Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

Netanyahu Speaks to Joint Session

1,090 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

So there is no solution. As long as the Palestinian has no intention to renounce terrorism, then Israel has no obligation not to return in kind. As long as the Palestinian does not affirm that Israel has the Right to exist, then there is no reason for Israel to drop her guard.

That is no solution either. No nation can stand relying on someone else for their security. That's the purpose of Israel in the first place. Never again will the Jew rely on the words and promises of someone else.

It wasn't mythological. The Revised NIE only backed off of the amounts, it stayed firm on the potential. And as long as Saddam was in power, those programs could be reconstituted at any time. Actual stockpiles were just a distraction.

Then you do not understand the nature of the place. TE Lawrence used the instability to take the region from the Ottomans and in turn the British tried to bring peace and could not. How do you think that some broad coalition is going to do it? Especially when much of the West does not recognize the treat of Islam?

Even if they just occupy a portion of Palestinian territory will raise a hundred more Bin Ladens. You are just not learning. A peacekeeping force would mean that the blockade would be lifted and Hamas would be free to rearm. It wouldn't take long before the international forces are targeted by rockets, suicide bombers, and kidnappings. Eventually, the international forces will know what the Israelis already know. It wouldn't take long for the international community to reestablish the blockade and setup checkpoints and the Palestinian would be *imprisoned* as before. And this would draw Medinan freedom fighters from all over, including ISIS.

And what's that? That the Palestinian is a special breed of human being, uniquely unqualified for life on Earth?

Nevermind they lived in peace in the region for hundreds of years, the true Semites, the true children of Jerusalem, and nevermind the problems only began 70-some years ago.

So if this is the amount of wind you blow over suggesting a two state solution, then what is the solution? Don't tell me, I already know. Ethnic cleansing of course.

I've talked about solutions ever since I got here in August 2011. The solution is the same that brought both Palestine and Israel into existence in the first place. This whole Zoo of oppression since 1948 follows. You can either obey international law, or break it.

Oh so we sent our soldiers to their deaths because of programs that "could" be reinstated? Is there any other reason to send more soldiers to their deaths that could any more flaky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yamato

These are not the look ahead part. They are just suggestions of actions and this body had not looked ahead at the consequences of these actions.

As for Kaufman, his intifada is going to happen whether anyone does anything or not. As long as Israel exists, there will always be the next intifada. The same with Straw. They hadn't realized that as long as a third party gets involved that it will prolong the violence. Horwood doesn't make a look ahead suggestion, reassessing policy is business as normal. And others are looking at sanctions against Israel? What will that do? The source of violence is not from Israel. Sanctions on Israel would be like pinning back Israel's arms while Hamas takes cheap shots. Again, that body is not looking ahead. Leigh does not realize that if the Palestinians want peace, they need to renounce terrorism and affirm Israel's Right to exist. Not by words only but in deeds. As you are seeing, these suggestions are and will ever be knee-jerk reactions. The only thing they accomplish is to give this body a touchy-feely moment.

These are not the look ahead part. They are just suggestions of actions and this body had not looked ahead at the consequences of these actions.

As for Kaufman, his intifada is going to happen whether anyone does anything or not. As long as Israel exists, there will always be the next intifada. The same with Straw. They hadn't realized that as long as a third party gets involved that it will prolong the violence. Horwood doesn't make a look ahead suggestion, reassessing policy is business as normal. And others are looking at sanctions against Israel? What will that do? The source of violence is not from Israel. Sanctions on Israel would be like pinning back Israel's arms while Hamas takes cheap shots. Again, that body is not looking ahead. Leigh does not realize that if the Palestinians want peace, they need to renounce terrorism and affirm Israel's Right to exist. Not by words only but in deeds. As you are seeing, these suggestions are and will ever be knee-jerk reactions. The only thing they accomplish is to give this body a touchy-feely moment.

You need to affirm Palestine's right to exist. Nobody is entertaining the Zionist strawman anymore that changes the goalposts of any discussion regarding human rights to Israel's "right to exist". Everyone has a right to exist. Nobody has a right to break the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

That is no solution either.

You asked about Israeli security because you think Palestinian violence emanates from the lack of oppression, not the oppression.

