RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 9:58:45 PM)
So, you are saying I am clueless, please enlighten me...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania So, you are saying I am clueless, please enlighten me... Read TH's response. It says the same thing.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:05:31 PM)
(Great. Now you get my post right on the first read... [8\|] )

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:11:00 PM)
You both claim I am ignorant of some fact or other that makes my opinions or assessments wrong. I would sincerely like more information from with which to inform an opinion on the subject. Unlike both of you, I am not a ME expert. I have tried to keep abreast of what happens in the region, but alas, I have other things that grab my attention... So, if you have decided you would rather just keep your information to yourself, that's all good, but until you produce something of substance, I will stick to what I have learned about the topic thus far.... from people who are experts, and people I have went and listened to in real life... not internet links of Fox New pundits

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You both claim I am ignorant of some fact or other that makes my opinions or assessments wrong. Where did I make such a claim, Julia? I have expressed my opinion, and sought to clarify my understanding of yours. I have pointed out that your question about direct responsibilty for hypothetical future violent attacks is irrelevant, because the final responsibility to keep the hypothetical treaty lies with the government. Nope. Didn't claim you were ignorant anywhere in there.

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You both claim I am ignorant of some fact or other that makes my opinions or assessments wrong. Where did I make such a claim, Julia? I have expressed my opinion, and sought to clarify my understanding of yours. I have pointed out that your question about direct responsibilty for hypothetical future violent attacks is irrelevant, because the final responsibility to keep the hypothetical treaty lies with the government. Nope. Didn't claim you were ignorant anywhere in there. I thought this comment Was agreeing with Will, in the context of the thread. quote: (Great. Now you get my post right on the first read... ) I was asking you to clarify because I do not think you go to war because private citizens of a country decide to go to the country next door and cause trouble. It is irrational to approach any sort of international relationship this way. For example, we have a war on drugs, should we invade Mexico because they have citizens coming here and aiding in the drug epidemic? Until peace has been established for at least a few decades there will be renegades who try to instigate conflict. That would be giving entirely too much power to these little pittling factions who will never be satisfied with any treaty. I do not agree with collective punishments, either, mind you. I think they are immoral, and they go against my sense of right and wrong as an American. We punish wrong doers in this country, not their families. There are situations that would cause me to support Israel... although that does not necessarily translate into military support. There are many countries that may have my moral support, but it is not in the interests of the United States to give military support to every country we know has valid grievances.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:46:46 PM)
Didn't notice it was in parentheses? It's not all about you, Julia. Nope. The new Palestine is responsible for any and all attacks against what is left of Israel from day one. They sign the deal, and get the land, they must keep that bargain. If that means they have to be bigger bastards than the Israelis ever were to make it happen, so mote it be. Have a nice night.

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 10:58:11 PM)
Then you are not really for peace, you are for peace made by annihilation. I think that is wrong, and as an American I do not think it is in the best interest of my government or my people to go along with that. It is destined to fail much the same way that Ireland's problem with the IRA was destined to continue. There is no peace to be had with Israels neighbors by supporting this scheme of just waiting with baited breath for some half assed lunatic fringe to fuck it up for everybody. That is not the humane way of doing business... but beyond all of that, what you seem to fail to realize is that Israel may soon be surrounded with burgeoning new democracies... and their importance to us as a stablizer in the region will be a thing of the past. That is sometimes the way the cookie crumbles... but think about all of the money we will save if this happens, though! Think of how much better it will be when we quit policing the world. It even gives me hope that the war on terror might be a thing of the past... never know

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 11:13:34 PM)
And btw, Oboy does this without the authorization of Congress, despite an OVERWHELMING resolution passed by a Democratically controlled Congress, affirming that returning to the pre-67 borders was untenable to the survival of Israel . He persistent use of "WE" in todays speech is particularly offensive as a result.

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 11:29:10 PM)
quote: He persistent use of "WE" in todays speech is particularly offensive as a result. Who found it offensive? Just out of curiosity I wanted to know who these offended congress people are... Perhaps there are discussions with members of congress you know nothing about, you think this is possible? And I do not recall you getting bent out of shape when Bush spoke up about Israel/Palestinian problems....If I am not mistaken, Obama's position was not all that different than Bush's

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 11:31:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And btw, Oboy does this without the authorization of Congress, despite an OVERWHELMING resolution passed by a Democratically controlled Congress, affirming that returning to the pre-67 borders was untenable to the survival of Israel . He persistent use of "WE" in todays speech is particularly offensive as a result. Now really Wilbur ...... You are, I assume, an American citizen. You have no problem insulting your President or any one on the other side of politics to you. And here you go wrapping yourself in moral outrage and jumping to the defence of a foreign country merely because your President has the temerity to tell them to obey international law, the UN and the wishes of the rest of the world, and take some serious steps towards resolving a 60 year old conflict! Are you sure you are living in the right country?

