Warm & fuzzy...

[VooDoo6Actual]

redaction.

[ChicagoTex]

Doesn't it make you all "warm and fuzzy" that Obama just gave the Palestinians 400 million dollars from your taxes?

Unfortunately, that's largely to compensate for the gobs of funds, weapons, and intelligence we've been forking over to Israel for decades.

My ideal solution is to stop giving either anything and pocket the change.

The U.S. Government really has no place being international aid or arms brokers to anyone.

[Business_Casual]

Unfortunately, that's largely to compensate for the gobs of funds, weapons, and intelligence we've been forking over to Israel for decades.

My ideal solution is to stop giving either anything and pocket the change.

The U.S. Government really has no place being international aid or arms brokers to anyone.

Stop supporting the only pro-Western democracy in the region? Thank God you aren't making national policy.

That is beyond stupid.

Wait until that type of truck shows up in Dallas and those missiles are landing in your town. Maybe then you'll understand why we need to fight this war and win it.

B_C

[tampam4]

Thanks a bunch for that HOP. All of my classmates back home in Iceland are so pro-Palestine/anti-Israel it is scary. Posted this one facebook with some well chosen words, let's see if I still have any friends after this...

[Safetyhit]

Stop supporting the only pro-Western democracy in the region? Thank God you aren't making national policy.

That is beyond stupid.

B_C



Totally agree. I simply do not and never will get the die hard anti-Israeli crowd, especially considering the state of international affairs today.

And please, save the nonsense about us pissing the muslims off because we side with Israel. We side with them because they are good guys on our side and because we will not turn our backs on our allies to appease such a savage enemy.

Those fu*kers are always finding someone to fight with, both inside and outside of their worthless religion. Fu*k'em all.

[Heartland Hawk]

Unfortunately, that's largely to compensate for the gobs of funds, weapons, and intelligence we've been forking over to Israel for decades.

My ideal solution is to stop giving either anything and pocket the change.

The U.S. Government really has no place being international aid or arms brokers to anyone.

Business casual I agree. I think some reading and Israeli history might be in order.

[ChicagoTex]

Wait until that type of truck shows up in Dallas and those missiles are landing in your town. Maybe then you'll understand why we need to fight this war and win it.

That's a total non-sequitur to me.

And I'm not "die-hard Anti-Israel" I'm just not pro-giving Israel our money. Their chosen form of government has little to do with the appropriateness of our contributions.

For a board filled with people who always claim to want to cut spending, it's fascinating to me what those same people are unwilling to cut.

[Spiffums]

Stop supporting the only pro-Western democracy in the region? Thank God you aren't making national policy.

That is beyond stupid.

Wait until that type of truck shows up in Dallas and those missiles are landing in your town. Maybe then you'll understand why we need to fight this war and win it.

B_C

Wouldn't surprise me if they weren't rolling across the southern border as we speak.

If I was going to fight America and wanted to make people afraid to even walk outside and have everyone in an uproar.......... I would have my virgin goat fans blowing themselves up at ball games, churches, shopping malls. Not just the high profile targets but little 50 to 100 member churches, middle schools, the local Wally World.

If you wanted people to be afraid to leave the house...... that is how you do it. Underwear bombs on an airliner or shoe bombs is for coverage on CNN..........

[Business_Casual]

That's a total non-sequitur to me.


We (the USA) are the Great Satan. Israel is the Little Satan. When, not if, they get their sleeper cells activated, the terror will come to urban America.

Lofty speeches and NASA outreach aside, these fanatics want to convert us or kill us. Period. It is pretty simple.

B_C

[BrianS]

For a board filled with people who always claim to want to cut spending, it's fascinating to me what those same people are unwilling to cut.

What I googled real quick said our entire foreign aid program is ~20 billion. Israel gets around 10% of that, which they turn around and spend mostly on weapons manufactured in the United States.

Why would we cut spending in a way that is going to screw one of our allies and hurt our defense industry? Especially when it is less than what we spend every year on earmarks (~25 billion) which Obama referred to as "chump change" when it was brought up as an issue in the election.

I have seen you support a President who voluntarily blows 800 Billion dollars on a stimulus bill (that didn't do anything) and then signs a blank check for a healthcare bill that will basically bankrupt the country. How can you complain about 2.5 billion a year to Israel?

[ChicagoTex]

We (the USA) are the Great Satan. Israel is the Little Satan. When, not if, they get their sleeper cells activated, the terror will come to urban America.

Lofty speeches and NASA outreach aside, these fanatics want to convert us or kill us. Period. It is pretty simple.

And there's lots more of them than the Palestinians. It's an unwinnable war.

Unless you're saying the primary value of Israel is as a convenient target so that we aren't targeted. Which, while morally appalling, is an idea that actually has some logical merit.

