No, they live in the US, and the US backs Israel.nm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-08-12
In Reply to: These people are obviously confused - huh?
z
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I'd say Israel has good reason to live in fear
If you think what has been going on in Israel for years and years is perception and not a reality then you've obviously not been to or even read about Israel.
And I'll say it again...walking up the backs of the
=
Hawaii backs Martin
The state of Hawaii has backed Andy Martin. CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
Barry is lying to the people and they don't care. They don't care that the constitution is not being followed.
Whether Barry wins or not I believe Hillary should file lawsuit to sue him and the DNC chair for covering it up.
Hawaii backs Martin? What does that mean? nm
.
Majority backs GIs, not Iraq War...see link
Interesting poll, allbeit before the death of Zarqawi and approval of ministers of the police and army.
Walking up the backs of the middle-class to
xx
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization
Wednesday 18 February 2009
by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)
The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.
In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.
"It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."
Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.
"We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."
Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.
The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."
But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.
"You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."
Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.
In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.
"We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."
Any of you live in the midwest? Just in case you live down the road from me...
I live in Wisconsin and am often also in Minnesota.
No, I'm not a stalker or a weirdo (my opinion, anyway).
Yeah, tell me again how liberals want to live and let live....what a joke!!!! nm
why not just tell the truth? That only extends to liberals.*I have had it with Republicans...* a whole group of people tossed out like garbage. *I will not respond to your posts nor read them.*
As to Ann Coulter...the left has their share..Michael Moore, AL Franken...do you ever look at your own party?
That is the most INtolerant post I have seen here in a LONG time.
Liberals true colors always come out...regardless of how much they say they are the MOST tolerant, and want EVERYone to live and let live...everyone if you happen to be liberal.
We are all Americans...and America is about debate. Tell me, liberal Democrat, again how you care about ALL Americans. Talk about ringing hollow.
Bush's Own Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.
By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers
June 23, 2006
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.
The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.
The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.
The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.
There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.
The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.
Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.
Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.
It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.
The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.
It also became an easy target.
If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.
One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.
Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.
The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.
Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.
It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.
Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.
Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.
The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.
The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
Israel
There are many jews who do not like Sharon, many. I could post what they say about him but I wont. However, posting about great leaders, I grew up loving absolutely loving Golda Meir..The situation in Israel is not ours to decide or get heated about..the situation we need to get heated about is America. To try to tie jews and christians together happily cannot happen. For many many years christians did not even acknowledge jews or their beliefs, now all of a sudden lets get together as we believe as one, however, we do not believe as one, not at all. I have watched this over a few years, the christians are trying to hook onto jews as they think well, we both believe in the Bible so we believe the same. We do not believe the same. First of all, we do not believe in the new testament, we do not believe in hell, many of us do not even believe in a heaven and we do not believe in jesus as a savior. He was a jewish man who taught peace and love and tolerance but nothing more. Our savior has not come yet. I think you truly pray and feel for Israel, however, maybe you can take a few courses of Judaism at a local synagogue and understand us more. I know my local synagogue has courses for non jews to learn more about us.
Oil from Israel
Has anyone researched that? In the coming future, Russia will attack Israel. Those who have researched prophecies of the future of the world believe a gusher of this oil wealth is soon coming from Israel, and Russia (amazingly not called Soviet Union in these prophecies of 1100+ years ago) will form an Islamic alliance (they really don't want to) and will come down from the north and attack unwalled villages, supposedly for this sudden great wealth of oil. However, Israel has built walls all over the place. So, this attack will probably happen after the one world leader soon to appear on the world scene offers a convincing (but false) peace and Israel tears the walls down. I have been to Russia, and it is so different from what was promised to the Russian people back when my parents were very young. Then, it was a revolution similar to what Castro was supposed to have done, and now what Chavez is supposedly doing. I saw the apartments, hospitals, schools, etc., in Russia. Yes, Kruschev said there were no homeless people. I only saw people who had to live in apartments where the government dictated that they live and no freedom to express their opinion. Their cost to live in these apartments - free. Our cost to have the freedom in America to say what we want to - priceless. Anyone remember that guy that wrote, The Late Great Planet Earth, back in the 1970's. He now has a program called International Intelligence Briefing. Check your local/cable listings. If you know of any others like him who have researched this other side of the (global) story, please let me know. Thanks.
Israel was willing........... sm
to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 and allow them to govern it on their own, but that wasn't good enough for the Palestinians.
China has given us untold amounts of money. Does that mean that China has a say in how our country should be run?
I stand on my previous statements that any country that does not support Israel (and I don't mean just monetarily)is barking up the wrong olive tree.
do you really think it is just to let Israel
take the whole of Palestine? Does not matter what the Bible says!
US, Israel planned ME war
Why does none of this surprise me?
'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06 - (SA) |
 |
|
|
New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.
But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.
The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.
If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.
Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear.
The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.
US government officials have denied the charges.
Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.
There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.
|
Israel solution
Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.
I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm
I know that it happens all the time. I am sorry that it does.
You don't have to go to Israel to know right from wrong.
