Bonam Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 1 hour ago, GostHacked said: A very large majority of nations are condemning the move. Typically that would be seen as world democracy at work. One can agree that the push against North Korea is a good thing. Even though they might not think so. But they are in the minority there, as the US/Israel are on this matter. So is it a problem with the majority when it seems like over 80% voted the same way? Or should the minority rethink their stance? I guess we are gonna find out. Right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable, effective vs ineffective, etc, are almost never decided by the majority. The majority of people and certainly the majority of national governments are wrong about the majority of things. When it comes to condemning the US and/or Israel at the UN, the Arab league does this because it plays well with their population at home, who they largely keep from revolting through a combination of oil money welfare and keeping their population's ire focused at external enemies. And Europe mostly plays along due to social justice warriors and white guilt complex and the growing Muslim population in Europe. I don't see anything there that makes that a good thing or the right thing, just politics. 1
eyeball Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Bonam said: And Europe mostly plays along due to social justice warriors and white guilt complex 1 A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Bonam Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Hudson Jones said: Agreed. Why should the US taxpayers pay anything to Egypt, Jordan and Israel? The welfare cheques need to be cut off. Sure, sounds good to me.
marcus Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Bonam said: When it comes to condemning the US and/or Israel at the UN, the Arab league does this because it plays well with their population at home, who they largely keep from revolting through a combination of oil money welfare and keeping their population's ire focused at external enemies. And Europe mostly plays along due to social justice warriors and white guilt complex and the growing Muslim population in Europe. I don't see anything there that makes that a good thing or the right thing, just politics. You seem to be in total denial. Over 95% of the world condemned US' action. 95% of the world is not the Arab League and Europe. Even in the US, 2 to 1 Americans oppose the embassy move to Jerusalem. The only backers of US actions are Zionists and Christian Zionists who cheer for "the Jews" to return to Jerusalem so that they could die. "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Bonam Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, marcus said: The only backers of US actions are Zionists and Christian Zionists who cheer for "the Jews" to return to Jerusalem so that they could die. The US actions don't need "backers". America is free to locate its embassy wherever it wishes, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital whether some politicians elsewhere choose to accept that fact or not.
OftenWrong Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 I think the UN has failed it's mandate to find a solution in this conflict, and it needs to admit that before any vote it passes can be seen with credibility. A good dose of empirical control is usually effective in stabilizing a region, where two different groups cannot achieve mutual cooperation. History shows time and again that it works. Just look around you...
GostHacked Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 19 hours ago, Bonam said: Right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable, effective vs ineffective, etc, are almost never decided by the majority. The majority of people and certainly the majority of national governments are wrong about the majority of things. When it comes to condemning the US and/or Israel at the UN, the Arab league does this because it plays well with their population at home, who they largely keep from revolting through a combination of oil money welfare and keeping their population's ire focused at external enemies. And Europe mostly plays along due to social justice warriors and white guilt complex and the growing Muslim population in Europe. I don't see anything there that makes that a good thing or the right thing, just politics. If you are in a group and most of them vote a certain way, then it might mean you need to change your stance. This is not a 51-49 situation, this is a 90-10 situation. And the voters were not just arab nations. Or is it that the whole damn planet is anti-semetic?
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 Kirk: "Computer...what is the capital of Israel ?" Computer: "Jerusalem" Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) On 12/6/2017 at 10:41 PM, eyeball said: That the Middle East needs more cow-bell not gasoline. Why should we cater to a violent, uncivilized people? Edited December 23, 2017 by jbg Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted December 23, 2017 Report Posted December 23, 2017 1 hour ago, GostHacked said: If you are in a group and most of them vote a certain way, then it might mean you need to change your stance. This is not a 51-49 situation, this is a 90-10 situation. And the voters were not just arab nations. Or is it that the whole damn planet is anti-semetic? Should we have moved the U.S. Embassy from Bonn to Berlin in 1999? One can argue that the move was deeply provocative to Russia. Russia had, just nine and one-half years earlier had effective control over East Germany. We were taking a stand on a regional controversy. Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 2 hours ago, jbg said: Why should we cater to a violent, uncivilized people? I asked myself the very same thing after Canada abstained on the vote to condemn Trump's decision on Jerusalem. 1 A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
marcus Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 4 hours ago, jbg said: Why should we cater to a violent, uncivilized people? I wouldn't call Israel uncivilized. But you're right. We shouldn't cater to a violent rogue state such as Israel. 1 "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
GostHacked Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 18 hours ago, jbg said: Should we have moved the U.S. Embassy from Bonn to Berlin in 1999? One can argue that the move was deeply provocative to Russia. Russia had, just nine and one-half years earlier had effective control over East Germany. We were taking a stand on a regional controversy. I have a feeling a good deal of the world would have been behind that move at that time. I am not sure how to even look for that. But in contrast 90% voted against the move.