[mr_smiles]

Have to say, that's pretty damn ingenious.

[ChicagoTex]

I have seen you support a President who voluntarily blows 800 Billion dollars on a stimulus bill (that didn't do anything) and then signs a blank check for a healthcare bill that will basically bankrupt the country. How can you complain about 2.5 billion a year to Israel?

When and where did you ever see that? Show me where, exactly, I've ever said I support Obama.

[GermanSynergy]

We (the USA) are the Great Satan. Israel is the Little Satan. When, not if, they get their sleeper cells activated, the terror will come to urban America.

Lofty speeches and NASA outreach aside, these fanatics want to convert us or kill us. Period. It is pretty simple.

B_C

100% on the money.

[BrianS]

When and where did you ever see that? Show me where, exactly, I've ever said I support Obama.

A generally liberal tone runs through all your posts. I am not going to search your post history to find the evidence of your Obama support so if you renounce Obama and all his works I will take your word for it.

The fact remains that 2.5 billion to support an ally really is chump change. If we could support 10 Israels instead of spending 25 billion on earmarks every year I would be all for it.

[ChicagoTex]

A generally liberal tone runs through all your posts.

I assume you mean in the General Discussion forum (as I'm not sure how my discussions in the technical forums can be "liberal"), in which case I say yes. Absolutely. I am absolutely a Liberal, I've said it many times, and am proud of it.


I am not going to search your post history to find the evidence of your Obama support so if you renounce Obama and all his works I will take your word for it.

I appreciate that because I'm really not an Obama fan. The best thing I can say about Obama is that some of his entirely unfulfilled campaign promises sounded good (like incentives for US corporations to manufacture in the US). In some areas I feel he hasn't been liberal enough, in some areas I feel he's been too liberal, but by and large his presidency has been a demonstrable failure no matter which ruler you use.

For the record, I think you make a good argument that, as defense budgeting goes, Israel offers a good proverbial (or perhaps literal) "bang for the buck". If nothing else, the nation of Israel has obvious value as a distraction and intelligence asset against extremist Muslim groups.

My criticism towards funding Israel is based on a couple things:

1. I am somewhat tongue-in-cheek challenging the idea that funding given to the Palestinians that is, at least on it's face, intended for humanitarian purposes is inappropriate, but much larger funding issued to the Israelis for military purposes somehow is appropriate. In this sense, I'm proposing cutting off Israel as sort of a "thought exercise".

2. I'm not sure if it's "liberal" or "conservative", but I have a largely isolationist attitude when it comes to U.S. Foreign policy. While funding Israel may make a considerable amount of practical sense, given current circumstances, it doesn't really jive with how I'd like to see my country behave as an international entity. But that's a debate for another time (I hope).

[Business_Casual]

I assume you mean in the General Discussion forum (as I'm not sure how my discussions in the technical forums can be "liberal"), in which case I say yes. Absolutely. I am absolutely a Liberal, I've said it many times, and am proud of it.



I appreciate that because I'm really not an Obama fan. The best thing I can say about Obama is that some of his entirely unfulfilled campaign promises sounded good (like incentives for US corporations to manufacture in the US). In some areas I feel he hasn't been liberal enough, in some areas I feel he's been too liberal, but by and large his presidency has been a demonstrable failure no matter which ruler you use.

For the record, I think you make a good argument that, as defense budgeting goes, Israel offers a good proverbial (or perhaps literal) "bang for the buck". If nothing else, the nation of Israel has obvious value as a distraction and intelligence asset against extremist Muslim groups.

My criticism towards funding Israel is based on a couple things:

1. I am somewhat tongue-in-cheek challenging the idea that funding given to the Palestinians that is, at least on it's face, intended for humanitarian purposes is inappropriate, but much larger funding issued to the Israelis for military purposes somehow is appropriate. In this sense, I'm proposing cutting off Israel as sort of a "thought exercise".

Yeah, I've thought about it and it is still pretty ****ing stupid.



2. I'm not sure if it's "liberal" or "conservative", but I have a largely isolationist attitude when it comes to U.S. Foreign policy. While funding Israel may make a considerable amount of practical sense, given current circumstances, it doesn't really jive with how I'd like to see my country behave as an international entity. But that's a debate for another time (I hope).

So you've learned nothing from WWII and our need to influence events outside our borders? We should have just let Hitler and Tojo do whatever they wanted? Should we just let the Islamists create a new Caliphate from Spain to the Chinese border? (Because I can tell you the Chinese will not put up with that nonsense) Appeasement doesn't work. Killing our enemies does.

B_C

[ChicagoTex]

So you've learned nothing from WWII and our need to influence events outside our borders? We should have just let Hitler and Tojo do whatever they wanted? Should we just let the Islamists create a new Caliphate from Spain to the Chinese border? (Because I can tell you the Chinese will not put up with that nonsense) Appeasement doesn't work. Killing our enemies does.

