Political Thread: Global Warming Edition

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Obama pulled out of Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement and the vacuum was filled by ISIS.

Actually there was a status of force agreement negotiated by the Bush administration that required us to leave Iraq except for a small residual force to protect the embassy. Obama simply honored the deal Bush had signed. There were a group of foreign policy experts that insisted that Iraq could be persuaded to change the agreement and allow a contingent of US troops to remain but the numbers that I heard mentioned were in the 5 - 6 thousand range. Does anyone think that 5 or 6 thousand American troops could secure the entire country of Iraq?

The ole "ifin" game is easy to play. "if" Obama had sent in more troops something better would have happened but no one ever talks about the end game? We don't have the money or the troops to occupy large countries like Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely without bankrupting our treasury.




This post was edited on 3/5 2:30 PM by Deeeefense

 

[qwesley]

Ok, so Bush ended the Iraq war huh? Seems like I heard Barack did that.

Bottomline, as his own GD Sec of Defense has stated, they screwed up the whole process. Good lord, people act like they were powerless to change those terms. Why? Blind fandom.

Not an iffin game

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: EVERY policy decision the current administration has made thus far in the Middle East has been exactly wrong for both ME stability and US long-term interests. I've had some personally attack me and/or my take, but not a single retort of actual evidence or substance to argue against my stated premise with regard to Obama's ineptitude in his ME 'plan' (or lack thereof)....got a feeling that I'll be waiting for quite a while.



This post was edited on 3/5 1:15 PM by BlueManToo

This administration has been working with the other powers to find a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions...

This will bring some stabilty to the regionThis further limits the amount of nukes in the regionThis prevents us from having to send troops to another wasteful war

You might not agree with those points, but we are not going to go to war with Iran over their desire to get nukes at the end of the day. Even trigger happy GWB wasn't going to go that route much less allow the Israelis to further destabilize the region with their trigger happy attitudes in the region.

I don't get the impression your value other people's lives, hence your constant whining about our great country not going to war all the time. I'm serious, you should enlist like the last person on her wanting to go to war. Are you in the military and ready to die for your convictions?

Last time I checked, Obama was elected in two landslide elections with a clear mandate to get us out of the region and not start another war.

He's successful for those that voted for him and doing a great job. You might not agree, but who really cares?

 

[Bluemantoo]

AlbanyCat...I don't recall ever suggesting in any of my posts that we should go to war with Iran. Just because I don't favor appeasement (like the current POTUS) doesn't mean that I'm in favor of military action; the concept is known as 'negotiating from a position of strength'. It's a pretty sad statement that the current president will draw a harder negotiating line against his fellow Americans in congress (Republicans) than he does against a militant Islamic regime in Iran that is an existential threat to everyone in the region. As I originally stated, you've offered nothing policy-wise from Obama that ensures Middle East stability or that American interest are best served with this administration's proposed nuke deal. Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

Lifting sanctions and capitulating to Iran's every pie-in-the-sky demand is not a good deal for America, the Middle East, or Israel. Iran is chomping at the bit to strike a deal with this administration before the next election because they see weakness in our president, and they know that the next POTUS (if conservative) would never strike such a one-sided deal. Taking military action against Iran should be the absolute last option, but that option also should not be taken off the table when negotiating with a regime like Iran, because the threat of military action is often the only thing that will get (and keep) their attention.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin

All of the instability in the region can be traced back to our ill advised invasion of Iraq

That statement is only a little off by about a trillion years or so, roughly.

Really though.

I really can't think of a single good foreign policy decision made by this administration; other than cuba.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

I would be interested in knowing how you and Netanyahu know that the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability when the deal has not yet been consummated and all of the details of the proposals have not been published? And contrary to your statement a military option has not been taken off the table.

BTW this is not just an US v. Iran negotiation. the parties consist of The P5+1 which is composed of United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France, plus Germany. So any naivety and other criticism that you want to level at Obama also has to apply to all of the other counties as well which are our negotiating partners.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

I would be interested in knowing how you and Netanyahu know that the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability when the deal has not yet been consummated and all of the details of the proposals have not been published? And contrary to your statement a military option has not been taken off the table.

He really knows nothing and is an Israeli hack trying pressure the US into fighting a war on their behalf. The Israelis talk a tough game, but they just sit there and do nothing against someone who can actually fight them. Yeah, they can easily bomb the Syrians knowing they have zero ability to fight back...same with the the Pals, but they have been talking smack about attacking Iran for what seems like the last 20 years.

