If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

The ME is Trump's excuse to work with the Russians. I wonder when did stink visit Russia, and how long he's been a Russian.

(12-06-2017 08:17 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

The ME is Trump's excuse to work with the Russians. I wonder when did stink visit Russia, and how long he's been a Russian.

lol......I ze german still in hiding

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

only addressing the bold due to too many topics to address (I do my best to not type hambone essays)

many did.....but many stayed due to faith and the holy land.....

fighting for the 'value of land via faith' has/is always/will until humanity no longer exists.....

that battle isn't going to change one way or the other as long as the USD remains supreme and the Israelis control the nuke option as our ally......this is why the DPRK has become the latest pimple on the arse...

#ultimatedeterrant

(12-06-2017 08:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

only addressing the bold due to too many topics to address (I do my best to not type hambone essays)

many did.....but many stayed due to faith and the holy land.....

fighting for the 'value of land via faith' has/is always/will until humanity no longer exists.....

that battle isn't going to change one way or the other as long as the USD remains supreme and the Israelis control the nuke option as our ally......this is why the DPRK has become the latest pimple on the arse...

#ultimatedeterrant

Just addressing the part in bold, not sure if you are equating the Zionists to religious zealots or to people having nationalist/cultural connections to the land, but what you wrote is not always the case. Many fiercely proud peoples have had land claims in the past have been lost to history via absorption into other cultures. IMHO, antisemitism prevented the Jews from being fully integrated into other cultures for 1500+ years. IMHO, The Zionists movement from the 1850s through the first half of the 20th century never becomes a reality if it wasn’t for the holacaust. European anti Semitic feelings gave way to intense guilt - and to the inevitable loss of Europe’s colonies.

I’m in the weeds with this comment. But it does have a connection. I think it’s becoming a sunk cost.

(12-06-2017 08:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

that would be a major strategical mistake.......

I completely disagree with that posit from an ally perspective.....

getting involved in the ME conflicts is another animal....

I wonder about that. Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region - a region that the British basically monkey fvcked by redrawing borders to mix enemies together - is what created our ME powder keg. S. Vietnam was also that critical ally that we needed to buttress at all costs too. IDK, it’s a different world than the 60s and 70s.

ETA: supporting Israel IS getting us involved with ME conflicts.

only addressing the bold due to too many topics to address (I do my best to not type hambone essays)

many did.....but many stayed due to faith and the holy land.....

fighting for the 'value of land via faith' has/is always/will until humanity no longer exists.....

that battle isn't going to change one way or the other as long as the USD remains supreme and the Israelis control the nuke option as our ally......this is why the DPRK has become the latest pimple on the arse...

#ultimatedeterrant

Just addressing the part in bold, not sure if you are equating the Zionists to religious zealots or to people having nationalist/cultural connections to the land, but what you wrote is not always the case. Many fiercely proud peoples have had land claims in the past have been lost to history via absorption into other cultures. IMHO, antisemitism prevented the Jews from being fully integrated into other cultures for 1500+ years. IMHO, The Zionists movement from the 1850s through the first half of the 20th century never becomes a reality if it wasn’t for the holacaust. European anti Semitic feelings gave way to intense guilt - and to the inevitable loss of Europe’s colonies.

I’m in the weeds with this comment. But it does have a connection. I think it’s becoming a sunk cost.

let's just leave it there.....too many words and too much effort while I'm watching hockey.....

it would be best to have this one face to face.....

(12-06-2017 07:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the U.S. stopped financially supporting Israel tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own? Might as well make them our 52nd state after we grant Puerto Rico statehood...

Can’t wait for the U.S. to be completely out of the ME. Shale oil, nuke plants, wind, solar...all of it. **** the ME.

If the U.S. stopped financially supporting the Palestinians tomorrow, would they be able to make it on their own?

Wow, is this something a Nazi would do?

(12-06-2017 07:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Huge blunder to set up Israel in the late 40s. The Jews should have been allowed to migrate to the U.S. in hindsight. Setting up Israel again in the ME after all that time elapsed with only Arabs in the region -

It was quite literally foretold in the bible 2600+ years ago in amazing detail. Its not just some random event, it was designed by the Father as a marker for the last generation before the return of Christ, to clearly fulfill scripture and stand as a witness to this generation.

