I don't think she could shut up even if her jaw was wired shut. She'll just be yelling about something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Don't see why Trump would want any type of immigration bill.
Printable View
I don't think she could shut up even if her jaw was wired shut. She'll just be yelling about something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Don't see why Trump would want any type of immigration bill.
Are you kidding...he has pushed a few from separating children, forcing them to stay in Mexico, and all the other stunts the courts shot down.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
At any rate Trump and Johnson came out of their meeting saying "Republicans aim to stop noncitizen voting in federal elections." And plan on new laws for that. Forget that it is already illegal.
Trump doesn't want an immigration bill because he doesn't want any progress on immigration. That's his major position. If it got better in any way, or has the potential to get better, then he's lost his greatest weapon. He already got the Republicans to vote against the compromise bill they had agreed to.
It wasn't immigration it was voting integrity, my mistake. They came out smiling about working on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
True but....Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
That is about a subtle as that carnival barker gets...Quote:
Trump extended his vote of confidence in Johnson during a press conference on Friday, saying, “I think he’s doing a very good job. He’s doing about as good as you’re going to do. And I’m sure that Marjorie understands that.”
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/14/mik...taylor-greene/
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/14/mik...taylor-greene/Quote:
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) brags that Donald Trump has him covered, in the midst of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s threats to boot him from office.
In a recent Fox News "Sunday Morning Futures" interview with anchor Maria Bartiromo, Johnson claims that he spent hours with the former president on Friday. He elaborated on their long-standing relationship, wherein they speak multiple times a day, saying, “He’s 100 percent with me!”
Someone owns me some rep points...:)
So now Israel is fighting Iran.
US told that they would help Israel.
No, Biden said that we'd help defend Israel, but also said that we would not help attack Iran. I would say that's pretty reasonable from a couple different perspectives, both cynical and otherwise, so that's probably about right.
I saw an anti-Gaza War protest on a bridge over the interstate on my way to work this morning. Some day I may have to take a drive to look at some of the bridges. There is only one used for protests, and there has to be a reason for that. I never drive over those bridges, so I don't know what the reason is. I was thinking that it might be low traffic, but nothing is low traffic during the morning commute. The other possibility is that it's the only bridge with good sidewalks. It's not the newest bridge, though, so that would surprise me.
I wrote that they would help Israel, I did not write the measures they will take so I guess the "No" in the post is just an usual spontaneous anti sap reaction. :D
No.
(but more seriously, they DID help Israel in the defense. If we're talking about what will happen in the future, I'm pretty sure that Biden won't help Israel with some kind of vengeance strike, and I kind of figured that's what you were talking about, largely because I'd be a bit surprised if there isn't one.)
Double Yes on your No and another No.
Biden will do as told. Good puppet.
No, again. Biden is walking a difficult path. Parts of his base support Israel in whatever they do, while parts oppose Israel. He also doesn't get along with Netanyahu very well. He gains nothing with a blanket support of Israel, and could lose plenty.
No on you No with a Yes.
When we are talking Biden do we talk about Biden or the deep state?
If we are talking about Biden then you should not worry he will be fine.
You and SH have used the word "Biden" over and over. That should be a clue.Quote:
When we are talking Biden do we talk about Biden or the deep state?
As long as we are bringing up the "deep state" we should mention leprechauns were spotted stuffing ballots again.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
I don't think SH needs lawyers, he is a big boy he can take care of himself.
Associating deep state with leprechauns , right. So there is no deep state and Biden is acting at his own will. Good to know. At least you won't have to worry after November .
We first have Europe to get a "taste" of things that are going to happen and hopefully it's going to go well...
I AM the deep state, or at least a part of it. We are powerful the way a glacier is powerful: Slow, but effective if you wait long enough.
...
Er...
NO! :D
You're too nice for the job :wave:
You finally get it...Quote:
So there is no deep state and Biden is acting at his own will
That's just what we WANT you to think....Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
I expected that.