One of the best things about Obama is his marginalizing Israel in the Middle East. They only country we should care about in the Middle East is SA and the rest of the countries that give us cheap oil. That CLEARLY benefits every single US citizen.

Israel is a leach on the hard working American tax payers. We give them $4-5B a year and I am still confused as to what we get in return? Friendship - GTFO!

Like I keep saying to you...Israeli best chance to have the US fight a war for them was with the idiot Bush...and he wasn't that stupid - if that's even possible.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Like I keep saying to you...Israeli best chance to have the US fight a war for them was with the idiot Bush...and he wasn't that stupid - if that's even possible.

The riff between Netanyahu and Obama stemmed from the illegal settlements which he had indicated early on he would stop but continued anyway. He did the same thing with Bush by violating his Roadmap To Peace approach, but W let him get away with it.

I can't see inside of Bibi's head so I don't know his motives, but he has proven that his goals and that of the Likud Party is to maintain Isreal's security though military force and the threat of military force, not from any peace deals. On the one hand I can understand their paranoia, but on the other with a formidable nuclear arsenal at their disposal and an early warning system, it isn't necessary to proxy the US into fighting a preemptive war in Iran on their behalf IMO, and doing so will result in very serious repercussions for our country and put our own people at risk.

The president is pursing the right approach and hopefully he and the other partner countries will be successful.

 

[Bluemantoo]

Yep, marginalizing the only faithful democratic ally the United States has in that region is just what the doctor ordered if we ever hope to garner a lasting peace in the Middle East...brilliant! I just figured it out....Albany is Obama's chief foreign policy advisor! Hope he's using a private e-mail account on the Clinton server to post on the Paddock

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Liberal brainwashing is amazing. Only in their world is Israel the bad guy, while Islamic extremists the good guy.

Is this some bizarre version of the Manchurian Candidate?

 

[KyFaninNC]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
Liberal brainwashing is amazing. Only in their world is Israel the bad guy, while Islamic extremists the good guy.

Is this some bizarre version of the Manchurian Candidate?

I don't think they are brainwashed. I just think they are so weak minded, they believe anything the Libs tell them. Jones would have loved having these types in his congregation. They would have drank the koolaid with him.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
Liberal brainwashing is amazing. Only in their world is Israel the bad guy, while Islamic extremists the good guy.

Don't forget that the Middle East was all rainbows & gumdrops prior to March 2003. Then Bush/Cheney ruined it!!!11!

 

[Bluemantoo]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

I would be interested in knowing how you and Netanyahu know that the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability when the deal has not yet been consummated and all of the details of the proposals have not been published? And contrary to your statement a military option has not been taken off the table.

BTW this is not just an US v. Iran negotiation. the parties consist of The P5+1 which is composed of United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France, plus Germany. So any naivety and other criticism that you want to level at Obama also has to apply to all of the other counties as well which are our negotiating partners.


[/QUOTE]



The answer to your question is very simple: I've watched the president literally bow and politically kowtow for the past 6+ years to the dregs of Middle East leadership....that's how I know there is nothing (and will be nothing) in the deal with any real teeth to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. The president did everything possible to prevent and discourage the Netanyahu speech to congress, but the one thing he did not do afterwards is quibble with the facts of the current proposed deal as described by Netanyahu. In fact, the administration stated that there was nothing 'new' in the speech --- in other words, the administration, by default, admitted that the deal currently on the table is as described by Bibi.

Also, just to clarify: I didn't say that the president had taken the military option off the table. My point is that, in general, the military option should never be taken off the table when negotiating with militant regimes.





This post was edited on 3/6 10:21 AM by BlueManToo

 

[likelarry901]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

I would be interested in knowing how you and Netanyahu know that the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability when the deal has not yet been consummated and all of the details of the proposals have not been published? And contrary to your statement a military option has not been taken off the table.

He really knows nothing and is an Israeli hack trying pressure the US into fighting a war on their behalf. The Israelis talk a tough game, but they just sit there and do nothing against someone who can actually fight them. Yeah, they can easily bomb the Syrians knowing they have zero ability to fight back...same with the the Pals, but they have been talking smack about attacking Iran for what seems like the last 20 years.

One of the best things about Obama is his marginalizing Israel in the Middle East. They only country we should care about in the Middle East is SA and the rest of the countries that give us cheap oil. That CLEARLY benefits every single US citizen.

Israel is a leach on the hard working American tax payers. We give them $4-5B a year and I am still confused as to what we get in return? Friendship - GTFO!