1900+ years after Israel was literally wiped off the map and the Jews scattered across the whole earth, they return to the holy land and reform a nation, STILL rejecting Christ as their Messiah. All set up by the united nations and allies to the Jews, just as specifically foretold in the OT.

Here we sit, 2600+ years later and the whole thing has come to pass. Israel is literally surrounded by enemies but remains strong and a burdensome stone for all the nations, just as predicted in the OT.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned his speech on Jerusalem and all the controversy it is producing on his slurred speech. Most people think he was having a problem with his dentures during it, and it's not a sign of anything health related.

I didn't know he had dentures. His teeth have always seemed incredibly white for someone in his 70's though so I guess I wouldn't be surprised to hear he's had extensive and expensive dental work done.

(12-07-2017 06:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm surprised no one has mentioned his speech on Jerusalem and all the controversy it is producing on his slurred speech. Most people think he was having a problem with his dentures during it, and it's not a sign of anything health related.

I didn't know he had dentures. His teeth have always seemed incredibly white for someone in his 70's though so I guess I wouldn't be surprised to hear he's had extensive and expensive dental work done.

He seemed dehydrated to me, and the WH explanation was that his throat was dry. I don't think there's much to the whole thing... his speech has seemed similarly awkward before.

(12-06-2017 06:30 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:42 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Its a matter of when, not if.

(12-05-2017 02:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's purely to piss people off.

I disagree strongly with both of these assertions. First, it is very much a matter of if... Trump does not tend to follow through on broad pronouncements except as a negotiating tactic. The pronouncement is definitely intended to piss people off, but I think there is a reason for doing so. Trumps actions in general do not make sense unless you consider them in the context of being a "forcing action". I don't think these have brought the intended result in general, but there has been very little change in negotiating position of either the Israelis or Palestinians in the past 14-17 years. The notion that any specific act by the US will be harmful to negotiations is moot... I think the motivation behind this is that any disruption to the status quo is going to provide impetus for the two parties to press Washington for negotiations. The Obama approach of trying to drag two unwilling negotiating parties to the table was a miserable failure that was clearly doomed before it started.
I am not optimistic that the Trump administration will make any progress. But, progress is impossible when neither party wants to be at the table to begin with.

This post didn't age well at all.
By 2 PM the same day Trump had held a press conf and made the whole thing official.

Making a speech is not following up. The analysis I heard yesterday talked about the process of moving the embassy as a 4-5 year process once the decision is made.

Y'all sound scared.

I don't really care where they put our Embassy, I just hope it doesn't cause terrorist attacks.

(12-07-2017 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't really care where they put our Embassy, I just hope it doesn't cause terrorist attacks.

Well, to be honest, terrorist attacks will continue whether the embassy is moved or not. Moving an embassy will make no difference in that regard.

(12-07-2017 10:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't really care where they put our Embassy, I just hope it doesn't cause terrorist attacks.

Well, to be honest, terrorist attacks will continue whether the embassy is moved or not. Moving an embassy will make no difference in that regard.

So you think moving the embassy will have zero effect? Then why move it?

(12-07-2017 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't really care where they put our Embassy, I just hope it doesn't cause terrorist attacks.

It won't cause terrorist attacks.

We have to stop the idiotic Obama-era line of thinking that if we were just a little nicer to Islamic radicals, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much.

Trump moves the capitol to Jerusalem = Terror attacks blamed on that.
Trump keeps capitol in Tel Aviv = Terror attacks blamed on Travel Ban, Support of Israel, etc.

(12-04-2017 01:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-leagu...i-capital/

There is no real benefit to doing this aside from stirring up more turmoil in the ME. Seems like an unnecessary waste of energy when the primary focus should be on the U.S. economy and minimizing the chances of successful terror attacks on U.S. soil.

Does it really take an undue amount of energy to move a embassy? Its not like we arent already allocating a ridiculous amount of resources to keep us safe from terror. Its not like the area isnt already a cradle of terrorist activity.

The move simply recognizes the reality on the ground (just as we did in Cuba recently--and just as we probably should in Taiwan). Frankly, the Arab Peace Process was dead. The Palestinian coalition had no real reason to negotiate and has been taught over the years it suffers no real long term repercussions by refusing to compromise. Such move may very well prompt a rethinking of that assumption. If there is no peace to be had, and the world moves on with or without a peace accord---then Palestinians will have less and less say in that future direction. Maybe its time to shake things up in such away that "compromise" actually looks like a better way to go.