I see Shaggy running behind the DS fighters shouting BUT! BUT ! SIR ! I'm Bad! I'm Bad!Pleeeasse!!! See my rage!!!! Arrrrr!!!!
Yep. Lol. Ignorance is bliss kinda way tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
That's funny for an odd reason. I've just spent a couple days dealing with an issue where "DS" has a very specific meaning (downstream, is probably where it came from, but it's much more complicated than that, and the origin is from the dawn of computing...and fish...fish + computers). That DS jumped out of your post, and I barely was able to read the rest of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
I have no idea what DS means to you.
Demon...Slayer?
I'm glad you have learned to accept that, best wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
An account of Socrates gave us the famous saying, "I know that I know nothing." Being aware that we know nothing is the potential start of us knowing something. 'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
Why are we so eager to send aid to Israel while they continue to kill innocents? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/i...ans-rcna148662
I realize we can't control what Israel does but we don't have to be an accomplice.
The US has supported Israel from, literally, day one and hasn't stopped since:Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
They didn't develop their nuclear weapons on their own. Who gave them the Iron Dome? So we have always been an accomplice.Quote:
The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state on May 14, 1948, when President Harry Truman issued a statement of recognition following Israel's proclamation of independence on the same date.
The why, as always, goes to politics. But I'm not :p
Until recently I'd have said something along the lines of "They're surrounded by enemies who want to see them wiped out - withdrawing support would mean being complicit in that and would be just as bad as being complicit in what they're doing in Gaza, just on a MUCH bigger scale".Quote:
Why are we so eager to send aid to Israel while they continue to kill innocents?
Until recently I'd have said that but the Saudi and Jordanian actions in response to Iran's recent missile attack indicate that that's no longer true. Jordan and Saudi actually deployed in defence of Israel which was something I wouldn't have expected to see (at most I'd have expected them to do nothing) so it looks like the diplomatic situation has moved on dramatically and Israel as a nation no longer faces an existential threat it used to. It's only Iran and its proxys that seem to still be threatening them and they can't do much more than terrorist attacks which, not withstanding, don't rise to the same level of destruction as a conventional war. I certainly hope that's true.
So I guess the answer to your question (and it's not a very satisfying one) is inertia. We're backing them because we've always backed them. I'm still not sure I'd want to see that backing simply removed but I do think it should be leveraged much more robustly to try and curb Netanyahu's worst intentions. Particularly the threatened attack on Rafah which looks to have all the hallmark of a humanitarian catastrophe. And an entirely avoidable one at that.
I'd say there is quite a bit of pressure being applied...now, though I wouldn't say that it was there a few months back. The pressure is not being made public, which is the best way for it to be used.
Israel has messed this up big time. They squandered a whole lot of goodwill, and the IDF really messed up the war. They have failed to achieve their stated objectives while losing a whole lot of backing. What they are doing now may be the right thing, ultimately. They rushed in following the October 7th attack. That was probably because they failed to prevent the attack and needed to redeem themselves, but they needed to think it through. Now, perhaps they are thinking it through. Time will tell. Flattening cities to kill a handful of underground people, thereby creating far more resentment than they eliminate...well, THAT wasn't working.
They need to be thinking about what the step is after the fighting ends. They didn't do that initially. Maybe they aren't doing that now, but then again, maybe they are.
Giving aid to Israel to defend itself has always seemed reasonable. But this isn't about defense. They may claim this action is to help defend Israel in the future but I don't think the US/UK see Israel's actions achieving those goals.Quote:
So I guess the answer to your question (and it's not a very satisfying one) is inertia. We're backing them because we've always backed them. I'm still not sure I'd want to see that backing simply removed but I do think it should be leveraged much more robustly to try and curb Netanyahu's worst intentions. Particularly the threatened attack on Rafah which looks to have all the hallmark of a humanitarian catastrophe. And an entirely avoidable one at that.