Like I keep saying to you...Israeli best chance to have the US fight a war for them was with the idiot Bush...and he wasn't that stupid - if that's even possible.

How many idiotic statements are you going to make pertaining to this subject? Israel has been defeating the ME countries for decades. The only reason they have not already bomb the s%%t out of Iran is because we tell them to back off. They stayed out of both Iraq conflict because we told them not to get involved. We hold Israel back because their involvement in ME conflicts does not help our cause. It actually makes it worse. But do not think that they could not take care of Iran.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Yep, marginalizing the only faithful democratic ally the United States has in that region is just what the doctor ordered if we ever hope to garner a lasting peace in the Middle East...brilliant! I just figured it out....Albany is Obama's chief foreign policy advisor! Hope he's using a private e-mail account on the Clinton server to post on the Paddock

Purely from the US perspective Israel is if no strategic importance to us, in fact our arms arrangements with them including giving them nuclear technology has caused friction between us and the moderate Arab, oil producing states for decades. Historically you have to have some empathy for the Jewish people and hope to see a secure state emerge with peaceful arrangements with all it's neighbors including the Pals, but to think that Israel does something positive in that part of the world for this country is fiction.






This post was edited on 3/6 12:34 PM by Deeeefense

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BlueManToo:

ent literally bow and politically kowtow for the past 6+ years to the dregs of Middle East leadership....that's how I know there is nothing (and will be nothing) in the deal with any real teeth to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

IMO you're negative opinion of the president isn't a sufficient reason to give up on the only real peacefull option to resolve the Iran/nuke issue, especially before the details have even been revealed.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by likelarry901:
The only reason they have not already bomb the s%%t out of Iran is because we tell them to back off. They stayed out of both Iraq conflict because we told them not to get involved. We hold Israel back because their involvement in ME conflicts does not help our cause. It actually makes it worse. But do not think that they could not take care of Iran.

Actually the do not have the capability to knock out Iran's weapons program which is very well fortified. Israel has the 2,000 and 5,000 pound bunker busters but these are insufficient to penetrate the deeply fortified sites where their nuclear program is being developed. In order to carry out that mission they would need the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP bomb, and even if they did have them they have no aircraft that can deliver them. They would have to acquire either the antique B-52s or the ultra modern and ultra expensive B-2 Stealth Bomber. The former would probably be taken out by Iran air defense missiles and interceptor fighter aircraft.

If the US was actually stupid enough to spend several billion dollars on giving them all of this stuff then it would essentially be a US operation, the only thing Israeli would be the pilots. At that point we might as well just keep the stuff and do it ourselves becasue we will get the blame and the repercussions anyway.

Now lets suppose we/they pursued this action. Even if the mission was 100% successful (which is highly doubtful) if in fact they are developing a nuke, by some experts this would only set their program back by a year or two.That's why it's really important to get some verifiable deal.

This discussion reminds me of the 80s when President Reagan was taking heat from a minority on the far right that kept saying we could not trust the Russians and opposed the Gipper's efforts to get a peace deal. The rest as they say, is history.







This post was edited on 3/6 12:32 PM by Deeeefense

 

[Bill Derington]

Basically what this boils down to is Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon, if they don't already. At this time Obama is bacically trying to save face and get ANY kind of agreement as long as it looks like Iran broke the it obtaininf the weapon instead of him sh#tting the bed.

That and Iran is allies with China and Russia, and China's our pimp now.

 

[Bluemantoo]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Yep, marginalizing the only faithful democratic ally the United States has in that region is just what the doctor ordered if we ever hope to garner a lasting peace in the Middle East...brilliant! I just figured it out....Albany is Obama's chief foreign policy advisor! Hope he's using a private e-mail account on the Clinton server to post on the Paddock

Purely from the US perspective Israel is if no strategic importance to us, in fact our arms arrangements with them including giving them nuclear technology has caused friction between us and the moderate Arab, oil producing states for decades. Historically you have to have some empathy for the Jewish people and hope to see a secure state emerge with peaceful arrangements with all it's neighbors including the Pals, but to think that Israel does something positive in that part of the world for this country is fiction.