Because you have no knowledge about the history of this landmass. You have no idea that there was peace there before 1948. You'd be walling Germany in after two world wars because you'd be hyperparanoid they'd do it again. But it's not Nazis and what they did to Jews you care about. It's the Greater Israel Development Project. In the true light of this conflict, this has nothing to do with peace, or religion, or convenient blind spots in your command of world history. This is about land. The closest analogy to this conflict in the world is Britain and Ireland. If you go over there and talk to people they all admit the same thing, the religious nonsense is just a front to get peoples' dander up, it's about the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You also skipped over answering the pertinent questions…

So if the Israeli reprisals against Hamas ended. The blockade lifted. Illegal occupation in the West Bank stopped and land returned. Etc., etc. Do you think that the Palestinian violence against the Jew will stop?

The illegal occupation has nothing to do with the new kid on the block, Hamas. The former long predates the latter. Again you seem to have no concept of chronology here.

And there you go again, replacing Israel with "the Jew". I thought the social engineers of Israel kept some Arabs there too to keep up appearances. Why aren't they being attacked by thousands of Hamas rockets every day? Nonsense. As is the implication that Muslims wouldn't kill other Muslims, again proving this has nothing to do with religion. The difference isn't Jew or Arab. If all IDF soldiers were Arab, and all Israeli settlers were Arab, that doesn't excuse the crime. That doesn't make the violence tolerable.

That doesn't make the illegal blockade and settlements understandable or legal. Ethnicity has nothing to do with right or wrong, Ravenhawk. And that is something you will never be able to understand. People shouldn't be oppressed by people, period. That is a standard, as general as it gets. Moreover, and I shouldn't even have to say this to a real American, Religion should have nothing to do with State. We forbid the union in our own country; it's blase illegal hypocrisy to subsidize it for foreigners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

This unconstitutional rhetoric that declaring war is done with "the power of the purse", I've never heard a single US politician ever make such a statement. Is there any example of one saying this in all of US history? I can understand such a statement being made if it's being made in criticism of what our government does, of how our government takes our nation to war. Not as an excuse for it!

The further unconstitutional nonsense that we have to pay special treatments to the union of religion and state when the Establishment Clause explicitly forbids it in plain English? The Constitution is in power over our government whether it's governing here between our lines or over there between someone else's. Nowhere does the Constitution say that it's no longer in force because we tiptoe over the line.

I don't see anyone holding President Obama accountable, with purse, censure, or impeachment. So talking about doing it hypothetically in a vacuum isn't saying much. You've likely missed my saying it as you've missed so much else Ravenhawk, but Libya was an impeachable offense. Nobody needs to second guess what my vote would be.

If it doesn’t say how, then it is reasonable to believe that “how” is up to Congress.

This doesn't require "belief" at all. You "declare" in writing, a state of war, between your country and another country. That's how you do it. You vote on it, up or down. These cowards in their marble halls wanted nothing to do with it when Ron Paul proposed it in 2002. If they were real leaders they would stand on their own vote, up or down, and not defer everything including the blame to President Bush. The inevitable politics that will get played over these unconstitutional games our leaders play doesn't serve this country.

As I’ve said, "The other situation" is called a standing army. That is hardly an admission. It’s a statement of fact. It doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. But it does correct you. At least it is indication that you do not understand. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat myself before the light in your head turns on?

Sorry you are changing the subject. Standing armies don't replace declaring war anymore than the "purse" does.

Even if they just occupy a portion of Palestinian territory will raise a hundred more Bin Ladens.

That's one way to deny that oppression is causing this endless cycle of violence; just claim the opposite. At least you've deduced that Israel-Palestine is the cause of bin Laden(s), despite all the distracting political nonsense and conspiracy theory to the contrary.

And this would draw Medinan freedom fighters from all over, including ISIS.

There may be violence then but there is violence now. What freedom would they be fighting for exactly? Now's your opportunity to slither into another mud throwing orgy about Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
You just simply don’t understand that the best defense is a strong offense. That is how you defend yourself.

Ravenhawk, the difference between defense and offense is the determining factor between right and wrong. Bad guys attack others. Good guys defend themselves. This applies to prince and pauper. This applies to you and me by our own laws. Maybe if you could practice what you preach domestically you could show us the better way overseas. But that would expose the fraud wouldn't it? Eating your own cooking like that.