Occupation, blockade, genocidal war of attrition, settlement expansion, diasporas of refugees, no right to return, the wall, imposition of police state, creation of open air prisons/terrorist breeding gounds, countless treaty violations, repeated invasions, plunder of resources, wholesale murderous slaughter featuring killing, generations of widows, widowers and orphans, maiming for life and massive destruction of property...just to name a few things off the top of my head.
Why Israel Fights
Why the Israeli attack helps the US by taking on Hamas now and why this time Israel may succeed in Gaza. A well-written perspective on Gaza, Israel, Hamas. This adds more to consider as we all discuss this war.
Why Israel Fights
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 4, 2009
The Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we’re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it’s asserted, will be the same: lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.
Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.
For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.
What’s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes — political, strategic and military — it made in Lebanon. That doesn’t mean it won’t make them all over again. The same prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, today’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.
In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.
And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What’s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn’t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it’s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.
An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.
But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.
But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.
The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.
But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.
With respect to Iran, Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option. But Israel’s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to.
Who does Israel belong to? So you are saying
the U.N. overstepped its bounds? And what about the United Kingdom that controlled the area in the early 1900s?
Like it or not nations are formed through civil war. There are winners and there are losers. It's really very simple. The process has not changed for centuries and it will never change. The strong prevail. The righteous prevail. The minute we take a liberal viewpoint, that's the exact minute we become weak.
So, even after Israel withdrew from
Gaza, the Hamas still continued bombing Israel. Who is the aggressor?
Yep those mean conservatives are over there helping Israel
Yep, they'll be back when all the Lebanese are dead, because all us conservatives are evil like that.
I have studied U.S./Israel relations
I have studied U.S./Israel relations extensively. I fully understand that the protestors do not share my point of view as well as you. From reading your copious posts I am very clear on where you stand. I will not be so presumptious as to think I know your biography, but you obviously believe everything wrong in the world has U.S. origins. I believe you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will not try to change your mind. Since liberals in general are so worried about how the rest of the world thinks about us I will bring to your attention that it becomes ever more clear by your stances and views as with those on the extreme left that you all side with terrorism. You can spin it any way you want, but you come off as supporting terrorists.
This describes most experts on Israel. TI
A breyre hob ich (I have no alternative), the mind is closed here. It is not really such a phenomenon. All is bashert (predestined). Even in the Jewish community, there is division. The Jews in the United States, many of them, have lost communion with the Jews left in Israel, though we are seeing some coming back, rediscovering the cause. Then have a benken (longing, yearning) inside them and they are drawn back to the homeland. They are welcome. As for what is said here, it is really not debate at all is it? It was silly of me to have tried. There are better battles and bigger stakes than most imagine. Alaichem sholom (peace to you). If it please Hashem.
oops: I did mean Israel & Iran.
Afghanistan & Pakistan are no picnic, either.
What makes you think Israel will succeed in
"defeating" the Palestinians this time around. Bullying swagger and bravado certainly won't make it so. Goliath has not been able to slay David in the last 60 years. You think they will pick up their marbles and go quietly into the night? There is only one thing that can change the course of this cycling hell-on-earth.
REPEAT: It's the occupation. End it or live in fear for all eternity.
I lived in Israel for many years
and what has happened has more to do with the upcoming election in Israel than with the US. Check it out.
Wrong again! With or without the U.S., Israel will always prevail.
Just keep watching. Obama will withdrawal American support from Israel, I'm sure, and Israel will STILL prevail.
Israel will prevail.......it is ordained by God
And even Obama can't do anything about that but that's not to say Israel hasn't done its share of manipulating the Arabs....they helped form Hamas for the purpose of overthrowing the PLO and look where it got them...... more trouble!
Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish?
When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews.
You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."
That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.
What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.
By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.
No, it is not, but US supports Israel every year with
billions of dollars and the newest military technology.
Former Israeli administrations already agreed to a 2-state solution. The Palestinians would get the Westbank as their state. Instead of keeping their promise, Israel started to build the 20-meter-high separation wall and building settlements for the Israelis.
Obama wants this to stop and Netanyahu does not want to comply as a hardline right-winger. It is Netanyahu who wants the whole occupied Palestine for Israel and does not want a 2-state solution. He wouldn't even 'utter' the term ƈ-state solution,' not even when he was discussing this issue with Obama in Washington; he just circled around it.
This does not come out of my head, I am very literate, informed, I look around what is going on in the world, always, I am tolerant and fair.
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
But it was during the1848 Israel/Arab war
that Israel was created, sending millions of Palestinians refugees out of Palestine into neighboring Arab countries and occupying Palestine.
But it was during the1948 Israel/Arab war
that Israel was created, sending millions of Palestinians refugees out of Palestine into neighboring Arab countries and occupying Palestine.
I think if Israel slings anything at Iran....
it would not just be rockets, and if someone had said I had no right to exist, I might consider slinging some rockets at them myself. I'm just sayin.
