Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, May 8, 2015.
This is very scary. Jeb learned nothing from his brother's mistakes.
Conservatives don't like him and he is hurting his self with liberal. A man with no country.
It would be a good move. W. always treated the Israel like an ally.
Obama has always treated them like the enemy and broke the law by using US money to try to engineer a change in leadership.
We need an ally in that part of the world. Israel is the only democratic style government available. We're natural allies. That doesn't mean we get to run their government, like Obama thinks.
It would be an awful move, unless you're steeped in the neocon interventionist philosophy.
"Jeb Bush was a signatory of the neoconservative, The Project for the New American Century “Statement of Principles”...."
"...The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership". The organization advocated the view that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity", referring to Ronald Reagan...."
Jeb Bush is every whit a neocon, trying to pass himself off as not one.
Turnabout is fair play, Netanyahu first attempted to undermine Obama. What goes around comes around.
Sheesh, you kinda got the cart before the horse, don't you?
Arabs hate U.S. because of U.S. unconditional support of Israel
That was the finding of the 911 Commission! Can you believe that?
Quite the opposite. Israel has incredible influence over our government through AIPAC alone.
AGREE! The thought of another Bush turns my stomach. I'd probably vote for Hillary before I would him.
Anybody friendly to Israel would not be acceptable to you. We both know it.
And I couldn't care less what the Arabs think.
Anybody that doesn't put Israel first would not be acceptable to you. We both know it.
Ahead of the Arabs. Absolutely!
Anti-Semite you are.
You betchya, I am an interventionist. If I see someone on the street being attacked and in need of assistance I will help. If we see someone being attacked anywhere in the world we should be a willing hand.
That said, right now we do not have the money to be out and about.
...and it's stupidity such as this is why we have them as enemies. Send more drones, keep bombing them until they submit to being friends with the U.S. and recognize Israel. If it doesn't work, then bomb them even more.
What a profound epiphany!!
He that passeth by, and vexeth himself with strife belonging not to him, Is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. Prov 26:17
Luk 10:29 But the man wanted to show that he knew what he was talking about. So he asked Jesus, "Who are my neighbors?"
Luk 10:30 Jesus replied: As a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, robbers attacked him and grabbed everything he had. They beat him up and ran off, leaving him half dead.
Luk 10:31 A priest happened to be going down the same road. But when he saw the man, he walked by on the other side.
Luk 10:32 Later a temple helper came to the same place. But when he saw the man who had been beaten up, he also went by on the other side.
Luk 10:33 A man from Samaria then came traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he felt sorry for him
Luk 10:34 and went over to him. He treated his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put him on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.
Luk 10:35 The next morning he gave the innkeeper two silver coins and said, "Please take care of the man. If you spend more than this on him, I will pay you when I return."
Luk 10:36 Then Jesus asked, "Which one of these three people was a real neighbor to the man who was beaten up by robbers?"
Luk 10:37 The teacher answered, "The one who showed pity." Jesus said, "Go and do the same!"
So who exactly was it that this good Samaritan was dropping bombs on and killing in order to prove himself to be a good neighbor?
The who is the person attack the other in the first place.
So the good Samaritan attacked the aggressor?
Ok I see your point, knitpicking as it is, rather than talk past each other lets just get to the root issue. You seem to see any aggression as bad, evil, morally wrong.
I do not. Such aggression, ie bombing, is justified in defense of others. That is helping someone who cannot help themselves.
So if I have correctly discerned your position we will either have to agree to disagree or discuss the value of "aggression" in defense of others.
Knit picking? The humongous consequences of committing our nation and our children to war is trivial to you?
Ok knitpicking what I said has nothing to do with that commitment. I see you ignored the rest of what I said. If you want to have a discussion I am all for that. If you want to use poor debate tactics to work to slam someone you disagree with this conversation is over. I have been civil to you. I expect that in return. It is your choice.