I don't go around in life with a "defense" of having a "strong offense". What a perfectly stupid idea to destroy the rights of us all. Institutionalizing this idea for exceptional governments or religions or ethnic groups? The moment the application of such an idea lands closer to home, nobody here will agree with that. I don't want to understate the case. That is the mindset of terrorists.

Defense and offense, again you're weaving two different things into the same thing. Which isn't surprising when you're also trying to tell me which Sections of which Articles of the Constitution are really the same power as other powers enumerated in other Sections. Since defiling the Constitution by interpreting it to mean the opposite of what it means, I'm not surprised that you're doing it with antonyms in the dictionary too.

Who are you to tell me how I defend myself? I practice self defense. I don't go out into the streets like a fool attacking anyone or anything that "could" eventually attack me. I'm not interested in your burnt offerings of evil and bullydom. There's no nation or religion or political movement that's exceptional to this most basic of common sense. I don't take anyone seriously who's capable of floating such an absurd idea that self defense and self determination mean you go out and kill people. You mirror the exact same mindset of the worst individuals from both Hamas and Likud.

Republicans and Democrats need to be made to understand that the reason the Congress has to declare war is because the President can't. Even in an emergency where our nation is facing imminent attack (Libya? Seriously?), you obey the War Powers Resolution. This law doesn't replace Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The President has a few months to screw around and then it's time to stop pretending Article 1 doesn't exist; stop whizzing on the Constitution and obey it. When these moral cowards from both parties put their names and their faces on the war, we'll be much more likely to win the damned thing. Making Ted Cruz's "get in and get out" a plausible outcome. But if losing every war we fight is so attractive, we can keep doing what we're doing. Our troops deserve better, our people deserve better and this country deserves better.

How about a superfluous Bill for this pathetic Congress and its beyond-pathetic approval ratings year after year - to make it extraordinarily clear even to the dullest and slowest of our politicians that when they take this country to war, they have to use the power that they actually do have, and declare it.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

This is a good question...here's the answer:

Given that the Israeli regime (Netanyahoo) holds onto its power by keeping the Israeli population in a constant state of fear (terror) of Palestinian attacks,

I don’t think that’s Bibi that is doing that. That’s like what happened when the Left was trying to blame Bush for Katrina. In general, if people were afraid of hurricanes, they should move away from water. Likewise, Jews stay in Israel despite the fear. Why do you think that is? That would seem to not really be a true power of Bibi. It may be their righteous anger and not fear that he taps into.

any peace accord in the region is likely to be followed by an increase in violence against "the Jew" (as you put it),

What else would it be? It is true that there is an academic difference between Jew and Israeli but in this situation, the difference is really unimportant as the fate of the non-Jewish Israeli is the same as the Jewish Israeli.

which is then attributed by Netanyahoo as the work of Palestinian terrorists.

Again, I don’t think it’s Bibi that is doing that. I don’t think Little Green Martians are committing these acts of terror. It must be Hamas and the Palestinians. Unless you are trying to imply that Bibi controls Hamas.

This then is used by the regime to justify its own oppressive, iron-fisted existence...

When faced with the choice of applying its own iron-fist or being subjugated by the Islamic iron-fist, I’m pretty sure they will choose to be the one in the driver’s seat.

and at the mere cost of only a few innocent Israeli lives and a few (more) innocent Palestinian lives. A heck of a bargain for the Israeli terrorist leader (Netanyahoo).

I know you are trying to single out Bibi but it takes two to tango. It’s the Palestinians that teach their children to hate Jews (and has been the case for all Muslims). That it is preferable to sacrifice their children to destroy Israel than to build a future for them. Let’s remember Golda Meir’s words again “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us”. Should a few more Israelis die to make it all right?

Same as it ever was.

As long as everybody and their brother decide to impose their own self-righteousness into this, nothing will change and many more lives will be lost. Let the Israeli and Palestinian work it out for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

And what's that? That the Palestinian is a special breed of human being, uniquely unqualified for life on Earth?

That’s the typical Yamato racism that is expected from you.

Nevermind they lived in peace in the region for hundreds of years, the true Semites, the true children of Jerusalem, and nevermind the problems only began 70-some years ago.

