Puffnstuff
Lifer
- Mar 9, 2005
- 16,040
- 4,802
- 136
So you would expect the same reaction from say... Jews? Would the Jewish people rise up violently in similar circumstances?
Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.So strapping explosives onto one's self and entering a busy market or bus and killing everyone is okay? No matter what reasoning you use I support the Israeli's position on this one.
Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.
Palestinians and Israelis are killing each other.Are Alabamans firing Qassam rockets over the border into Georgia because an embassy got built in Atlanta? Again, anger is one thing, violence is another. I don't think American foreign policy should cater to the hurt feelings or "anger" of Palestinians about an embassy. If you're going to excuse away Palestinian violence over a building then you're honestly as much an impediment to peace as any other factor.
What does it matter?
Whatever happens he'll blame it all on Hillary.
Now, now we can't go making the Israel/Palestine conflict a fair fight.
Palestinians and Israelis are killing each other.
And it should not be. Palestine has a nasty habit of firing weapons at Israel. Israel has a massive military when compared to Palestine. If Israel wanted to, they could wipe out Palestine in a day. One side shows some military restraint, the other does not.
People complained when Israel went into Gaza, but they seem to have forgotten the thousands of rockets, mortars and all the people hurt/killed by those attacks on Israeli civilians.
So Clinton deliberately not signing it indicates his support? Don't be ridiculous, if he supported it he would have signed it, and he wouldn't waived its central provision repeatedly. It was passed by veto proof majorities in a Republican controlled Congress. So in reality, Republicans in Congress were primarily to blame for this being enacted with some complicity from congressional Democrats.
Congress has no power to state US foreign policy. That passage is irrelevant and/or unconstitutional.
So first, as we covered it isn't policy as Congress doesn't set policy. The person who does though, is the president. This argument that not signing the waiver isn't an action is absurd pedantry and I'm very sure you know it. Trump made a conscious decision to change US foreign policy and has even stated as much. Why you're trying to argue something that even TRUMP isn't dishonest enough to argue is ridiculous.
So yes, he made a choice to change US policy so he is partially responsible for the results. This is so obvious I don't know why this even needs to be argued.
As Trump did, President Bill Clinton also came into office calling for the embassy to eventually be moved to Jerusalem, even as he actively worked to kill Dole’s bill.
Sure they could. They could also have themselves a little genocide. What do you think the consequences to Israel from the international community might be if they did either?
Don't pretend that Israel is not butchering the Palestinians out of any sense of morality. It is strictly pragmatic.
So your rebuttal is basically that the Israelis WANT to butcher the Palestinians the same way that the Palestinians WANT to butcher the Israelis... but that the Israelis are smart enough not to?
Wow... between that and the whole concept of Muslims defaulting to violence, people around here really don't think much of Muslims.
Well, that is certainly a worthy point. How about instead of calling it racism, we call it bigotry?my point was muslim is not a race.
Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians as much as it belongs to the Israelis.
No... I based my "President Clinton Supported it" on an article I read here: http://time.com/5049019/jerusalem-embassy-history/
So that is what I based that statement on. Oh and President Clinton appears to be talking about of both side of his face on that one. President Trump, for all of his numerous flaws, at least is doing what he promised.
As far as the policy, the passage may be irrelevant, but the actions laid out in the law are not and support that passage. No President or Congress has seen fit to change or challenge the law.
And as far as responsibility, you too seem to think that Muslims are not capable of rationally governing their passions and emotions. Why does everyone seem to side with what they admit are the first ones to employ violence in these circumstances?
Sure they could. They could also have themselves a little genocide. What do you think the consequences to Israel from the international community might be if they did either?
Don't pretend that Israel is not butchering the Palestinians out of any sense of morality. It is strictly pragmatic.
Problem wasn't your facts. It was this conclusion:
Which is a stupid one. Of course what Trump is doing matters. If it inflames anti-Israel and anti-US opinion on the Arab side, and undermines our credibility as a mediator in their eyes, it will only make the peace process harder.
Nothing in my post inferred a thing about Muslims. Improve your reading or improve your honesty.
I was not disputing his facts; I was appalled by his attitude about its potential consequences.
"The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be". "This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least." How utterly hopeless and cynical.
Hence the "Baghdad Bob" reference.
That was my opinion, a conclusion hasn't been reached yet.
I think your opinion is stupid also, but I was polite enough not to say so.
Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.
Well, there is already rioting and violence over it, a result which was extremely easy to predict. The notion this is decision is a nothingburger is already belied by the facts. Whether there are longer term consequences, I would agree that we don't know yet.
Yet you just did.
I was speaking in past tense. Can't you tell the difference? Then YOU forced my hand. Don't be obtuse.
That's silly and a gross distortion of history.I'm pretty sure that Israel took possession when Jordan attacked Israel during the six day war.
So no. If you get attacked and you take land defending yourself it is yours.