice versa, it'd be a bloodbath.

[The Sir]

I'd also add that I could give a flying f*** what the world thinks of us. We're the hegemon of the world and we'll ALWAYS be disliked by someone, regardless of what we do. So why bother caring?

 

[mr_genius]

I don't know if anyone here actually supports Obama.

 

good point

[Soxbadger]

Im hesitant to post in this thread, but Im going to only remark to the Israel stuff.

 

Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians is purely defensive. If Palestinians just let their hatred go, everything would be fine. There wouldn't be any Jews going out to murder Muslims just out of some psychotic, intrinsic hatred for their very existence. But vice versa, it'd be a bloodbath.

 

Its interesting you mention this, because throughout history the only people who have generally liked Jews, were people that needed Jews at that moment. When you are Jewish its different, you have 6000 years of being oppressed, whether it was the Egyptians, the Romans, the Christians, the Muslims, the Nazis, they each took their turn to murder.

 

At a certain point to be Jewish, you must forgive people for the past.

 

That being said, Netanyuh is wrong and he knows he is wrong. He is no Rabin and to that point Rabin was murdered by one of his own. Why? Because Rabin wanted peace with the Muslim world, which not every Israeli agrees with.

 

So to believe that the Israeli's would just be "fine" if the Palestinians stopped attacking them, is just not true. Some Israeli's will never be fine until the Temple can be built. The problem is that in order to rebuild the temple you would have to tear down one of the top 3 most holy sites in the Muslim world. Others will never be fine if Israel gives up the West Bank or Gaza. Some will never be fine if they give up Golan Heights. And some of them would never consider a country where the state religion wasnt Judaism.

 

I just am not sure there can ever be an answer.

[The Sir]

So to believe that the Israeli's would just be "fine" if the Palestinians stopped attacking them, is just not true. Some Israeli's will never be fine until the Temple can be built. The problem is that in order to rebuild the temple you would have to tear down one of the top 3 most holy sites in the Muslim world. Others will never be fine if Israel gives up the West Bank or Gaza. Some will never be fine if they give up Golan Heights. And some of them would never consider a country where the state religion wasnt Judaism.

 

Israel's borders would be indefensible if it gives up the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza. Those territories were seized to deter Arab aggression in 1967. They can't be given back until the Arab world abandons its violent rhetoric against the Israelis.

 

And there isn't a state religion in Israel. Israeli law clearly protects the freedom of religion.

[Soxbadger]

Flysox,

 

In a few laws it refers to a Jewish state (my first statement was clumsy saying state religion, which it technically doesnt have, but it has odd statements in the law):

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_...ed%20translatio

 

7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

 

(1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

 

http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

 

1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

 

http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm

 

2. The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

 

So while it may protect freedom of religion, it also explicitly states that the State of Israel is a Jewish state. As to what that means, Im not sure. And I was clumsy referring to it as a state religion, I more meant that the State of Israel is a Jewish state, or that is how it perceives itself.

 

As for returning the land taken in the 1967 war, sometimes you have to be brave. I believe that Israel can defend itself with or without those territories. Why do I believe that? Because in 1967 Israel didnt have those territories and was able to defend itself. In fact in every war with the Arab nations, Israel has come out ahead. So I do not fear the Arab world. If anything, historically the Muslims/Arabs have treated the Jews as good as the rest of the world.

 

Far to many people hate Jews to just focus on the Arabs, Im not even sure if you add all murders by all Arab nations together for the history of time, it comes even close to what a handful of European countries have done. Our friend today, could be our enemy tomorrow.

 

Time for the Palestinians to be given a chance to be free,

Edited July 14, 2011 by Soxbadger

[The Sir]

So while it may protect freedom of religion, it also explicitly states that the State of Israel is a Jewish state. As to what that means, Im not sure. And I was clumsy referring to it as a state religion, I more meant that the State of Israel is a Jewish state, or that is how it perceives itself.

 

As for returning the land taken in the 1967 war, sometimes you have to be brave. I believe that Israel can defend itself with or without those territories. Why do I believe that? Because in 1967 Israel didnt have those territories and was able to defend itself. In fact in every war with the Arab nations, Israel has come out ahead. So I do not fear the Arab world. If anything, historically the Muslims/Arabs have treated the Jews as good as the rest of the world.

 

Far to many people hate Jews to just focus on the Arabs, Im not even sure if you add all murders by all Arab nations together for the history of time, it comes even close to what a handful of European countries have done. Our friend today, could be our enemy tomorrow.