The *TRUE* children of Jerusalem are Jews. Semite was a term good enough for the Jews of Europe that were systematically exterminated. I don’t call non-Muslims living under Dhimmitude as living in peace. It’s more like a controlled population living under fear. That has been the case for 1400 years. That it’s the Palestinian that is reaping what was sowed so long ago is truly sad. But it’s in their hands to change. All they need to do is to embrace reform as Ayaan Hirsi Ali proposes. If they do that, then there would be hope for peace.

So if this is the amount of wind you blow over suggesting a two state solution, then what is the solution? Don't tell me, I already know. Ethnic cleansing of course.

It’s not as much as you blow. I already stated what the solution is. Let them work it out between them. I suppose, one possible outcome would be ethnic cleansing. That is entirely up to the Palestinians, don’t you think? I know you truly believe that ethnic cleansing is genocide but it isn’t. If it were, the world would have been depopulated a long time ago. What is hypocritical is that for centuries, the Jew has been the subject of ethnic cleansing in both the Christian and Muslim worlds but you don’t seem to consider that history or care for that matter. You seem to care less about how Lebanon and Jordan had done ethnic cleansing on their own Palestinians. You seem to care less about the ethnic cleansing of Christians in ISIS controlled territory. But if Israel tries to defend herself, the world needs to drop everything and bomb them back to the Stone Age. Hypocrisy!

I've talked about solutions ever since I got here in August 2011. The solution is the same that brought both Palestine and Israel into existence in the first place. This whole Zoo of oppression since 1948 follows. You can either obey international law, or break it.

UN resolutions are not international law. Resolutions are voluntary. And the history of Resolutions in Mid East issues has been less than stellar. You get all this talk from politicians of how Israel should act and have no will to back them up. And these politicians partake in the same kind of treatment of their own minorities in their own countries. Yes, you have talked about solutions and I for one, have shown why they are not feasible. By ‘48, even the British learned that a third party isn’t going to solve this.

Oh so we sent our soldiers to their deaths because of programs that "could" be reinstated? Is there any other reason to send more soldiers to their deaths that could any more flaky?

We sent soldiers because Saddam violated the ceasefire. The inspectors were compromised just as they are in Iran. They were sent because something was brewing in the Middle East and Iraq was as good as any other place to begin to confront this rising. Our retreat has now assured this emergence and the deaths of our soldiers have been in vain. You may get your wish of fighting them on these shores. Relish in it brother, because nobody else but the enemy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You need to affirm Palestine's right to exist. Nobody is entertaining the Zionist strawman anymore that changes the goalposts of any discussion regarding human rights to Israel's "right to exist". Everyone has a right to exist. Nobody has a right to break the law.

You and your goalposts and strawmen are just so much bull$-hit. The bottom line is and will always be, that Israel is more than willing to live in peace and all that needs to happen is for the Palestinians to renounce terrorism and affirm Israel’s Right to exist. If they do that, peace for Palestinians would be like the coming of spring. Palestinians would be asking themselves, why didn’t we do this before? And the reason why they haven’t is because of Islamic dogma. And that is why Israel can never let her guard down. If there was true Islamic reform, then the Palestinians would probably find peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You asked about Israeli security because you think Palestinian violence emanates from the lack of oppression, not the oppression.

Then you think wrongly. The concern of Israeli security emanates from Islamic dogma as seen in the Hamas Charter and the Quran. It’s the oppression that Israel faces if Islam takes control of the region.

Because you have no knowledge about the history of this landmass.

WTF??? If you’ve read anything I’ve written, then you know this is false. You’re just feeling unsure of yourself, as usual, so you have to try to insult and belittle someone else to puff yourself up. It is predictable.

You have no idea that there was peace there before 1948.

Really? The Arab Revolt in 1936 was peace? The looting of Safed in 1834 was peace? And the many other examples of Muslim peace in-between.

You'd be walling Germany in after two world wars because you'd be hyperparanoid they'd do it again.

I would? So you were all for the Marshall Plan? All that welfare? Ah, you two-faced, double talker you. Germany certainly could do it again but the Marshall Plan prevented it from happening. Germany had been *doing it* repeatedly since Frederick the Great and with American Hegemony waning under this President, I can see them doing it again. But the difference is that Germany was finally defeated in 1945. The Palestinians have not been defeated. Until the Palestinians reform themselves or are defeated, there will be no peace.

But it's not Nazis and what they did to Jews you care about. It's the Greater Israel Development Project.

