[Voltaire144]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Me too ! among other things .
I am curious , what exactly do you disagree with Obama over ----regarding his policy toward Israel ?. He is very supportive of Israel - perhaps too much so in your opinion ?. >f

I'm not a fan of Israel in general. I believe that it is important for Jews to be able to live peacefully, but Israel needs to change how it treats its Palestinian citizens. The Israeli government is far too zealous about defending itself. I'm not defending how the Palestinians act; many of them are similarly militant.

Obama seems to have only lukewarm intentions with Palestine. I doubt he's going to pressure Israel enough to have lasting effects on Palestine. He's certainly doing better than Bush, though.

I applaud Obama for wanting better relations with Iran. But, if he's going to continue to support Israel, our relations in the Middle East won't improve much. Obama could change how the rest of the world looks at the US, and I know he could do the same with the Middle East, but only if he really changes the American policy towards Israel.

[DotHQ]

Originally Posted by NICK G

We've been screwed, blued and tattooed for the last 8 years anyway so how could it
possibly get any worse? Scratch that as I'm sure McCain will think of something if he
does slither in. McCain "doesn't really understand economics" but he can rely on the
advice of Phil Gramm. That pair has been so good together anyway.

I'm afraid it can get worse, If Obama pulls out of Iraq 6 months after being elected what do you think will happen?
A huge shift of power in the middle east, even higher oil prices, loss of face for the US. Do you think we would really be respected more as a leader / powerful nation? I don't.

But, I don't believe Obama would do what he said and pull out that soon. He might cut back to say he kept his election promise, but he will not pull all of our troops out of Iraq. It's all retoric, much like GW has done to us for so long.
Would Obama change / get rid of the Patriot act? Would he take down one of GW's biggest blunders of all Homeland Security? If so he must be keeping it secret .....at least I've heard no mention of it.
I had hopes that debates would give us all a better look at both candidates and how they respond under pressure. But debates nowadays are far from a real debate between the two parties. It is more political positioning. They never actually argue. Duh, that is what a debate is all about.
I seriously believe Obama is far to liberal, and naive for our top spot. If he is elected I fear many will wish for Dubya back in the WH. I don't think he is the right man for the crucial times we have ahead. McCain is slightly more ready, but not much. McCain's VP choice is critical to his campaign. As old as he is, there is a higher percentage that his VP will end up being president at some point during his term.
While I agree with all who say our choices are not good, we have to suck it up and look at both closely and choose who we belive will do the best job for our nation and get the mess that GW leaves straightened out. Agreed, that will take multiple terms and multiple presidents to clean up after Dubya.

Currently we are tied at 10 voltes for Obama and 10 for McCain. I'm surprised not more members have voted.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Voltaire144

I'm not a fan of Israel in general. I believe that it is important for Jews to be able to live peacefully, but Israel needs to change how it treats its Palestinian citizens. The Israeli government is far too zealous about defending itself. I'm not defending how the Palestinians act; many of them are similarly militant.

You're kidding, right?

Obama seems to have only lukewarm intentions with Palestine. I doubt he's going to pressure Israel enough to have lasting effects on Palestine. He's certainly doing better than Bush, though.

OK, you must be a minor, because you haven't a clue about the history of the conflict.

I applaud Obama for wanting better relations with Iran. But, if he's going to continue to support Israel, our relations in the Middle East won't improve much. Obama could change how the rest of the world looks at the US, and I know he could do the same with the Middle East, but only if he really changes the American policy towards Israel.

How would you change US policy toward Israel?
Would you invite Israel's neighbors to invade ... AGAIN?

Duh!

[Voltaire144]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

OK, you must be a minor, because you haven't a clue about the history of the conflict.

I am a minor, but I do know the story of the conflict. Rome decides that it will no longer tolerate Judaism, and attacks Jerusalem and exiles its citizens. Years later, Palestinians migrate to that territory and call it home. The Ottoman Empire takes over, then weakens. During WWI, Britain and France create the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which would divide the Ottoman Empire into mandates/protectorates split between Britain and France. Israel/Palestine would be one of those protectorates. In reaction to antisemitism, more Zionists move to Palestine. The Palestinians react angrily. The 1947 partition plan forced Palestinians out of territory they had occupied for generations. Shortly after the UN is formed, it forms the state of Israel. In reaction, five countries attacked Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Israel defended itself. In 1968, Egypt closed the Suez Canal. In response, Israel bombed several Egyptian airfields, starting the Six Day War. Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Sinai peninsula. In 1987, Palestinians tried to revolt against Israel; Israel responded a bit too aggressively.