This post was edited on 3/6 12:34 PM by Deeeefense[/QUOTE]





The relationship between the US and Israel is a bit one-sided, but we definitely benefit from that relationship. The ralationship was very important and mutually beneficial during the Cold War, but is still important today. The US gets ME intelligence from Israel's top-notch covert spy operations, along with joint military technology sharing, and training in urban military operations and counter-terrorism tactics.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by BlueManToo:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Yep, marginalizing the only faithful democratic ally the United States has in that region is just what the doctor ordered if we ever hope to garner a lasting peace in the Middle East...brilliant! I just figured it out....Albany is Obama's chief foreign policy advisor! Hope he's using a private e-mail account on the Clinton server to post on the Paddock

Purely from the US perspective Israel is if no strategic importance to us, in fact our arms arrangements with them including giving them nuclear technology has caused friction between us and the moderate Arab, oil producing states for decades. Historically you have to have some empathy for the Jewish people and hope to see a secure state emerge with peaceful arrangements with all it's neighbors including the Pals, but to think that Israel does something positive in that part of the world for this country is fiction.



This post was edited on 3/6 12:34 PM by Deeeefense

The relationship between the US and Israel is a bit one-sided, but we definitely benefit from that relationship. The ralationship was very important and mutually beneficial during the Cold War, but is still important today. The US gets ME intelligence from Israel's top-notch covert spy operations, along with joint military technology sharing, and training in urban military operations and counter-terrorism tactics.[/QUOTE] Why do you feel the need to constantly sell short our own intelligence capabilities? The last time I checked, our intelligence agency has relationships with numerous ME countries.

So once again, how do we benefit from our one-sided relationship with Israel?

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by likelarry901:

How many idiotic statements are you going to make pertaining to this subject? Israel has been defeating the ME countries for decades. The only reason they have not already bomb the s%%t out of Iran is because we tell them to back off. They stayed out of both Iraq conflict because we told them not to get involved. We hold Israel back because their involvement in ME conflicts does not help our cause. It actually makes it worse. But do not think that they could not take care of Iran.

Just so I understand this correctly, you are saying the only reason why Israel hasn't attacked Iran is because we won't let them? I didn't know Obama over the past 6 years has had so much control over with Bibi actions when it comes to self defense. That's a first.


Honestly, your take is terrible and naive at best.

 

[Bill Derington]

Albany, I'd say thats probably the only reason, more like we strongly advised against. Much like we did during the gulf war when Iraq was dropping SCUD missiles on them.

 

[Bluemantoo]

Albany...I'm not selling short our intelligence capabilities, but part of having a great intelligence infrastructure includes a willingness to pool all of the intelligence we gather with all of the intelligence gathered by other allies, including Israel. Israel has an incredible spy network and covert intelligence operations due to their tenuous standing in the region --- intelligence that we may not otherwise be able attain. We have also jointly developed numerous military technologies that benefit both nations, along with our military learning how to conduct urban military operations and counter-terrorism techniques that the Iraeli's have mastered due to their close proximity with Palestinian terror groups. I will not deny that the relationship is a bit asymmetrical, but it's not one-sided.

You mentioned in another post that the billions of tax dollars we send Israel could be better spent, and it may be something that needs to be evaluated. However, I'd much prefer to begin saving tax payer money by first eliminating such monetary drains as tax benefits to illegals who haven't even paid taxes, putting a halt to executive amnesty, and repealing Obamacare and related subsidies (just to name a few). Likewise, approving the Keystone pipeline would not only benefit the American economy, but further degrade the financial infrastructure of countries like Iran by placing more domestic oil in the world market, thereby lowering world oil prices (and Iranian money flow) while also significantly compromising another Iranian negotiating tool by making the world less dependent on Iranian oil. Strangling the Iranian regime financially DURING negotiations (rather than lifting sanctions during negotiations) and AFTER negotiations (until there's verifiable proof that Iran is abiding by any agreement) is but one possible way the world could play hardball with Tehran.

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by likelarry901:
The only reason they have not already bomb the s%%t out of Iran is because we tell them to back off. They stayed out of both Iraq conflict because we told them not to get involved. We hold Israel back because their involvement in ME conflicts does not help our cause. It actually makes it worse. But do not think that they could not take care of Iran.

Actually the do not have the capability to knock out Iran's weapons program which is very well fortified. Israel has the 2,000 and 5,000 pound bunker busters but these are insufficient to penetrate the deeply fortified sites where their nuclear program is being developed. In order to carry out that mission they would need the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP bomb, and even if they did have them they have no aircraft that can deliver them. They would have to acquire either the antique B-52s or the ultra modern and ultra expensive B-2 Stealth Bomber. The former would probably be taken out by Iran air defense missiles and interceptor fighter aircraft.

If the US was actually stupid enough to spend several billion dollars on giving them all of this stuff then it would essentially be a US operation, the only thing Israeli would be the pilots. At that point we might as well just keep the stuff and do it ourselves becasue we will get the blame and the repercussions anyway.

