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 (5/20/2011 6:10:45 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;"




You know, they actually had quotes with citations on that website, did you just dismiss it because the name on the marque? I am constantly reading from conservative posters that I should read, then dismiss their drivel... which is uncited for the most part.

Media Matters is a group that takes citing very seriously... that is the entire reason they exist, after all.



mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 7:18:14 AM)

quote:


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.




quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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;"




You know, they actually had quotes with citations on that website, did you just dismiss it because the name on the marque? I am constantly reading from conservative posters that I should read, then dismiss their drivel... which is uncited for the most part.

Media Matters is a group that takes citing very seriously... that is the entire reason they exist, after all.



The really great news about this fellow posting these positions is you know that you can take the opposite as the truth.

The 2003-2004 house and senate were republican majorities, and this resolution is in june of 2004.

This congress is no longer in session, so a resolution passed some time ago, also passed into history with that congress and really doesn't have much bearing on today.
  • Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat rejects statements by President of the United States George W. Bush stating that Israel would be allowed to keep some West Bank Israeli population centers. 

  • United States President George W. Bush endorses Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposed withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and states that Palestinian refugees should return to a new Palestinian state, not to Israel. Bush says it is unrealistic to expect "full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

  • In an open letter to Tony Blair, 52 former high ranking British diplomats, including former ambassadors to Iraq and Israel, condemn the Prime Minister's foreign policy stance in the Middle East as "doomed to failure" and also condemn George W. Bush's recent endorsement of Ariel Sharon's offer to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip while leaving some in the West Bank as "one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood

  •  Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, reacting to the United States President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon summit, states Palestinian will never give up their struggle for an independent homeland, never abandon the claims of their refugees, nor make more territorial concessions. He states that Jerusalem will be its capital. Sharon, who wants to withdraw Israel from the Gaza Strip, faces opposition to his withdrawal plan.

    And these are the halcyon days of the Iraq invasion, and Abu Grahib debaucle is at its phoenix in terms of execution and the unconsionable imperialistic destabilization of the middle east is proceeding apace at a bobsled straight to hell speed, AND WE KNOW HOW THATS TURNING OUT..
  •  
  • And Israel is a little shakey about the thing, and so we write em a get well letter, and WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

    Benny is offering nothing, Palestine is getting nothing, and something is going to have to give there sooner or later.




    • willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 7:52:59 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: farglebargle


    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?





    I see. So the US can unilaterally pass a law declaring what a sovereign nations borders are. Cool, I will vote for anybody who supports annexing Alberta by fiat.



    juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:07:22 AM)

    quote:

    United States President George W. Bush endorses Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposed withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and states that Palestinian refugees should return to a new Palestinian state, not to Israel. Bush says it is unrealistic to expect "full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."


    I remember this distinctly... those settlers were none too happy about it, and I remember Bush taking flack for it.





    mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:12:10 AM)

    Yeah the realities are alot different than the smarmy shit the rabid right is peddling.



    Musicmystery -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:14:32 AM)

    quote:

    I will vote for anybody who supports annexing Alberta by fiat.


    Not that different from what we did with formerly Mexican territory.



    mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:17:04 AM)

    That does not however tell the whole truth, since there were some minor dust ups before that deal was done, but I think we could consider Alberta as falling under the  Henny Youngman doctrine.



    willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:40:01 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

    quote:

    I will vote for anybody who supports annexing Alberta by fiat.


    Not that different from what we did with formerly Mexican territory.


    We just legislated it? Please, don't destroy my childhood fascination with the Alamo.



    Brain -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:44:26 AM)

    Many countries think what Obama said was reasonable. No compromise by both sides means no peace.


    EU nations back Obama's decision to favour 1967 borders as basis for Mideast settlement

    Britain, Germany and France led the praise for Obama's call to base a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, from before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. "I also support what the president said regarding unilateral measures, no matter from which side," she added.

    Merkel also criticized Israel's refusal to freeze the construction of settlements on land occupied since 1967, despite widespread outside pressure. "Neither settlement construction nor unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state really move the Middle East peace process forward," she said.

    The European Union said the principles put forward by Obama had already been backed by the 27-nation EU for some time.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/eu-foreign-policy-chief-supports-obama-using-1967-111548796.html;_ylt=AmweFubVdguVcx8zjUTR.tAWssB_;_ylu=X3oDMTM5ZjJlNjQ5BHBrZwNhMDY3OTk2My0xYjJkLTNmMTUtYWU2Yi1mMWVhMzIxODc4N2EEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhVG9wU3RvcnkEdmVyAzQzYWJjN2YwLTgyZjMtMTFlMC1hYmNkLTUwZjFhMzRkMzNiOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFjNjVhOWUzBGludGwDY2EEbGFuZwNlbi1jYQRwc3RhaWQDBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3




    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.




    willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:52:43 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Brain

    Many countries think what Obama said was reasonable. No compromise by both sides means no peace.


    EU nations back Obama's decision to favour 1967 borders as basis for Mideast settlement

    Britain, Germany and France led the praise for Obama's call to base a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, from before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. "I also support what the president said regarding unilateral measures, no matter from which side," she added.

    Merkel also criticized Israel's refusal to freeze the construction of settlements on land occupied since 1967, despite widespread outside pressure. "Neither settlement construction nor unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state really move the Middle East peace process forward," she said.

    The European Union said the principles put forward by Obama had already been backed by the 27-nation EU for some time.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/eu-foreign-policy-chief-supports-obama-using-1967-111548796.html;_ylt=AmweFubVdguVcx8zjUTR.tAWssB_;_ylu=X3oDMTM5ZjJlNjQ5BHBrZwNhMDY3OTk2My0xYjJkLTNmMTUtYWU2Yi1mMWVhMzIxODc4N2EEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhVG9wU3RvcnkEdmVyAzQzYWJjN2YwLTgyZjMtMTFlMC1hYmNkLTUwZjFhMzRkMzNiOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFjNjVhOWUzBGludGwDY2EEbGFuZwNlbi1jYQRwc3RhaWQDBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3




    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.