I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel simply takes a far too enthusiastic stance about defending itself. Razing Palestinian apartment buildings and launching indiscriminate air strikes at possible terrorists is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

How would you change US policy toward Israel?
Would you invite Israel's neighbors to invade ... AGAIN?
Duh!

I'd dramatically reduce funding towards Israel. But I'd also reduce funding of other Middle Eastern countries. Israel doesn't need American help to defend itself. Look at the Six Day War or the 1948 War. Besides, do you really think that any country would risk attacking Israel? Other countries might not approve of Israel, but no country would be daft enough to attack Israel.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Voltaire144

I am a minor, but I do know the story of the conflict. Rome decides that it will no longer tolerate Judaism, and attacks Jerusalem and exiles its citizens. Years later, Palestinians migrate to that territory and call it home. The Ottoman Empire takes over, then weakens. During WWI, Britain and France create the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which would divide the Ottoman Empire into mandates/protectorates split between Britain and France. Israel/Palestine would be one of those protectorates. In reaction to antisemitism, more Zionists move to Palestine. The Palestinians react angrily. The 1947 partition plan forced Palestinians out of territory they had occupied for generations. Shortly after the UN is formed, it forms the state of Israel. In reaction, five countries attacked Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Israel defended itself. In 1968, Egypt closed the Suez Canal. In response, Israel bombed several Egyptian airfields, starting the Six Day War. Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Sinai peninsula. In 1987, Palestinians tried to revolt against Israel; Israel responded a bit too aggressively.

Too aggressively? If it were your child's schoolyard that was receiving explosive tipped missiles daily, how would you respond?
Your historical recount is impressive, though you left out some key details, such as the Balfour Agreement. And the deliberate murder of civilians by the Palestinian government aparatus.

[quote]I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel simply takes a far too enthusiastic stance about defending itself. Razing Palestinian apartment buildings and launching indiscriminate air strikes at possible terrorists is unacceptable.

Israeli air strikes generally nail exactly who they are aimed at. On the few occasions where their intel was in error, they have formally apologized. It is not Israel's fault that the terrorists hide behind seemingly willing innocents while they fire their weapons into Israel.

I'd dramatically reduce funding towards Israel. But I'd also reduce funding of other Middle Eastern countries. Israel doesn't need American help to defend itself. Look at the Six Day War or the 1948 War. Besides, do you really think that any country would risk attacking Israel? Other countries might not approve of Israel, but no country would be daft enough to attack Israel.

You have an extremely short memory, even for a minor. Lebanon attacked Israel a mere 2 years ago. Granted, they got smacked for it, but it still happened.

A picture of the very "daft" kind of individual who would do just that.


I would not decrease defense aid to Israel by a single cent. If anything I would increase it.
Israel was a wasteland for a thousand years before it was returned to the Jews. Now it is a blossoming flower, producing 1/4th of the vegetables in all of Europe.

[Voltaire144]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Too aggressively? If it were your child's schoolyard that was receiving explosive tipped missiles daily, how would you respond?

I'd respond through trying to get moles in the insurgent group and try to prevent attacks and incapacitate the organization in the least violent way possible. That strategy may take longer, but it would ultimately be safer.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Israeli air strikes generally nail exactly who they are aimed at. On the few occasions where their intel was in error, they have formally apologized. It is not Israel's fault that the terrorists hide behind seemingly willing innocents while they fire their weapons into Israel.



You have an extremely short memory, even for a minor. Lebanon attacked Israel a mere 2 years ago. Granted, they got smacked for it, but it still happened.

The attackers were Hezbollah extremists, not the actual Lebanese military. Hezbollah is insane enough to attack Israel. No independent state would risk attacking Israel.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I would not decrease defense aid to Israel by a single cent. If anything I would increase it.
Israel was a wasteland for a thousand years before it was returned to the Jews. Now it is a blossoming flower, producing 1/4th of the vegetables in all of Europe.

Is the dramatic agricultural growth directly because of Israel or because of Western support?