Now lets suppose we/they pursued this action. Even if the mission was 100% successful (which is highly doubtful) if in fact they are developing a nuke, by some experts this would only set their program back by a year or two.That's why it's really important to get some verifiable deal.

This discussion reminds me of the 80s when President Reagan was taking heat from a minority on the far right that kept saying we could not trust the Russians and opposed the Gipper's efforts to get a peace deal. The rest as they say, is history.







This post was edited on 3/6 12:32 PM by Deeeefense

Surely you are aware of the fact that while the Gipper was negotiating that peace deal he was also simultaneously authorizing the behind the scenes, completely covert actions of the US supplying mucho dinero, anti-aircraft weapons, other weapons and CIA boots on the ground in Afghanistan's defense against the Russian invasion...without which the Russians would have steamrolled through Afghanistan?

The Russians were whipping the ish out of them until Charlie Wilson back-ended a deal with Israel & Pakistan to use captured Russian weapons so that if said weapons were re-captured they wouldn't have the United States stamp on them. Charlie Wilson led the charge in Congress...but it got the eventual stamp of approval from the Gipper.

And that failure to successfully invade Afghanistan contributed greatly to the eventual signed "peace deal" with Russia which you mentioned above. Which, by the way, had terms much more favorable for the US AFTER Russia's failed invasion.

Tell me you knew all of this and just forgot.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Kaizer Sosay:

Surely you are aware of the fact that while the Gipper was negotiating that peace deal he was also simultaneously authorizing the behind the scenes, completely covert actions of the US supplying mucho dinero, anti-aircraft weapons, other weapons and CIA boots on the ground in Afghanistan's defense against the Russian invasion...without which the Russians would have steamrolled through Afghanistan?

The Russians were whipping the ish out of them until Charlie Wilson back-ended a deal with Israel & Pakistan to use captured Russian weapons so that if said weapons were re-captured they wouldn't have the United States stamp on them. Charlie Wilson led the charge in Congress...but it got the eventual stamp of approval from the Gipper.

And that failure to successfully invade Afghanistan contributed greatly to the eventual signed "peace deal" with Russia which you mentioned above. Which, by the way, had terms much more favorable for the US AFTER Russia's failed invasion.

Tell me you knew all of this and just forgot.

==========================================================================

Well I've never claimed to be a historian but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and oh yea I saw Charlie Wilson's War too. However I have a feeling that the monumental agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev that lead to the end of the cold war was a very complex negotiation that included many factors other than the failed Russian invasion of Afghanistan. But I'll rack up a couple of points for Israel here.

This post was edited on 3/6 5:47 PM by Deeeefense

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

Well, in addition to giving Israel a few points (and I commend you for that)...you should also concede the fact that although you are right that the talks were very complex...the failed invasion led to a quicker resolution and more favorable terms for the US.

Do you think the Russians would have stopped at Afghanistan? Where would they have stopped? When? And how would that have effected the talks between Gorby & Gipper?

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

BTW...Charlie Wilson's War was a great flick. But, if you haven't already, you should read the book. Much more info and much more accurate description. As is the case with most book/movie scenarios...obviously.

 

[warrior-cat]

OrIginally posted by likelarry901:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Netanyahu made the case before congress better than I ever could, but in short, the current deal (as outlined) does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability, but rather, literally paves the way for Iran to get nukes, and likewise, will probably usher in a nuclear arms race across the most unstable region in the world.

I would be interested in knowing how you and Netanyahu know that the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capability when the deal has not yet been consummated and all of the details of the proposals have not been published? And contrary to your statement a military option has not been taken off the table.

He really knows nothing and is an Israeli hack trying pressure the US into fighting a war on their behalf. The Israelis talk a tough game, but they just sit there and do nothing against someone who can actually fight them. Yeah, they can easily bomb the Syrians knowing they have zero ability to fight back...same with the the Pals, but they have been talking smack about attacking Iran for what seems like the last 20 years.

One of the best things about Obama is his marginalizing Israel in the Middle East. They only country we should care about in the Middle East is SA and the rest of the countries that give us cheap oil. That CLEARLY benefits every single US citizen.

Israel is a leach on the hard working American tax payers. We give them $4-5B a year and I am still confused as to what we get in return? Friendship - GTFO!

Like I keep saying to you...Israeli best chance to have the US fight a war for them was with the idiot Bush...and he wasn't that stupid - if that's even possible.