More hyperbole. The GIDP is not Zionism. It is based on the fantasy of Bin Laden. It’s actually a reflection of Muslim sensibilities. The greatest extent of Israel (King David’s Empire) is what Medinan Muslims believe what Zionism is, based on Muslim territorial conquest desires. I.e. regaining Andalucía and the Balkans and spreading into Europe. So of course, Zionism can only be expansionist.

In the true light of this conflict, this has nothing to do with peace, or religion, or convenient blind spots in your command of world history.

It has more to do with Religion on the Muslim side than the Jewish side.

This is about land.

It always is about land. Whoever controls the land controls their future.

The closest analogy to this conflict in the world is Britain and Ireland. If you go over there and talk to people they all admit the same thing, the religious nonsense is just a front to get peoples' dander up, it's about the land.

I think this is debatable. No doubt that land is part of it but it’s not the main issue. North Ireland is mostly Protestant. The Peace of Westphalia never really took hold here as the Protestants feared Irish independence and that they would lose their freedoms. I think that if those freedoms were assured, that Ireland could unite. Palestine is about two peoples vying for one land. Ireland is one people vying to coexist with two religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The illegal occupation has nothing to do with the new kid on the block, Hamas. The former long predates the latter. Again you seem to have no concept of chronology here.

Non Sequitur. Hamas didn’t just appear out of thin air. It is one current representative of the Palestinian tribes. And you find yet another way to not answer the question. You do realize that that in itself is an answer that speaks volumes?

So if the Israeli reprisals against Hamas ended. The blockade lifted. Illegal occupation in the West Bank stopped and land returned. Etc., etc. Do you think that the Palestinian violence against the Jew will stop?

And there you go again, replacing Israel with "the Jew".

I’ve already answered that with hacktorp. The fate of one is the fate of the other.

I thought the social engineers of Israel kept some Arabs there too to keep up appearances.

I thought that these are Arab Christians, Muslim apostates, and other Muslims that have a legitimate land deed. And they choose to live there.

Why aren't they being attacked by thousands of Hamas rockets every day?

They pretty much are. Did you ever see that report from Sderot? They have a warehouse filled with expended rockets from decades of sometimes daily attacks. Most rocket attacks don’t make the MSM but the evidence is preserved.

Nonsense. As is the implication that Muslims wouldn't kill other Muslims, again proving this has nothing to do with religion.

There is no implication that Muslims wouldn’t kill other Muslims. They do it all the time especially if there is any perception of violation of even the smallest tenant of Islamic doctrine. Have you not been paying attention to what is going on in ISIS controlled territory? Any sign of Shirk or Apostasy is a death sentence.

The difference isn't Jew or Arab. If all IDF soldiers were Arab, and all Israeli settlers were Arab, that doesn't excuse the crime. That doesn't make the violence tolerable.

Perhaps... The whole point of Israel is to be a Jewish homeland. That doesn’t mean that it is exclusively Jewish. Like in every nation, there are minorities. But even if your analogy could happen, the Palestinians would still attack the Israelis. If tomorrow, all Jews became Arab then you would have a similar situation as there was in Jordan. Then you would see an even more violent crackdown on the Palestinians. The other Arabs wouldn’t put up with the shenanigans the Palestinians get away with, with the Jews. Israel has been far more patient than any other Muslim neighbor.

That doesn't make the illegal blockade and settlements understandable or legal.

You are assuming that the blockade is illegal. It has been shown that Hamas gets weapons and war supplies from the sea. It behooves them to intercept that contraband. That contraband is illegal. And the settlements may be questionable but Israel applies the original Ottoman land laws (That’s the same laws that the Palestinian lived by under the Ottomans). That makes both understandable and legal.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with right or wrong, Ravenhawk.

Never said it was right or wrong, but it is one side or the other. You could consider that both sides are right. Therefore only one side will win. That’s the way it has been since the beginning of time.

And that is something you will never be able to understand.

Oh, I get that, but it is non sequitur. You live in your fantasy world and believe in things that you wish were that way. Try spending some time in the real world with the rest of us.

People shouldn't be oppressed by people, period. That is a standard, as general as it gets.