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 11:39:33 PM)
Interesting article that undercuts Wills Assertions about the Congress.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 11:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Interesting article that undercuts Wills Assertions about the Congress. Please stop embarassing yourself and the Golden State. 1. Media matters??????? LMAO 2. It doesnt undercut anything I said. 3. Here is the pertinent part of the resolution, passed with something like 19 no votes in the and 3 in the Senate. "Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities;"

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 12:47:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Then you are not really for peace, you are for peace made by annihilation. I think that is wrong, and as an American I do not think it is in the best interest of my government or my people to go along with that. [.....] what you seem to fail to realize is that Israel may soon be surrounded with burgeoning new democracies... and their importance to us as a stablizer in the region will be a thing of the past. You may not have seen his post julia (it was c 3 months ago), but Wilbur is on the record as stating that there is no non-military solution to the ME conflict. I'll leave you to imagine how many millions of dead Palestinians and Arabs that involves .......

isoLadyOwner -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 1:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html WASHINGTON — Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama for the first time on Thursday publicly called for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a non-militarized Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s borders before the 1967 war that led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. NO! No fucking way! They lost the war. This is what happens. You loose land. Israel has tried peace agreements. What happened? Their kids get blown up on buses. This is ridiculous. Give Pakistan back to India first. They have a choice as far as I see it, either they give full citizenship to all the Palestinians under their control and stop their apartheid state, or they give them their own yard and let them self determine their own life... they cannot play it both ways forever. Either they are a democracy, or they are not, and by democracy I mean a place where people have equal rights under the law no matter who their mother is. Israel can also choose to ignore those choices and continue doing business as usual while thumbing their collective noses at an incompetent US President who backs his words up with lies, hypocrisy, and Orwellian newspeak.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 1:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Then you are not really for peace, you are for peace made by annihilation. I think that is wrong, and as an American I do not think it is in the best interest of my government or my people to go along with that. [.....] what you seem to fail to realize is that Israel may soon be surrounded with burgeoning new democracies... and their importance to us as a stablizer in the region will be a thing of the past. You may not have seen his post julia (it was c 3 months ago), but Wilbur is on the record as stating that there is no non-military solution to the ME conflict. I'll leave you to imagine how many millions of dead Palestinians and Arabs that involves ....... ' I hope you arent under the misapprehension that todays speech advanced the cause of peace. It set back the peace process at least 20 years. Ill leave you to hallucinate that there is a non-military solution, ESPECIALLY after today.

farglebargle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 3:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html WASHINGTON — Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama for the first time on Thursday publicly called for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a non-militarized Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s borders before the 1967 war that led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. NO! No fucking way! They lost the war. This is what happens. You loose land. Israel has tried peace agreements. What happened? Their kids get blown up on buses. This is ridiculous. Give Pakistan back to India first. They have a choice as far as I see it, either they give full citizenship to all the Palestinians under their control and stop their apartheid state, or they give them their own yard and let them self determine their own life... they cannot play it both ways forever. Either they are a democracy, or they are not, and by democracy I mean a place where people have equal rights under the law no matter who their mother is. See also: "Consent of the Governed"

farglebargle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 3:35:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Interesting article that undercuts Wills Assertions about the Congress. Please stop embarassing yourself and the Golden State. 1. Media matters??????? LMAO 2. It doesnt undercut anything I said. 3. Here is the pertinent part of the resolution, passed with something like 19 no votes in the and 3 in the Senate. "Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities;" If Congress really cared, they would have passed a law, instead of this resolution. You know, like when they passed that legislation to prevent Obama from using any money to close GITMO?

farglebargle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 3:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Are you talking the government of Palestine, or some smaller group of terrorists? And what sort of "support" are you speaking of, moral or military? If terrorists are operating within the jurisdiction of a hypothetical peaceful Palestinian government, Julia, does it matter? Keeping the peace is their problem. Does it matter if they are malevolent, or simply incompetent? And I mean support the way you do the Palestinians now, or would in a war. If keeping the peace is the responsibility of the government in control of the jurisdiction, why did Israeli Government abandon a million and a half civilians to the control of a gang of terrorist criminals in Gaza. It was in their control, and they didn't keep the peace. You can understand some of the frustration felt with that in mind. How would you like it if your local po-lice pulled out and left you at the mercy of the Bloods who were then treated like a LEGITIMATE SOVEREIGN STATE! See also: The democratic principle "Consent of the Governed"

flcouple2009 -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 6:07:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner Israel can also choose to ignore those choices and continue doing business as usual while thumbing their collective noses at an incompetent US President who backs his words up with lies, hypocrisy, and Orwellian newspeak. Cause that has worked so wonderfully

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875