"They're surrounded by enemies who want to see them wiped out"
Another way to think of that is they inserted themselves into other's countries existing territories , supported by the world's greatest super power, and those countries resent and reject it. The Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians and taking their land from them from the beginning of Israel's modern existence. One could argue that back and forth all day but it is a consideration.
That's partly true but overly simplistic. I think there are two strong counter points:-Quote:
they inserted themselves into other's countries existing territories
1. The Nation of Israel did exist in history, going way back to biblical times. And there have been Jews present in the area continuously ever since, even if the Nation itself didn't exist. Denying Israel's existence prior to '48 is a bit like denying Poland's existence prior to the end of WW1 or Ukraine's prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in '89. It's sort of valid... but not really.
2. If we're going to assert that Israel didn't exist as a Nation State prior to WW2 then Palestine really didn't exist before WW1 either. It certainly existed as a region but there was no centralised government. It was really just an area where a bunch of semi nomadic Arab tribes lived and they lived alongside a significant Jewish population.
Both Israel and Palestine in their modern forms are essentially artificial states created by Western Governments. (I'm always really cautious when I point that out because there's a lot of people who use it to try and invalidate the existence of those nations, particularly Israel. I want to be clear that I'm not doing that. I think both have a right to exist and the duration of their histories aren't really relevant to that.)
This I strongly disagree with I'm afraid. The first conflict between Israel and it's neighbours was the Arab Israeli war of 1948 and the Arab nations were very much the aggressors. I guess you could cite the civil war that broke out in 47 but it's hard to pick a side to blame on that one, they were both at it. It's been a tit for tat ever since and I don't think you can identifiably blame either side more than the other.Quote:
The Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians and taking their land from them from the beginning of Israel's modern existence
The modern history of that region is murky and bloody and I, personally, don't think there's much value in trying to pick it apart to justify one side over the other, there'll always be a counter point. I just settle for: both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist; the actions Hamas carried out on 7 Oct were heinous and had nothing to do with furthering the cause of the people of Palestine; Israel's response has been heinous and has had nothing to do with preventing terrorism or recovering hostages.
Edit> I clarified point 2 above a touch as I felt I'd slightly misrepresented the origins of modern Palestine. If it's changed since anyone read it, that's why.
Agree with this 100%. The problem is that withdrawing support is withdrawing support, regardless of the why. I'd like a way of squaring that circle but I can't think of one. And you right, giving humanitarian aid to one side while giving military support to the side that's attacking them seems pretty dumb.Quote:
Giving aid to Israel to defend itself has always seemed reasonable. But this isn't about defense. They may claim this action is to help defend Israel in the future but I don't think the US/UK see Israel's actions achieving those goals.
But then again, as I said in post 278, maybe the defence just doesn't need our support any more. I feel like Israel is pretty capable of defending itself against Iranian rockets and terrorists (Oct 7th aside and I think that was an aberration) so, yeah, maybe it is time to start withdrawing support. In the past they had to defend themselves against neighbouring Nation States and it doesn't feel like that's the case any more.
Yeah, I think you're probably right. Certainly the diplomats seems to be sending a much stronger message. The response to the Iranian attack was pretty measured and allowed both sides room to climb down and I can't help thinking that Western diplomacy might have been a large part of that. If Israel can be talked out of attacking Rafah I'll call it a win - if a pyrrhic one.Quote:
I'd say there is quite a bit of pressure being applied...now
The word "modern" does not improve that sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
First on the point you disagree with:
Arguing ancient history to justify current events doesn't seem right to me. Otherwise give it back to the Canaanites. What if a world power, vastly more powerful then the US, kicked everyone out of Manhattan and gave it back to the Indians?Quote:
The 1948 Nakba, or "catastrophe" in Arabic, refers to the destruction of over 500 Palestinian towns, cities, and villages by Zionist paramilitaries between 1947 and 1949. The first operation began in April 1948, when more than 100 Palestinian people were killed in Deir Yassin, a village on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Nakba
Emigration, fleeing, or expulsion of 750,000 Arab Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War
The Nakba was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations
My point was "One could argue that back and forth all day but it is a consideration." when it comes to who deserves what and who is right or wrong. Throw Gods into the decision making of who is right and wrong and it gets really ugly.