Those are nice high sounding words but how do you protect that? The simple fact is that people are oppressed by others all the time; throughout history. With 7 billion people on this planet, you can’t help but have one group oppress another. And it may not be intentional. It can’t be prevented and if you think it can then you are very naive. All you can do is defend your Rights and the Rights of your allies.

Moreover, and I shouldn't even have to say this to a real American, Religion should have nothing to do with State.

Actually, that is not what the Bill of Rights state. The Term “Separation of Church and State” comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1801 and was brought up in a law suit in 1947. It does not appear in the BoR. It was Madison that wrote the Bill of Rights, not Jefferson. It became a misquote with unintended consequences that ultimately did benefit our nation. The original intent was to build a one-way wall. To assure that the State could not infringe on the Church. There was no intention to remove faith from governance and hence, there is no way to separate that faith from the individual. But the unintended consequence is that no organized religion can control the government. So that a person’s faith will have everything to do with the government, religion in general can not. It’s a subtle but distinct difference.

We forbid the union in our own country; it's blase illegal hypocrisy to subsidize it for foreigners.

We didn’t forbid the union but we defined a distinct separation of the two in union. We didn’t outlaw religion but we limited a possible abuse that could arise. In a way, it was a continuation of the Peace of Westphalia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

This unconstitutional rhetoric that declaring war is done with "the power of the purse", I've never heard a single US politician ever make such a statement.

That you haven’t heard anything just means that you’ve never been aware of it. It’s something that doesn’t get plastered all over the MSM on any regular basis. But since WWII, that is how it’s been done with all the conflicts since.

Is there any example of one saying this in all of US history? I can understand such a statement being made if it's being made in criticism of what our government does, of how our government takes our nation to war. Not as an excuse for it!

It is not an excuse. It is SOP (standard operating procedure). Wars have been supported by the purse. 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a joint resolution to go after all those responsible for terrorist attacks against the US (operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere). Sure, that was a shotgun approach but sometimes the best thing to use is a shotgun. It’s still needed. I suppose that that one particular example was a mix of an up/down vote and the power of the purse. But the authorization was a vote for the President to direct the action rather than to go to war. In the end, it amounts to the same thing. Congress didn’t renege on their duty, they exercised it.

The further unconstitutional nonsense that we have to pay special treatments to the union of religion and state when the Establishment Clause explicitly forbids it in plain English? The Constitution is in power over our government whether it's governing here between our lines or over there between someone else's. Nowhere does the Constitution say that it's no longer in force because we tiptoe over the line.

I believe that you are severely confused. The BoR does not forbid this *union* of State and Religion. It states that the State cannot establish a State religion. If you haven’t noticed, the majority of Americans are Christian (including the majority of illegal aliens) and that already makes this a Christian nation. If that is what you are concerned about. The Establishment Clause is to prevent situations that permeated and plagued Europe for so long or even what is in Iran now. Established religion was another source of authority. No nation could stand united for long with competing sources of authority. Hence, the purpose for the Establishment Clause. It wasn’t meant to purge one’s faith from the act of governing.

I don't see anyone holding President Obama accountable, with purse, censure, or impeachment. So talking about doing it hypothetically in a vacuum isn't saying much. You've likely missed my saying it as you've missed so much else Ravenhawk, but Libya was an impeachable offense. Nobody needs to second guess what my vote would be.

You do realize that this is a non sequitur tangent? If this is what you call “me missing it” then you couldn’t be more wrong. What you don’t seem to understand is that the action in itself that Obama ordered was perfectly legal. What were questionable were the reasons he did it. He has established a long list of abuses that are all just under the radar. For that, he should be impeached. Unfortunately, there was a referendum this past November and the Republicans are ignoring it. Everyone has written off the next two years to position for a fight for the Whitehouse. I think this is an error that this nation cannot afford. Unfortunately, those of us that are screaming the loudest for change find ourselves in that vacuum. If the Republicans don’t listen to us, who will? The Republicans taking back the Whitehouse is key to direct this nation back on course but if they lose focus of why and attempt to follow the path of how the Progressives did it, I fear that nothing will change. As important as it is, this is too much of a tangent.

This doesn't require "belief" at all. You "declare" in writing, a state of war, between your country and another country. That's how you do it. You vote on it, up or down. These cowards in their marble halls wanted nothing to do with it when Ron Paul proposed it in 2002. If they were real leaders they would stand on their own vote, up or down, and not defer everything including the blame to President Bush. The inevitable politics that will get played over these unconstitutional games our leaders play doesn't serve this country.

