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 -
NewAge1

Israel election

280 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Degen

Again, you can call a shark a guppy...but it will still bite your leg off. Diechecker is correct...and you are correct too...he is a new 'Flava' of Dictator.

If you think he was elected by democratic process...you are wrong. So...some semantics going on...nothing else.

There was an election, ergo, not a dictator but an elected leader. If you think the voting was rigged, PROVE IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
Again, you can call a shark a guppy...but it will still bite your leg off. Diechecker is correct...and you are correct too...he is a new 'Flava' of Dictator.

If you think he was elected by democratic process...you are wrong. So...some semantics going on...nothing else.

Liberal democracy seems to be fading in Russia, I totally agree with that, but his popularity among the population is skyrocketing. He managed to stirr the nationalist sentiments that were in sleep mode in quite a few Russians, Dictator or not, either way he looks set to remain in office for a long time, unless he makes a huge mistake and that his supporters turn against him. How that should come happen is hard to forsee, Putin is a good chess player, that much you should grant him.

Edited by samus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Again, you can call a shark a guppy...but it will still bite your leg off. Diechecker is correct...and you are correct too...he is a new 'Flava' of Dictator.

If you think he was elected by democratic process...you are wrong. So...some semantics going on...nothing else.

There was an election, ergo, not a dictator but an elected leader. If you think the voting was rigged, PROVE IT.

A dictator can be elected. Being a dictator is more about your influence, and not about how you got into power. A good example would be Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He got whatever he wanted from his legislature, he was in complete control. Yet the people loved him and kept "voting" for him over and over again. Same with Putin, the Russian people would rather have a respected dictator then a mild and limited president. Technically he is president, but look at the power he holds over the legislature and the judiciary, and you'll see he determines everything that goes on in the Russian government. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean he has complete power and is thus (in effect) a dictator.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

A dictator can be elected. Being a dictator is more about your influence, and not about how you got into power. A good example would be Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He got whatever he wanted from his legislature, he was in complete control. Yet the people loved him and kept "voting" for him over and over again. Same with Putin, the Russian people would rather have a respected dictator then a mild and limited president. Technically he is president, but look at the power he holds over the legislature and the judiciary, and you'll see he determines everything that goes on in the Russian government. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean he has complete power and is thus (in effect) a dictator.

Does that mean Netanyahu is a dictator? He's been there for a while now.. :hmm:

Edited by samus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Does that mean Netanyahu is a dictator? He's been there for a while now.. :hmm:

If you think Netanyahu is a dictator then you don't know anything about Israel's government. Actually...it was most likely the confrontation between Obama and Netanyahu that resulted in his election. He showed himself to be a strong leader...and the supposed Leader of the Free World dissed him. Who knows what would have happened otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Liberal democracy seems to be fading in Russia, I totally agree with that, but his popularity among the population is skyrocketing. He managed to stirr the nationalist sentiments that were in sleep mode in quite a few Russians, Dictator or not, either way he looks set to remain in office for a long time, unless he makes a huge mistake and that his supporters turn against him. How that should come happen is hard to forsee, Putin is a good chess player, that much you should grant him.

Are you kidding...Putin is an excellent Chess Player...but populations are fickle you know? One difference between Putin and Obama as far as longevity of office...Obama is out...and even if the population turns against Putin...he isn't going anywhere.

It is unseemly and unconstitutional for an American President to totally bypass Congress and do things on his own as if he were a dictator. Like I said populations are fickle...it very well may be a landslide election for the Republican nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
Actually...it was most likely the confrontation between Obama and Netanyahu [Putin] that resulted in his election. He showed himself to be a strong leader...and the supposed Leader of the Free World dissed him.

I am sure Putin's supporters would tell you the same. It is his uncompromising foreign policies and criticism of the West which made him very popular.

It is unseemly and unconstitutional for an American President to totally bypass Congress and do things on his own as if he were a dictator. Like I said populations are fickle...it very well may be a landslide election for the Republican nominee.

Actually, the presidential veto is a legitimate power, allowed by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 7) and one that has been used for over 200 years.

With an hostile congress hell-bent on undermining the President, I can't blame Obama for using it when needed.

Edited by samus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

Are you kidding...Putin is an excellent Chess Player...but populations are fickle you know? One difference between Putin and Obama as far as longevity of office...Obama is out...and even if the population turns against Putin...he isn't going anywhere.

It is unseemly and unconstitutional for an American President to totally bypass Congress and do things on his own as if he were a dictator. Like I said populations are fickle...it very well may be a landslide election for the Republican nominee.

He is by no means the first and by no means the last, name the last president who didnt do so at sometime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

He is by no means the first and by no means the last, name the last president who didnt do so at sometime?

You name one that has and what they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

You name one that has and what they did.

Here's a full list of Presidential vetoes from 1789 to Present:

Link: http://history.house...dential-Vetoes/

As you can see, Obama has only 3 regular vetoes (which can be overidden) when it's predecessor George W. Bush had 10.

Edited by samus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Here's a full list of Presidential vetoes from 1789 to Present:

Link: http://history.house...dential-Vetoes/

Presidential Vetoes? That is a ridiculous comparison to going around Congress to make deals with a Terrorist Country known as Iran. We laugh heartily at your example.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

Presidential Vetoes? That is a ridiculous comparison to going around Congress to make deals with a Terrorist Country known as Iran. We laugh heartily at your example.

That has everything to do since President Obama has declared that he would veto the bill crafted by Senator Lindsey Graham an Bob Corker requiring a deal with Iran to be approved by Congress.

As I said, the Republicans are hell-bent on derailing any diplomatic efforts with Iran. That's where the veto comes in.

BTW, Iran is not Terrorist Country™ outside of your biased, pro-Netanyahu worldview. So that can be safely ignored. :)

Edited by samus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

That has everything to do since President Obama has declared that he would veto the bill crafted by Senator Lindsey Graham an Bob Corker requiring a deal with Iran to be approved by Congress.

As I said, the Republicans are hell-bent on derailing any diplomatic efforts with Iran. That's where the veto comes in.

BTW, Iran is not Terrorist Country™ outside of your biased, pro-Netanyahu worldview. So that can be safely ignored. :)

Presidential Veto is constitutional....many of the things Obama is doing is not.

Iran is indeed considered by the United States of America to be a Terrorist Country....or as the State Dept refers to it: State Sponsors of Terrorism.

LINK

"State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1][2] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions.

The countries currently on the list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

The list began on December 29, 1979, with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, and Syria. Cuba was added to the list on March 1, 1982 and Iran on January 19, 1984. Later North Korea in 1988 and Sudan on August 12, 1993 were added.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
Presidential Veto is constitutional....many of the things Obama is doing is not.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Iran is indeed considered by the United States of America to be a Terrorist Country....or as the State Dept refers to it: State Sponsors of Terrorism.

LINK

"State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1][2] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions.

The countries currently on the list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

The list began on December 29, 1979, with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, and Syria. Cuba was added to the list on March 1, 1982 and Iran on January 19, 1984. Later North Korea in 1988 and Sudan on August 12, 1993 were added.

Wrong. Iran has been removed from this list in 2015 by recommendation of the US Intelligence agencies. This wiki page needs to be edited.

''An annual security assessment presented to the U.S. Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, has excluded Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from its list of terror threats to U.S. interests, despite both being consistently included as threats in previous years.

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.''

Source: http://www.timesofis...terror-threats/

Edited by samus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

The State Sponsors of Terrorism list.. Another very apt example of the mindnumbing hypocricy, sickening double measures the United States wields, while pointing their fingers at others in misplaced dismay.

Those nations literally pale in comparison to the good ol' USA. In 'supporting terrorism', as well as the sheer level of succesful PR.. Which probably is unprecedented in history.

'Do as we say, dont do as we do' would be the credo that comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Wrong. Iran has been removed from this list in 2015 by recommendation of the US Intelligence agencies. This wiki page needs to be edited.

''An annual security assessment presented to the U.S. Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, has excluded Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from its list of terror threats to U.S. interests, despite both being consistently included as threats in previous years.

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.''

Source: http://www.timesofis...terror-threats/

Link

On June 5, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Clapper to replace Dennis C. Blair as United States Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on August 5, 2010.[5][6]

Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.

As it goes....not surprising that another Obama shill takes radical action....pffft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

Presidential Veto is constitutional....many of the things Obama is doing is not.