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by Voltaire144

I am a minor, but I do know the story of the conflict. Rome decides that it will no longer tolerate Judaism, and attacks Jerusalem and exiles its citizens. Years later, Palestinians migrate to that territory and call it home. The Ottoman Empire takes over, then weakens. During WWI, Britain and France create the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which would divide the Ottoman Empire into mandates/protectorates split between Britain and France. Israel/Palestine would be one of those protectorates. In reaction to antisemitism, more Zionists move to Palestine. The Palestinians react angrily. The 1947 partition plan forced Palestinians out of territory they had occupied for generations. Shortly after the UN is formed, it forms the state of Israel. In reaction, five countries attacked Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Israel defended itself. In 1968, Egypt closed the Suez Canal. In response, Israel bombed several Egyptian airfields, starting the Six Day War. Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Sinai peninsula. In 1987, Palestinians tried to revolt against Israel; Israel responded a bit too aggressively.

I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel simply takes a far too enthusiastic stance about defending itself. Razing Palestinian apartment buildings and launching indiscriminate air strikes at possible terrorists is unacceptable.



I'd dramatically reduce funding towards Israel. But I'd also reduce funding of other Middle Eastern countries. Israel doesn't need American help to defend itself. Look at the Six Day War or the 1948 War. Besides, do you really think that any country would risk attacking Israel? Other countries might not approve of Israel, but no country would be daft enough to attack Israel.

To make things simple , when Israeli was created {post WW-2}, it caused hostility for many reasons , too many to post.
It would be nice if the west, and others , stopped arming everyone in the region , but that will not happen . Money to be made , and other agendas. . Now , the region is a total mess and getting worse by the year.
Hopefully new leadership will do something better than has been done in past , but that remains to be seen.
Obama will support Israel as it has been in the past , no change there , but on the diplomatic front ? who knows . Military aid , and the welfare checks will continue .
Keep in mind , much is said about Israel creating the turmoil , but look at us !. We occupy more of Islam than Israel , and with ......less excuse or reason . The results are entirely predictable .
Meddling in the ME {militarly } has always created problems , and always will .
It can't work any other way .
At any rate , all U.S. Presidential hopefuls support Israel . >f

[NICK G]

Currently we are tied at 10 voltes for Obama and 10 for McCain. I'm surprised not more members have voted.

I'm surprised more haven't joined my "other" vote.

Meddling in the ME {militarly } has always created problems , and always will .

The ME will continue to be the ME with or without ours/anyone's military presence.
The U.S. is a bigger supplier of arms than all other countries put together.
The arms we supply/sell today are used against us tomorrow. Been that way and will not change.
The tensions in the Middle East have been in existence a lot longer than the United States
has been a superpower.
Israel can take care of itself. Isn't anyone tired of being a world police state?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Voltaire144

I'd respond through trying to get moles in the insurgent group and try to prevent attacks and incapacitate the organization in the least violent way possible. That strategy may take longer, but it would ultimately be safer.

Safer for whom?
The innocent Israeli citizens getting deliberately targeted? -or- the willing human shields of the terrorists who happen to be hanging with the nasties?

The attackers were Hezbollah extremists, not the actual Lebanese military. Hezbollah is insane enough to attack Israel. No independent state would risk attacking Israel.

Israel is attacked daily.

Is the dramatic agricultural growth directly because of Israel or because of Western support?

Count the Israeli Nobel prizes. That should hint at the answer to your question.

[NICK G]

Someone please clue me in on this...
The U.S. has a huge deficit.
We borrow money and pay a lot of interest.
We give Israel about $3 Billion a year (not a loan) and they really don't need it as they
are among the top 25 countries in GDP per capita.
The U.S. is on the verge of/or actually in a recession.
Should this policy be continued? We don't need Israel intelligence as we are smack
in the Mid East already.
(of course we borrow money to afford bridges to nowhere, farm subsidies, troops in
Germany and Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows what all else)
Over $4/gal gas and home mortgage crisis like no other, our bubble is breaking fast.
So who are you going to call on? McCain? Obama? Paaleeeeeze.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by NICK G

So who are you going to call on?

[NICK G]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Yeah, I was thinking that as I typed, "Who ya gonna call?"

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Funny .I see you got a Springfield Armory pistol so you liked that link I gave

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Safer for whom?
The innocent Israeli citizens getting deliberately targeted? -or- the willing human shields of the terrorists who happen to be hanging with the nasties?

Israel is attacked daily.



Count the Israeli Nobel prizes. That should hint at the answer to your question.

Yeah, they share one with Carter!

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

Funny .I see you got a Springfield Armory pistol so you liked that link I gave

I've been looking at the EMP for awhile, and just decided it was time that I brought one home... Ya know as a companion to the Kimber...

I tell ya that is one sweet piece, I'm torn between the EMP and the Kimber, they are both excellent shooters, and very accurate...