Let’s put it this way. Congress used their power of the purse as the up/down vote. If they had first done an up/down vote, they still would have had to vote on appropriations. There is nothing in the Constitution that one or the other must be followed. It is completely up to Congress on how it’s done – enough said. Congress doesn’t get to decide how the troops are use, just if they are funded or not.

Sorry you are changing the subject. Standing armies don't replace declaring war anymore than the "purse" does.

I’m not the one changing the subject. I never said standing armies replace declaring war. You just simply don’t understand the subject. I was giving examples of different possible situations in order to define various enumerated powers and you even missed that.

That's one way to deny that oppression is causing this endless cycle of violence; just claim the opposite. At least you've deduced that Israel-Palestine is the cause of bin Laden(s), despite all the distracting political nonsense and conspiracy theory to the contrary.

Oppression is but an excuse. Islam will tell any lie to gain the upper hand and once it does, imposes oppression itself.

There may be violence then but there is violence now. What freedom would they be fighting for exactly? Now's your opportunity to slither into another mud throwing orgy about Islam.

There is always violence. The freedom they are fighting for is something you have proven time and time again to be completely oblivious to. Muslim sensibilities are simply not the same as Western sensibilities. You can’t seem to understand that. For example, both Christendom and Islam believe in an afterlife, however, the Muslim is taught that the only paradise is in the afterlife and that killing others to purify the land will grant Muslims a place there and that those killed are either not innocent or are martyrs. In Christendom, life in this world is precious and that it is worthy to sacrifice yourself for that of a brother. You always want to impose your sensibilities onto others and that simply does not work. Your standards are not the standards of everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

- Ravenhawk, the difference between defense and offense is the determining factor between right and wrong.

- Bad guys attack others. Good guys defend themselves.

- This applies to prince and pauper. This applies to you and me by our own laws.

- Maybe if you could practice what you preach domestically you could show us the better way overseas. But that would expose the fraud wouldn't it? Eating your own cooking like that.

That is so much bull$-hit! The difference between right and wrong is living or dying.

This is Hollywood, not the real world. The good guys must be prepared to go on the offense if they expect to survive. If you can help it, you never wait for the bad guy to strike first. Waiting just causes more death and destruction. I would have to think that even you would agree that if France and England and attacked Germany in 1938 that WWII would have never started.

Non sequitur.

Why should I do that? How a nation goes to war with other nations does not translate to individual actions domestically. The fraud is you coming on here acting like you know what you’re talking about. When somebody challenges you on your beliefs, you get defensive because you don’t expect it. You start running off at the mouth with gibberish and insults.

I don't go around in life with a "defense" of having a "strong offense".

I hope so. Whatever that means.

What a perfectly stupid idea to destroy the rights of us all.

Of course it’s a perfectly stupid idea. Only if your nation loses could it possibly destroy your rights.

Institutionalizing this idea for exceptional governments or religions or ethnic groups?

It’s not just institutionalize, it’s for *ALL* governments, religions, and ethnic groups, it is their right.

The moment the application of such an idea lands closer to home, nobody here will agree with that. I don't want to understate the case. That is the mindset of terrorists.

The point is that nobody wants it closer to home. To keep it off these shores, we need to be more proactive. This is not the mindset of terrorists, although I do see your confusion. The act is similar but the intent is different.

Defense and offense, again you're weaving two different things into the same thing.

No, they are not two different things. Perhaps you could say that are two sides of the same coin. Obviously, you are not a student of military history and tactics. You view offense as some form of imperial conquest as if that is bad in itself. It really depends on intent. But that is not what offense is. Offense is an aspect of war where the intent is to impose your will on the enemy. Defense cannot impose your will. If you want an end to hostilities, at some point, you have to go on the offense. Not pressing the issue does not end the siege. A defense never stopped a prolonged effort just by itself. Even now, Medinan Islam is seeking holes in our defense. China is actively attacking us cyberly. The probing never stops. The only way to stop it is to attack it at its roots.

Which isn't surprising when you're also trying to tell me which Sections of which Articles of the Constitution are really the same power as other powers enumerated in other Sections.