And as to Obama being able to hold them back...if he can't be bothered to shake his finger at Iran for crushing protests on worldwide TV, what on earth would make you think he could or would if he could hold Israel back? I have seen nothing to indicate that Barack Obama cares a hoot in heck what happens to Israel. If you look at his connections and who he has loaded his administration with...their agenda is certainly not pro Israel and to be frank I believe they consider Israel expendable, and if the palestinians get taken out as collateral damage...well...you should watch that posted video, and then you should look at a list of the Bilderberg group. Funny how the left always wanted to talk about it because there were many of right in the group...well, there are certainly a lot more of the left in it, and a ton of those are in the present administration. But now that they are in power, amazing how the Bilderberg group is no longer the big bad...sorry for borrowing your moniker there. lol.
Israel felt pulling out of Gaza was okay. sm
Oh, okay, that explains all those wailing Jews being forcefully removed from their homes of 30 plus years. Glad you cleared that up. Your statement is ridiculous. But then, they all are. Gosh, your lying comment is getting really old. Does anyone else think so?
A Christian is not allowed to comment on Israel? nm
Have we made new rules? I didn't know that! When did that happen! By the way, sm is exactly right. Ariel Sharon has made a mistake that will doom Israel. This is a man who wept on television with fury when saying he would never give up an inch of land and then handed the Gaza strip away. If you have been following this story for some time, decades, as I have, then you know what a tragedy this is. One does not have to be Jewish to understand it. In fact, if you understand the Biblical significance, you get the picture. And, of course, Sharon was wrong, as Hamas now wants Jerusalem.
I see, any criticism of Israel gets the label of antisemite.nm
z
And Israel loves those suicide bombers.
Your posts are disquieting. Why do you defend Hezbollah?
How he handled the Israel-Palestinian thing....
underscores his lack of experience. Putting up political posters at the Western Wall was not the smartest of moves either. Not saying he had personal knowledge of it, but he needs to rein in his "camp." A few days ago one of them, during a briefing on the plane, said something about "I've been in the White House for..." and a reporter had to remind him Obama was not President yet. Ahem.
As to the Berlin speech...a bit concerning. Is he running for President of the World or President of the United States? I think he needs to decide.
I assumed you meant Israel and Iran.
Iran's potential for nuclear weapons? A war between them is not likely, unless Israel initiates a Bush-style "premptive strike." Given their history of aggressive militarism, this is not entirely inconceivable. Ask yourself a few questions. When was the last time in modern history that Iran declared war or invaded another country, keeping in mind that Iraq invade Iran, not the other way around? Now, when was the last time Israel declared war and/or invaded another country, i.e., Syria, Egypt, Lebanon multiple times?
Despite Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, thanks to the US taxpayers, he can never hope to catch up with the nuclear arsenals now housed in Israel....and he knows that. Consider the case of Korea. Bush bullied North Korea around relentlessly UNTIL they succeeded in developing nukes. After that, W sure did start singing a different tune, didn't he? Stunning reversal in attitude.
As long as US nuclear policy is "do as I say, not as I do" and continues to bankroll nuclear stockpile arsenals in their Middle East military staging base, the region will remain unstable....just the way the US likes it, at least so far. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran just MIGHT bring about the same sort of results it did in Korea and serve as a moderating force. This is where diplomacy comes into play. Open discussions held in good faith (so far not possible in view of sanctions and all those Israeli NUKES) that encourage nuclear energy and discourage nuclear weaponry in Iran along with incentives (such as easing sanctions, for starters) would go a long way in at least bringing some HOPE for stability in the region. War there is not a foregone conclusion...unless we elect another saber-rattler.
Oh, I think Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel...
from the map, to me, gives them a right to be be concerned, doncha think? Oh my all means, given Iran a nuke and see how that stabilizes everything. Even Obama is not goofy enough to say that...HE said a nuke in the hands of Iran was unacceptable. Now whether that means Ahmadinejad would not be welcome for tea...not altogether sure.
Israel's just as bad as the rest of the scummy middle
Israel has lauched ground operation...(sm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637
Notice the number of civilian casualties already. I guess the US is going to ignore that as well.
You man after Israel killed 6 Palestinians on November 5 and
failed to lift the blockade, a condition of the truce they ignored the entire time? Your ignorant statement about the Kool-Aid is completely illogical since Obama voiced a fairly unequivocal sympathy for Israel back in June during his visit there. My thoughts are completely my own and are based in reality, one shared by pretty much the rest of the world outside the homeland, and on my own experiences, not 60 years of US and Israel lies and propaganda.
God is real and has His hand on Israel. Watch and see.
They cannot be defeated.
Baloney. Israel is targeting Hamas, who are
nm
Israel is anything but doomed, and you are totally deluded.
Can you disprove any of the history I have provided? Can you disprove that the Jews bought undeveloped land from the palestinians -- not occupied, BOUGHT IT?!?!?!?! Can you disprove that Arafat was a terrorist pocketing an and all aid the U.S. gave to the palestinians? Can you disprove anything I have said or is your whole argument that it's all a lie? There are legal documents and reports from commissions of educated unbiased people that prove what I am saying is true!
You are right this whole argument is beating a dead horse. I have my truth and you have yours. Your truth is a web of lies spun by known terrorists. Time will tell whose truth is the real truth and I pray for your soul when that day comes.
|