 

Time for the Palestinians to be given a chance to be free,

 

I'm not sure what the point of proclaiming themselves a Jewish state is if they also clearly respect freedom of religion. Seems more like a rhetorical thing than any tangible discrimination against non-Jews. Kind of a moot point, IMO.

 

The rest of the world hasn't been very good to the Jews either, sadly. Jews seem to have been the whipping boy for every culture on Earth at some point in time. But the idea that the Christians behaved outright murderously against the Jews hundreds of years ago (and even more recently, I'll admit) does not alleviate the current Arab community's vile rhetoric and actions against them today. That doesn't make the ongoing hatred alright.

 

For me, Palestinian recognition of Israel is crucial to peace. There can be no settlement if groups like Hamas exist, with their horrible intentions of pushing Israel into the sea. That s*** has got to stop.

[Soxbadger]

It may or may not be moot. What I was pointing out is that as an American I am uncomfortable with those type of statements (even if they may be favorable to me or my people) and that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. It also is about the elephant in the room, what if one day there are more Arabs in Israel than Jews. Because Israel is a Democracy the potential exists that one day the Jews are the minority. Thus there always is a tension to perserve the Jewish majority. The state of Israel is nothing more than the realization of the Jewish state, it is perceived to be the homeland of the Jews.

 

As for alleviate what the Arab's are doing, Im merely putting it in perspective. The Palestinian's shoot rockets, they wish to wipe us from the face of the Earth, yet in reality they have historically treated us as well or better than anyone else. I just dont think they deserve to be treated this way forever. I understand to start Israel needed to establish itself, but it has done that and more, now is time for Israel to let other people be free.

 

And I believe that under Rabin, Arafat recognized Israel:

 

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

 

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

 

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat.

Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization

 

 

Israel needs to be brave like Rabin, they can not be afraid like Netanyahu. It shall forever be a tragedy that one of the greatest Jewish leaders in history was killed by one of his own. Already have enough enemies.

[Balta1701]

Israel's borders would be indefensible if it gives up the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza. Those territories were seized to deter Arab aggression in 1967. They can't be given back until the Arab world abandons its violent rhetoric against the Israelis.

 

And there isn't a state religion in Israel. Israeli law clearly protects the freedom of religion.

How did Israel defend those borders prior to 1967? Why did they give up the Sinai if defense is their only goal?

 

The Golan Heights I will grant you as being a particularly strategic location. However, the West Bank and Gaza, no one in their right mind believes they are being held as a strategic defense. They are being held because the Israelis want that territory. The settlements in the West Bank aren't there for defense, they actually weaken Israel's defense posture by tying down the army in defense of those settlements.

[NorthSideSox72]

People want to blame the Israelis or the Palestinians. I sort of agree with those who say both are at fault. But IMO the single biggest fault for the ongoing conflict goes the nations that decided after WWII to create Israel in the first place, where and when and how they did. That was the single biggest reason for this mess, if there is one.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, just curious... what do all you GOP'ers think of Jon Huntsman?

 

[Balta1701]

People want to blame the Israelis or the Palestinians. I sort of agree with those who say both are at fault. But IMO the single biggest fault for the ongoing conflict goes the nations that decided after WWII to create Israel in the first place, where and when and how they did. That was the single biggest reason for this mess, if there is one.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there was a very long running conflict going on between those groups before 1948 happened.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem with that line of thinking is that there was a very long running conflict going on between those groups before 1948 happened.

Of course there was, all the more reason to not have created the state there. Furthermore, if you were going to do it, it needed to be a multi-cultural state in any case. These groups have been in conflict a long, long time. There is no ideal solution, but segregating out a slice of prime fought-for land for one particular religion's people in this case was sheer stupidity.

 

[Balta1701]

Of course there was, all the more reason to not have created the state there. Furthermore, if you were going to do it, it needed to be a multi-cultural state in any case. These groups have been in conflict a long, long time. There is no ideal solution, but segregating out a slice of prime fought-for land for one particular religion's people in this case was sheer stupidity.

I think that no matter what solution you chose, 60 years later we'd look back and describe it as "Sheer stupidity". A multi-cultural "State" would probably have ended up a lot like what we have now...a genuine apartheid state, probably with a civil war similar to the one in 1948 to boot.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that no matter what solution you chose, 60 years later we'd look back and describe it as "Sheer stupidity". A multi-cultural "State" would probably have ended up a lot like what we have now...a genuine apartheid state, probably with a civil war similar to the one in 1948 to boot.

I think a lot of the stupidity could have been avoided by not creating such a state at all. Or, if you were going to create one, it wouldhave to be set up to NOT be what it is today. This could have been done, but it wasn't.