Never said they were the same powers but the usage of them produces the same outcome. The Constitution is not as ridged as your thinking process.

Since defiling the Constitution by interpreting it to mean the opposite of what it means, I'm not surprised that you're doing it with antonyms in the dictionary too.

And where have I interpreted the Constitution to mean the opposite of what it does mean? All I’ve done is fail miserably in explaining to you what the Constitution does mean. And again Offense and defense are not antonyms; perhaps only in a general colloquial way. And that is the limit to your understanding.

Who are you to tell me how I defend myself? I practice self defense. I don't go out into the streets like a fool attacking anyone or anything that "could" eventually attack me.

You really are dense aren’t you? I’m not telling you how to defend yourself personally. I’m glad you practice self-defense. More power to you. I hope, for your community’s sake that you don’t terrorize the streets.

I'm not interested in your burnt offerings of evil and bullydom. There's no nation or religion or political movement that's exceptional to this most basic of common sense. I don't take anyone seriously who's capable of floating such an absurd idea that self defense and self determination mean you go out and kill people. You mirror the exact same mindset of the worst individuals from both Hamas and Likud.

So much gibberish. This is another example of your lack of comprehension! For your benefit, people are killed all the time as all nations act upon their Rights of self-determination. That is perhaps the most basic concept. That is common sense. What is it do you think people have been doing throughout history? They kill each other. Good, bad, right, or wrong.

Republicans and Democrats need to be made to understand that the reason the Congress has to declare war is because the President can't. Even in an emergency where our nation is facing imminent attack (Libya? Seriously?), you obey the War Powers Resolution. This law doesn't replace Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

I’m sure Congress is fully aware of that and by the same token, Congress can’t direct the actions of the military. Congress has several ways to declare war. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress must declare it by an up/down vote. The Constitution spells out only one specific situation for the requirements of voting by Congress. Congress could draw lots to pass legislation. You’re the only one that thinks that the War Powers Act somehow replaces I.8.11.

The President has a few months to screw around and then it's time to stop pretending Article 1 doesn't exist; stop whizzing on the Constitution and obey it.

Obama may be whizzing on the Constitution but he is obeying it. All Presidents push the limits but in the case of Obama, it’s going well beyond push.

When these moral cowards from both parties put their names and their faces on the war, we'll be much more likely to win the damned thing. Making Ted Cruz's "get in and get out" a plausible outcome. But if losing every war we fight is so attractive, we can keep doing what we're doing. Our troops deserve better, our people deserve better and this country deserves better.

We need to find the political will to win wars. We don’t need faces on wars. But too many people are as clueless as you are. “Get in and get out” is the reason we lose them and have to fight them again. We need a change of mindset – “Get in and finish it!” Putin, Jinping, and Khamenei are all laughing at us for squandering the power we should be wielding. We’re planting the seeds of war by retreating, apologizing, and appeasing.

How about a superfluous Bill for this pathetic Congress and its beyond-pathetic approval ratings year after year - to make it extraordinarily clear even to the dullest and slowest of our politicians that when they take this country to war, they have to use the power that they actually do have, and declare it.

I don’t think that their pathetic approval ratings are because of their power to declare war. Up until last November, they had high ratings in my eye’s because they thwarted (for the most part) Obama’s agenda. They kept on saying “NO”! But since then, they are just rubberstamping his actions. They’ve given up on stopping him because they don’t think he can destroy this country any further. I think that is false. And bombing Libya is not one of the reasons he had been destroying this nation. That was just another distraction of the tail wagging the dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

"Get in and finish it!" whatever that means and whoever in our government ever said that. Sounds like a great foreign policy suggestion. Another armchair expert toying with the world and toying with the lives of our troops.

You're drooling over causing a 100 years war Ravenhawk, I'm sorry to say you sound delusional and insulting as always. It's amazing what you get away with. Can I call people racists on this forum? Of course not.

Having a protracted discussion about politics with you is irrelevant. The law is clear and Israel is criminal. You turn right and wrong upside down and type your fingers off trying to get your bloodbath on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Your perseverence in maintaining discourse with this individual, Yamato, is very impressive... Damn near approaching sadomasochism, but impressive nonetheless. I could not, or would not follow your example.

A tip of the hat for you good sir. And may I add your content is always razorsharp, to the point and highly relevant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.