I was trying to exclude "Biblical times", but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It doesn't seem right to Americans, but in the Middle East, orators have been known to casually drop references to people or events from over a thousand years ago, content in the knowledge that their audience will understand them. Our belief that history started yesterday, may be peculiarly American.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
That may be because of what it took for Europeans to become Americans. We had to expel the original inhabitants. Kind of rings a bell :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
My point wasn't so much to bring in ancient history but rather to highlight that both groups have historical claims to the region and that their current claims are based on European colonialism. Prior to WW1 the entire region was subsumed into the Ottoman Empire and neither Israel or Palestine existed as Nations. You can't really argue that Israel displaced Palestine without acknowledging that the peoples of both were already present in the region and have been continuously for centuries.Quote:
Arguing ancient history to justify current events doesn't seem right to me.
As for the Nakba, yeah, I'm aware and I don't want to appear to justify it (believe me, I really, really don't!). But you do have to view it in it's context, which is that both groups (and Christians too, for that matter) have been alternately living in peace and trying to exterminate each other for centuries. The Nakba actually has several definitions, depending on who you talk to, but probably the most widely accepted is the Zionist incursions into British mandated Palestine and succeeded the Arab uprisings of 36 to 39 and increasing anti Jewish sentiments amongst the Arabs from the Balfour Declaration onwards. There's always a predicate in this region. You can also view it as going right back to the 19th century when neither state existed and you can view it as either finished in 48 or ongoing today.
My point is simply that any condemnation that's raised has a readily available corollary because both sides are neck deep in bloody power struggles.
For context, I did say upthread and should repeat that I've been pro Palestine for for roughly 30 years and that hasn't changed. I wouldn't say I'm an activist any more but I certainly was in the 90s and I have attended several of the recent Pro Palestine marches (I've attended a couple of the Pro Israel one too but there's a lot fewer of them). I don't want to let Netanyahu's regime off the hook for the recent actions in Gaza. Neither do I want to actions of the Israeli state in a wider context, in particular the ongoing settlements and the military suppression of the Gaza and West Bank regions (which I said early on I believe rises to the level of a war crime).
But I also recognise that trying to simplify this situation to "My side good, their side bad" isn't useful and, if anything, is counter productive. A large part of the reason that this situation has persisted for as long as it has is that both sides have been engaging in exactly this kind of thinking and both sides have their counters ready. If this is going to end it's going to require both sides to call out their own failures as loudly as they call out each others. It's going to require the Israeli people to reject the "Ultra Zionist" (not the correct term but I don't have a better one) view that requires them to remove all non Jews from the region and it's going to require Palestinians and the wider Arab community to condemn the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk. Until both sides are ready to look in the mirror this will go on.
I think I see your point and I have made broad sweeping claims regarding something that has been going on a while. As usual it takes two sides, or more, in a conflict. If you ask me who is wearing the black hat at the moment, it is Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
As a side note FOX News, and I use News lightly, latest push is to divide America along the lines of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. The are doing their best to foment division and hate. Just like they do with Immigration, masking, Trump versus Biden, homelessness, wokeness, CRT and what ever the flavor of the day is.
I'm with you there, although I'd perhaps describe it as "slate grey". My sympathy definitely leans a lot more toward the Palestinian cause than the Israeli. It wavered in the wake of Oct 7th but Netanyahu has shoved it all the way back again.Quote:
If you ask me who is wearing the black hat at the moment, it is Israel.
Yeah, there's a lot of that over here as well. Our TV media isn't as polarised as yours but our print media (and it's on line presence) certainly is.Quote:
As a side note FOX News, and I use News lightly, latest push is to divide America along the lines of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine