Obama throws Israel under the bus
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
Gentlemen, if I might use the term generously, it is not considered on this site to be good argumentation to liberally apply insults to other members as the core tenent of your position.
It is fine to strongly disagree and, within the confines of the Study, to put your points across with vigour. What is not fine is to malign and impugn the personality and character of your fellow posters in distinctly derogatory terms.
By all means disagree with the views that offend you but please do not extend that license into insulting and offending those with whom you disagree.
A certain amount of latitude is allowed in the Study because it is all too easy for 'heat' to build but a good rule of thumb is that if something would earn you a thump on the nose in the 3D world then it is best not to say it here in the Web where you are 'safe' from such physical consequences.
Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor
It is fine to strongly disagree and, within the confines of the Study, to put your points across with vigour. What is not fine is to malign and impugn the personality and character of your fellow posters in distinctly derogatory terms.
By all means disagree with the views that offend you but please do not extend that license into insulting and offending those with whom you disagree.
A certain amount of latitude is allowed in the Study because it is all too easy for 'heat' to build but a good rule of thumb is that if something would earn you a thump on the nose in the 3D world then it is best not to say it here in the Web where you are 'safe' from such physical consequences.
Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor
-Admin Notice-
Enough of the personal shots. Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.
See someone else breaking them?
Report it. That's this thing here:
Can't stand the other person? Then put the SOB on your 'ignore' list, or grow a thicker skin already.
Just because they disagree with you, isn't a rules violation.
Being a jackass is.
Back to the bloody original topic.
Enough of the personal shots. Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.
See someone else breaking them?
Report it. That's this thing here:
Can't stand the other person? Then put the SOB on your 'ignore' list, or grow a thicker skin already.
Just because they disagree with you, isn't a rules violation.
Being a jackass is.
Back to the bloody original topic.
Just hypotheticaly, lets pretend Obama, Knew this would happen, but by showing favor to the opposite position, he keeps them at the table to negotiate a Peace at a lesser cost to Israel. Just maybe...
Sean
the wisdom of Gene Simmons, of KISS fame. He says it well, so here he is...
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/h...-he-has-no-f-ing-idea-what-the-world-is-like/
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/h...-he-has-no-f-ing-idea-what-the-world-is-like/
Hugh Hewitt, practising attorney, law professor, author and radio host, interviews Mark Steyn, columnist to the world, and they discuss Obama's speech on the 67 border.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=9ef90326-5f62-4694-9b35-36def9d1642e
From the interview:
HH: I begin on this Thursday as I do when we are lucky with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn. You can read everything Mark writes at www.steynonline.com. Mark, a remarkable speech by the President today, your assessment?
MS: Well, at a certain level, it was filled with the usual narcissism. He said that America had failed to speak to the broader aspirations of people in the Middle East, and thats why two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement. I was interested to see the result of that. In 2008, which youll recall was the last year of the Bush, Texas cowboy terror, 83% of Arabs had a very or somewhat negative view of the United States. By 2010, which was the second year of the Obama broaden engagement approach, 85% had a very or somewhat negative view. So much for the outreach. The fact is that this narcissistic buffoon gave this speech that placed himself front and center of developments in the Middle East. And in fact, the United States, for the first time in 70 years, is utterly irrelevant to whats going on in the Middle East.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=9ef90326-5f62-4694-9b35-36def9d1642e
From the interview:
HH: I begin on this Thursday as I do when we are lucky with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn. You can read everything Mark writes at www.steynonline.com. Mark, a remarkable speech by the President today, your assessment?
MS: Well, at a certain level, it was filled with the usual narcissism. He said that America had failed to speak to the broader aspirations of people in the Middle East, and thats why two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement. I was interested to see the result of that. In 2008, which youll recall was the last year of the Bush, Texas cowboy terror, 83% of Arabs had a very or somewhat negative view of the United States. By 2010, which was the second year of the Obama broaden engagement approach, 85% had a very or somewhat negative view. So much for the outreach. The fact is that this narcissistic buffoon gave this speech that placed himself front and center of developments in the Middle East. And in fact, the United States, for the first time in 70 years, is utterly irrelevant to whats going on in the Middle East.
What's said for public consumption isn't always what is said in the actual negociations so we'll have to see what happens, I'm betting nothing.
Been away working, have to say Obama whatever his politics is a pleasant man, polite and his wife is much taller than I thought lol!
Been away working, have to say Obama whatever his politics is a pleasant man, polite and his wife is much taller than I thought lol!
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
I don't really want to debate the 'goodness' of the call for the '67 borders, but let it be shown for the historical record that it was Bush II's policy. And Clinton's. And Bush I's. And, although the two state solution started with Bush I, Reagan pushed for Israeli withdraw from occupied territory. And Carter. And, offically, Nixon, though he didn't try very hard. And one presumes Johnson, since the US voted for UN Resolution 262 under him.
So, that leaves just Ford that dropped the demand.
So, that leaves just Ford that dropped the demand.
It's a negociating point. When you want a raise you never start by saying what you will accept, the same as you don't advertise the price you'll accept for your car, you ask for more then it's bargained down so both of you get what you want. It won't happen as Obama well knows, he starts with that then the bargaining starts. Israel will get what it wants in the end as will Hamas who sadly will never be satisfied though and will soon start demanding more ie the total eradication of Israel and the Jewish people.
Blade96
Senior Master
true that
i don't give neg reps. If i don't like a post i might not respond, won't thank it, or just say i don't like it.
Don't they mean 1949 borders when they keep saying "1967 borders"? Israel's present borders were established in 1967, were they not? Before the 1967 borders I think they had 1949 borders.
I'm curious if it influences the consumer of the information in different ways depending on which date is being used and if that is why one descriptor is used for the borders over another.
I'm curious if it influences the consumer of the information in different ways depending on which date is being used and if that is why one descriptor is used for the borders over another.
I think pre Yomkipur....
I have to say that much as I disagree with what has happened to the Palestinian people (I always put up the question of how we would react if the same thing happened to us), the clock is not going to go back.
The Israelis have been through too much to ever just relinquish control of what they won through force of arms - and, realistically, why should they? Of course, the British Empire let go of territories when we were ready to do so (or agreements required it) but we weren't giving up the only place on Earth that we had that we could call 'home'.
I know one tank commander who would be able to give me that answer, or at least some insight into the question but sadly I haven't seen him since 1982 when he was recalled from the Economics degree course he was on with me to go and fight in the Lebanon
.
The Israelis have been through too much to ever just relinquish control of what they won through force of arms - and, realistically, why should they? Of course, the British Empire let go of territories when we were ready to do so (or agreements required it) but we weren't giving up the only place on Earth that we had that we could call 'home'.
I know one tank commander who would be able to give me that answer, or at least some insight into the question but sadly I haven't seen him since 1982 when he was recalled from the Economics degree course he was on with me to go and fight in the Lebanon
.
I have to say that much as I disagree with what has happened to the Palestinian people (I always put up the question of how we would react if the same thing happened to us), the clock is not going to go back.
The Israelis have been through too much to ever just relinquish control of what they won through force of arms - and, realistically, why should they? Of course, the British Empire let go of territories when we were ready to do so (or agreements required it) but we weren't giving up the only place on Earth that we had that we could call 'home'.
I know one tank commander who would be able to give me that answer, or at least some insight into the question but sadly I haven't seen him since 1982 when he was recalled from the Economics degree course he was on with me to go and fight in the Lebanon
Well what the Palestinians 'went through' is a matter of opinion, many gave up their homes in pre Israeli Independance days because the Arab leaders promised them the Jews would be pushed into the sea and they could take their homes and land.A lot of islreali land was purchesed from Arabs who didn't want the arid useless desert little realising the Israelis would irrigate it.
Palestine never belonged to the Palestinians, it was owned by the British practically right up to Israeli Independance!
I can't imagine the Palestinians were happy about that either?
Sean
I doubt it! Though I think they preferred it to the previous 'owners' the Turks, known for their cruelty. In fact most of the problems we currently have in the Middle East can be dated back to the carve up of land there by the Allies after the First World War.