Iran is indeed considered by the United States of America to be a Terrorist Country....or as the State Dept refers to it: State Sponsors of Terrorism.

LINK

"State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1][2] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions.

The countries currently on the list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

The list began on December 29, 1979, with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, and Syria. Cuba was added to the list on March 1, 1982 and Iran on January 19, 1984. Later North Korea in 1988 and Sudan on August 12, 1993 were added.

http://www.alternet....-and-terrorists

Seems someone got left off there own list

Edited by Degen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

Link

On June 5, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Clapper to replace Dennis C. Blair as United States Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on August 5, 2010.[5][6]

Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.

As it goes....not surprising that another Obama shill takes radical action....pffft

How does out of date information support your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
As it goes....not surprising that another Obama shill takes radical action....pffft

Except that Clapper won the unanimous approval of the Senate (from both Republicans and Democrats) when he was selected in 2010. Which makes you claim rather funny.

The decision to remove Iran from this ''terror list'' is based on intelligence reports on the ground and an objective assessment of the situation. It really doesn't make sense to say that Iran is a ''Terrorist Country'' when they are actually fighting terrorism. Iran has demonstrated a strong commitment in the fight against sunnis terrorists groups in both Syria and Iraq, including the Islamic State and The Al-Nusra Front (Al-Quaida) which have been deemed a serious threat for Western interests in the region.

Besides, Iran is providing support to African countries in their fight against Boko Haram.

''IRAN has announced plans to assist Nigeria in the fight against the Islamist group, Boko Haram as part of its contribution to global peace.The country’s Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Amir Hossein Abdollohian made the announcement while addressing the press on yesterday on the sideline of the ongoing 24th Assembly of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government in Addis Ababa. Abdollohian said the activities of the Boko Haram militants and that of Al-Shabaab in Somali were similar to that of Al-Qaeda and the ISIL and other terrorist groups in the Middle East.''

Source: http://www.nigeriano...ght-boko-haram/

Edited by samus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Except that Clapper won the unanimous approval of the Senate (from both Republicans and Democrats) when he was selected in 2010. Which makes you claim rather funny.

The decision to remove Iran from this ''terror list'' is based on intelligence reports on the ground and an objective assessment of the situation. It really doesn't make sense to say that Iran is a ''Terrorist Country'' when they are actually fighting terrorism. Iran has demonstrated a strong commitment in the fight against sunnis terrorists groups in both Syria and Iraq, including the Islamic State and The Al-Nusra Front (Al-Quaida) which have been deemed a serious threat for Western interests in the region.

Besides, Iran is providing support to African countries in their fight against Boko Haram.

''IRAN has announced plans to assist Nigeria in the fight against the Islamist group, Boko Haram as part of its contribution to global peace.The country’s Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Amir Hossein Abdollohian made the announcement while addressing the press on yesterday on the sideline of the ongoing 24th Assembly of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government in Addis Ababa. Abdollohian said the activities of the Boko Haram militants and that of Al-Shabaab in Somali were similar to that of Al-Qaeda and the ISIL and other terrorist groups in the Middle East.''

Source: http://www.nigeriano...ght-boko-haram/

True, but they also are providing support to Hamas and more importantly, Hizbullah. Face it samus, Iran is just doing the same old thing - except circumstances have benefitted them from their choice of enemies. When the Sunni Shia rift is sorted the west can look forward to BOTH attacking us with cheerful regularity.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

True, but they also are providing support to Hamas and more importantly, Hizbullah.

Hezbollah is no longer on that 'terror list' BTW. For the same reasons than Iran.

Face it samus, Iran is just doing the same old thing - except circumstances have benefitted them from their choice of enemies. When the Sunni Shia rift is sorted the west can look forward to BOTH attacking us with cheerful regularity.

I am not saying that Iran's interests will stop clashing with that of the US, though if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be settled and a nuclear deal agreed on, there may be no need for that to happen.

The thing is, apparantly there are several States in the M.E which have used proxies to carry out attacks, fuelled a conflict or support one side of a war in another country. Saudi Arabia and Quatar have funded sunnis extremist groups in Syria and there are evidence that the Israeli Mossad used the jundallha pakistani terror group against Iran. (See: http://www.haaretz.c...t-iran-1.407224)

It seems to me that there is dirt on all sides, and singling out Iran alone doesn't seem right to me.