    ROFL. What did you expect from the EU? Cant wait to see how they try to whitewash his speech in 10 minutes or so.



    mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:58:29 AM)

    Well, voice whining in the wilderness, 50 million frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?



    Musicmystery -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 9:20:02 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

    quote:

    I will vote for anybody who supports annexing Alberta by fiat.


    Not that different from what we did with formerly Mexican territory.


    We just legislated it? Please, don't destroy my childhood fascination with the Alamo.

    More like we moved in, grew cotton, built homes, and decided that maybe we should just own it.



    cuckoldmepls -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 9:25:59 AM)

    It's not hard to figure out Obama. He is obviously pro Islam, anti American, anti Christian, and anti Jewish. What you have to do is look at how he voted, and what he said before he was President. Every decision he makes now is based on political strategy and will determine whether he gets reelected or not. His actions before he was on the radar screen are what determines what he is all about.

    To begin with, he never supported the war on terrorism as a Senator, and he refused to vote for or support for any military action in Afghanistan. That's a fact. Now, that the opportunity presented himself to get Osama, he made the decision based on political ramifications. If he had not made the attempt, and it was leaked out before the next election he would have instantly lost the election. He had no choice.

    You can also imagine him as President during the Iranian revolution. He would have instantly embraced an Islamic revolution and branded it as self determination. All these revolutions will result in Islamic theocracies, which will endanger the middle east.

    His anti Israel stance has emboldened the enemies of Israel. If we don't already have a treaty to defend Israel, the next President should sign one. This is the only way to ensure peace in the Middle East. It's the same MAD doctrine that successfully prevented a cold war nuclear holocaust. Any nation, especially Iran should be aware that any attack on Israel will be an attack on America, and our response will not be a limited one.

    As far as Israel withdrawing to the pre 1967 borders this is insane. This would be like Mexico attacking us, we kick their ass and take over half their country using about a 100 miles of their soil as a buffer in case they ever try something that stupid again, and then they want it back. When you attack or invade another country and you lose, there has to be consequences, and losing land is usually the largest consequence.



    mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 10:31:59 AM)

    Every decision he makes now is based on political strategy.




    It might surprise you that he holds a political office, and here at home, as well as abroad there is this thing called realpolitik that every countries brand of strategy is based upon, so he's hitting on all cylinders on that minor point.




    You can also imagine him as President during the Iranian revolution. He would have instantly embraced an Islamic revolution and branded it as self determination.



    Since they toppled our puppet shah off the throne in that revolution, I would find it very hard for even Stalin to call it other than self determination.

    Please stop posting, you are just making it easy for our side, with this foolishness.  We enjoy a challenge and it is so very boring with you bending over and letting us grape you like this.



    willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 10:35:57 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

    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;"




    You know, they actually had quotes with citations on that website, did you just dismiss it because the name on the marque? I am constantly reading from conservative posters that I should read, then dismiss their drivel... which is uncited for the most part.

    Media Matters is a group that takes citing very seriously... that is the entire reason they exist, after all.



    Where do you think I got the quote? Left wing spin to feed those that cant think for themselves is the entire reason they exist, after all.



    willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 11:27:45 AM)

    ROFL!!! Bibi takes the recalcitrant child to the woodshed! He totally embarassed and angered Oblowboy and schooled him on the realities of the ME. All the clown-in-Chief could do was sit there and glare and shift in his seat, hoping the bell rang soon so he could get out of class.

    [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]



    mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 11:33:25 AM)

    Yup. whatever this fellow says the opposite is true.  hes peddling again.

    So, Obama walks out of a meeting with Bennie and goes off to dinner when he finds it a waste of time.  LOL.



    Marc2b -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 12:36:13 PM)

    quote:

    Okay then. What land did you loose when you were kicked out of Cuba? (The mob rather than the State owned that one, so Cuba doesn't really count.)


    Well, if Cuba doesn't count, then Cuba doesn't count. But then, I wasn't defending Aylee's contention... I was merely correcting your misconstruing of the War of 1812 (a back and forth, slapdash affiar that didn't really resolve anything).




    tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 6:34:33 PM)

    In terms of solutions, there are three options in the ME:

    (a) a one State solution; No State or significant stakeholder supports this;
    (b) a two-State solution; Every State in the world supports this except Israel;
    (c) more of the status quo; No one wants this though Israel is apparently happy with it.

    By now, it ought to be clear to a blind person that (b) is the way to go. Obama merely re-stated the position of the entire world bar Israel - that the 1967 border lines are the basis of a future Palestinian State. Israel opposes this because it means giving up its illegal colonies in the West Bank.

    Despite all the obfuscations of the "Israel can do no wrong" outfit, the underlying situation is reasonably clear. And the main obstacle to peace is crystal clear - Israel's theft of the West Bank. The fastest way to force Israel to negotiating a just peace is for the US to threaten to abandon Israel unless it withdraws to its legitimate pre-1967 borders and ceases its illegal colonisation of the West Bank forthwith.

    There is no reason for the US taxpayer to continue funding and arming Israel's criminal behaviour. There is nothing positive in it for the US taxpayer. There are a lot of serious negatives in continuing to fund and support Israeli criminality.



    farglebargle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 7:17:19 PM)

    The problem here is that if the Israeli Government doesn't get it's ass in gear, they're gonna end up with a vote in the general assembly for the recognition of a sovereign palestinian state of 187 or 188 to 1 or 2, depending on how US opinion pans out.




    Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625