How many idiotic statements are you going to make pertaining to this subject? Israel has been defeating the ME countries for decades. The only reason they have not already bomb the s%%t out of Iran is because we tell them to back off. They stayed out of both Iraq conflict because we told them not to get involved. We hold Israel back because their involvement in ME conflicts does not help our cause. It actually makes it worse. But do not think that they could not take care of Iran.

It is mind boggling how after all of these years, people don't understand this. They are either really dumb or hate Israel and agree with muslim countries who wish to destroy Israel. Also, points made earlier about Israel's "illegal" land grabbing is totally misleading and false.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BlueManToo:
Yep, marginalizing the only faithful democratic ally the United States has in that region is just what the doctor ordered if we ever hope to garner a lasting peace in the Middle East...brilliant! I just figured it out....Albany is Obama's chief foreign policy advisor! Hope he's using a private e-mail account on the Clinton server to post on the Paddock

Purely from the US perspective Israel is if no strategic importance to us, in fact our arms arrangements with them including giving them nuclear technology has caused friction between us and the moderate Arab, oil producing states for decades. Historically you have to have some empathy for the Jewish people and hope to see a secure state emerge with peaceful arrangements with all it's neighbors including the Pals, but to think that Israel does something positive in that part of the world for this country is fiction.






This post was edited on 3/6 12:34 PM by Deeeefense

To those who cannot see beyond their own political parties agenda, this is true. Objectively, it is false.

 

[Bill Cosby]

LOL at Obama and Holder filing corruption charges against a D for not falling lockstep with Obama's dictates.

Seriously. Someone else is getting charged with corruption by the Obama administration.

 

[Bill Cosby]

I've been fairly busy recently, but would anyone be able to come up with a list of things the federal government has done to **** the American people while you guys were focusing on bringing peace to the ME?


Seriously, you all are discussing bringing peace to a region of the world that has been fighting for all of recorded history.

The quicker we can become energy independent, the quicker we can just supply every country in the ME with nuclear bombs and let them blow each other off the planet. Maybe give them something with less radiation.

But no, Iran needs nuclear power. Those guys are so progressive and don't really rely on fossil fuels at all. In the US on the other hand, we'd rather funnel taxpayer money to Obama and Harry Reid's friends for ******** attempts at inefficient alternative energy sources while the private industry works around Obama to actually produce energy.


Hopeffully everybody's favorite company Lockheed Martin and their Skunkworks program can bring us that compact fusion power they've been talking about.

 

[DUNNSTILLFREENALIVE]

Our president needs our prayers. Our politicians need our prayers. The people who said it was going to stop snowing need our prayers. All of you people that didn't have common sense enough to know not to vote for someone that had the name barrack huessein obama need prayers. Mitch Romney and that old grey haired dude McCain would have been better presidents. Its ok though because obama has tried to change this country but he really hasn't been able to do anything to really change anything and thank goodness for that.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

The Washington Post give President Obama 4 Pinocchios for his Keystone pipeline claims.

Link

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

The Washington Post give President Obama 4 Pinocchios for his Keystone pipeline claims.

Whats the maximum pinocchios? Because that's what his entire presidency deserves.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
To those who cannot see beyond their own political parties agenda, this is true. Objectively, it is false.

Foreign policy was never a partisan issue until the Tea Party Hacks took over congress and AM radio.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

The Washington Post give President Obama 4 Pinocchios for his Keystone pipeline claims.

Whats the maximum pinocchios? Because that's what his entire presidency deserves.

Yet that lying sack of **** has the audacity to take credit for what lower energy costs have done for families and the economy only 2 years after scoffing at the notion that we could drill our way to lower prices.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by Deeeefense: Foreign policy was never a partisan issue until the Tea Party Hacks took over congress and AM radio.

Speaking of lying sacks of ****.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Guess the President will try and blame Republicans for gas prices now inching back up.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by Bill Cosby:
LOL at Obama and Holder filing corruption charges against a D for not falling lockstep with Obama's dictates.

Seriously. Someone else is getting charged with corruption by the Obama administration.

I agree with the opinion of some blogs, Martinez knew the jig was up and getting charged was inevitable, so he double down on Iran issues to make himself look like a martyr.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
To those who cannot see beyond their own political parties agenda, this is true. Objectively, it is false.

Foreign policy was never a partisan issue until the Tea Party Hacks took over congress and AM radio.

Come on now Deee, getting harder to blame Bush so now you use the Tea party to blame. Weakest point yet.