Edited by samus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Does that mean Netanyahu is a dictator? He's been there for a while now.. :hmm:

Putin did a 8 year stint as Pres of Russia, and then 8 years later got re-elected, and served 3 so far.

Netanyahu did 3 years as Prime Minister of Israel, and then 10 years later got re-elected, and served 6 so far.

The difference is that Putin's party (which he controls almost totally) holds a majority of seats in the Russian legislature, so Putin controls what laws get enacted.

Netanyahu is the leader of a coalition, which barely holds together. A couple years ago when he wanted to make economic cost of living legislation, he was foiled by members of his coalition that disagreed with him. He's not in total control.

Netanyahu holds great political power, by way of being a good negotiator. He knows how to work people, but what he can't do is Order people around. His power isn't so great as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Hezbollah is no longer on that 'terror list' BTW. For the same reasons than Iran.

Seems to me this is political in nature and not because Hezbollah stopped shooting rockets into Israel. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. Hezbollah is fighting against ISIS, and probably as long as they turn towards those lunatics they'll be allowed to go about their business. But, when ISIS is destroyed and a memory, then dollars for donuts Hezbollah will go back on the terrorist lists. Wait and see. :gun: :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
Seems to me this is political in nature and not because Hezbollah stopped shooting rockets into Israel. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. Hezbollah is fighting against ISIS, and probably as long as they turn towards those lunatics they'll be allowed to go about their business. But, when ISIS is destroyed and a memory, then dollars for donuts Hezbollah will go back on the terrorist lists. Wait and see. :gun: :gun:

You're right, this very ''terror list'' is political in nature anyway. Otherwise we would find Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey, Kuwait; basically a few of our regional 'allies' on it for having sponsored the most barbaric group we have seen in recent years.

That being said, stripping off Iran (and Hezbollah) from that list is certainly meant as an acknowledgement, a nod to their usefulness in the fight against ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Quaida that is) in the Middle-East.

The way I see it, Iran is the reason why the West doesn't ground troops in Iraq (or Syria). With it's 20,000+ backed shi'a millitiamen, Iran has bolstered a crumbling Iraqi Army and made it much more efficient. Top generals of the Revolutionary Guard are on the ground advising and overseeing the battles against ISIS on the front lines and with the Iraqi governement.

The presence of the Hezbollah and Iranian forces in Syria has prevented ISIL from taking over the whole country and creating an 'Islamic State' in truth and not just in words. In light on their direct and sustained actions against all these terrorists groups, I think they fully deserved being taken off that list. Keep claiming that they are ''Terror Threats'' under the circumstances would be most ludicrous. What the future will hold, I cannot tell.

Edited by samus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

You're right, this very ''terror list'' is political in nature anyway. Otherwise we would find Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey, Kuwait; basically a few of our regional 'allies' on it for having sponsored the most barbaric group we have seen in recent years.

That being said, stripping off Iran (and Hezbollah) from that list is certainly meant as an acknowledgement, a nod to their usefulness in the fight against ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Quaida that is) in the Middle-East.

The way I see it, Iran is the reason why the West doesn't ground troops in Iraq (or Syria). With it's 20,000+ backed shi'a millitiamen, Iran has bolstered a crumbling Iraqi Army and made it much more efficient. Top generals of the Revolutionary Guard are on the ground advising and overseeing the battles against ISIS on the front lines and with the Iraqi governement.

The presence of the Hezbollah and Iranian forces in Syria has prevented ISIL from taking over the whole country and creating an 'Islamic State' in truth and not just in words. In light on their direct and sustained actions against all these terrorists groups, I think they fully deserved being taken off that list. Keep claiming that they are ''Terror Threats'' under the circumstances would be most ludicrous. What the future will hold, I cannot tell.

Iran is fighting ISIS because ISIS is in competition for the same pieces of property. Both are attempting to fill the vacuum that Obama caused by pulling out of Iraq. Iran is a Terrorist Exporting Nation. And don't forget what Bibi said..in the case of Iran and ISIS...the enemy of my enemy ..is my enemy!

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.