Queenmandy85 Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 When the UN established Israel, they chose Palestine arbitrarily, without consulting the Palestinians who lived there. For a solution, Israel should be moved to Oregon. What is so special about Palestine? The climate of Oregon is similar and the Americans would have no issue giving up some of its land. It would solve a lot of problems. A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Argus Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: When the UN established Israel, they chose Palestine arbitrarily, without consulting the Palestinians who lived there. For a solution, Israel should be moved to Oregon. What is so special about Palestine? The climate of Oregon is similar and the Americans would have no issue giving up some of its land. It would solve a lot of problems. The Jews were living there too. Or had you not noticed that? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, GostHacked said: If you are in a group and most of them vote a certain way, then it might mean you need to change your stance. This is not a 51-49 situation, this is a 90-10 situation. And the voters were not just arab nations. Or is it that the whole damn planet is anti-semetic? 57 of the 128 members who voted against the UN are in the Islamic bloc. Most of the rest voted for it simply because they were paid by the Arabs. Why not? No skin off their nose. They don't care one way or another. The Russians and Chinese voted to get a dig in at the Americans, like they always do. And the Europeans voted with an eye to their progressive (antisemitic/anti-american) and Muslim (antisemitic) voters. That might cost them if Trump decides to throw a tantrum and do something like leave NATO. Most of the Europeans have no significant military defenses, having neglected them over the decades while leaving the job to the Americans. It would be kind of funny if the US pulled out of NATO and the Europeans suddenly realized they'd have to pay for their own defense while Putin leers at them and wags his giant penis (red army in all but name) around. Edited December 24, 2017 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Queenmandy85 Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Argus said: The Jews were living there too. Or had you not noticed that? The problem is that property that had been owned by Palestinians was taken over by Israelis. Families who had lived there for centuries were suddenly displaced by Europeans. It may have seemed like a good idea in 1947 but it clearly is not working. Since the United States is happy to see a homeland for Israel, rather than giving away other peoples land, give them Oregon. Let the Palestinians have their land back and Israel would be in a safer place. Why is Palestine so special to the Israelis? Edited December 24, 2017 by Queenmandy85 A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
eyeball Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Argus said: The Jews were living there too. Or had you not noticed that? Not the Jews from Europe. They should have been given a piece of Europe. 1 A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said: The problem is that property that had been owned by Palestinians was taken over by Israelis. The property next to me that was owned by Canadians was taken over by an Egyptian. By him paying for it. That, as I understand it, is how most of the Jews got their property too. Quote Families who had lived there for centuries were suddenly displaced by Europeans. Families were displaced by war which was started by the Arabs. Those that stayed remained in possession of their property - unlike the 800,000 Jews in surrounding Arab countries, who were almost all expelled and had their property and often their possessions confiscated. They fled to Israel and were admitted as citizens. The Arabs who fled Palestine for other Arab countries were kept in refugee camps, and are still in them to this day. Edited December 24, 2017 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
marcus Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 49 minutes ago, Argus said: The Jews were living there too. Or had you not noticed that? The Palestinian Jews you mean? All 5% of them? Who lived in peace with the 86% Palestinian Muslims and 9% Palestinian Christians. Because the European Jews have no real connection to the land. You know that, right? I think we should give the land to the original inhabitants, the Canaanites. They were there before anyone else. Even before the Israelites who came in and made them their slaves. "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Queenmandy85 Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, marcus said: Argus said: Families were displaced by war which was started by the Arabs. Sorry, the system would not let me put Argus' name there. Apologies to you both. Had the European Jews been allowed to settle in a homeland in the US, there would have been no reason for the war, started by Arabs in response to the imposition of Israel. I support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, but there is no reason it should be in its present location where it is clearly not wanted. Again, I ask, what, in the 21st century is so special about Palestine to the Israelis. I can understand why the Palestinians want to be there. They have lived there for centuries. Is not Peace more important than the location o Israel? Edited December 24, 2017 by Queenmandy85 A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Queenmandy85 Posted December 24, 2017 Report Posted December 24, 2017 Footnote: On the day I was born, a Terrorist named Menachem Begin murdered 6 British Soldiers. Begin later became PM of Israel and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former German Abwehr spy Anwar Sadat. Yesterday's terrorist becomes todays statesman. Go figure... A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
eyeball Posted December 25, 2017 Report Posted December 25, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: Again, I ask, what, in the 21st century is so special about Palestine to the Israelis. Before Common Era superstitions. Is not Peace more important than the location of Israel? Not compared to the importance of God's will. Edited December 25, 2017 by eyeball A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 25, 2017 Report Posted December 25, 2017 9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: ... The climate of Oregon is similar and the Americans would have no issue giving up some of its land. It would solve a lot of problems. How do you know the Americans would have no issue giving up land ? Israel is not in Oregon...or any other place than where it is today. Peace is way overrated. Economics trumps Virtue.
Queenmandy85 Posted December 25, 2017 Report Posted December 25, 2017 (edited) 39 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: How do you know the Americans would have no issue giving up land ? Israel is not in Oregon...or any other place than where it is today. Peace is way overrated. If it's okay to give away somebody else's land, I would think that a generous people like the Americans would be happy to give a little bit of their own. Why is it in the ME? Peace is highly underrated. That is what tomorrow is all about. Isn't He the Prince of Peace? Edited December 25, 2017 by Queenmandy85 A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Recommended Posts