I was going to spend a lot of time explaining why the above contains more strawmen than a worldwide Wizard of Oz convention, but I figured I'd just ask one simple question instead:

What's your ideal endgame here, to kill every Muslim on the planet?

[Honu]

What's your ideal endgame here, to kill every Muslim on the planet?

kinda like the lawyer jokes :) could be a good start
and if you know history they did attempt this a long time ago but it failed ?

the fact is they do want to destroy us
and the fact that somewhere around %80 of the other so called no radical muslims are OK with this ?

read history from both sides then do some research not just the history your far left teachers told you was correct

[Business_Casual]

There were plenty of Germans and Japanese alive after WWII, but we won, didn't we? Of course the end game isn't to kill everyone, that is simply stupid. You've realized you've staked out an indefensible position and are trying to equivocate your way out - just the same as liberals want to appease the murderous Islamist terrorists. Weak, foolish and doomed to failure. Go look for the statues to Chamberlin in London; oh wait, you won't find any.

We need to either get serious about the war against violent Islamists or start putting up minarets in our cities. I prefer the former.

B_C

[khc3]

I was going to spend a lot of time explaining why the above contains more strawmen than a worldwide Wizard of Oz convention, but I figured I'd just ask one simple question instead:

What's your ideal endgame here, to kill every Muslim on the planet?

No,jjust the ones thinking about killing me.

Kill enough of them so that no more others have the will.

Worked with Japan & Germany.

[ChicagoTex]

There were plenty of Germans and Japanese alive after WWII, but we won, didn't we? Of course the end game isn't to kill everyone, that is simply stupid.

This is moronic, there were plenty of Germans and Japanese alive after WW2 because they were nations, not extremist variants of a faith found throughout the world. You act like Islamic Terrorists are a singular national entity marching across Europe when you know full well nothing could further from the truth. If that were the case they'd be dealt with by now.

The problem is you seem to think you can fight a war against an idea splintered all over the world the same way you can against a nation, and you try to cover up the fact that you haven't the slightest clue how we could go about doing that (here's a hint, we CAN'T) by trying to Ad-Hominem attack me using incredibly busted WW2 parallels. Where'd you learn to debate? The Michael Savage school of "If you have no idea what you're talking about, just shout loudly and call the other party an idiot"?

I never suggested appeasement (unless you consider withdrawing support for Israel to be appeasement, in which case a rudimentary English course may be in order). I never approved of giving the Palestinians money. I simply suggested we stop giving the Israelis money and explained that that is because I don't believe we can or should police the entire middle east, or any other region of the planet.

If you have any actual insights to contribute, I'm all ears. I've been wrong about things before and am always open to new ideas, but could you please present actual meaningful information instead of invoking hideously inappropriate WW2 parallels or attacking me on the grounds that I'm something I'm not.

[khc3]

We can't fight a war against an ideological enemy, why? Because you say so?

I reject your premise.

We began our fight against Germany by invading Tunisia; our war against Japan began in the Soloman Islands. Both countries ended as mere shadows of the nation-states they had been, but the war ended because the people knew, eventually, that they could not prevail and to continue would mean their destruction.

Saying that we need to create the same understanding in the minds of potential Jihadists and their supporters does not mean that we would use the same strategies as those used to fight nation-states; I don't know why you would assume it does.

But if you don't believe in appeasement, how should we fight islamic extremists?

Or do you think that if we stop supporting Israel, islamic extremists will no longer want to kill us?

[ChicagoTex]

We can't fight a war against an ideological enemy, why? Because you say so?

I reject your premise.

The problem is that the enemy hides among the innocent and even the friendly, pops up to do us harm, and hides again. There's no established military we can go and fight. The only way, therefore, to fight such an enemy in anything but a primarily reactive manner would be kill a massive amount of totally innocent civilians in the process.


Or do you think that if we stop supporting Israel, islamic extremists will no longer want to kill us?

Obviously not. The lifeblood of any extremist group is someone to hate, and our pluralistic society makes us ripe targets for that in the eyes of extremist Muslims.


But if you don't believe in appeasement, how should we fight islamic extremists?

I don't believe it's possible to fight Islamic extremists as a whole (if it were, rest assured I'd endorse it). They're too spread out and too hidden. What we can do is fight clearly established groups like the Taliban that have become large enough to significantly influence their own national policies. Beyond that, I'm personally a fan of minimal exposure to the region itself.

[Honu]

The problem is you seem to think you can fight a war against an idea splintered all over the world the same way you can against a nation, and you try to cover up the fact that you haven't the slightest clue how we could go about doing that (here's a hint, we CAN'T)

so what do we do then ? since we have no clue and you are smarter than us stupid folk ?

you tell us your idea ?
or do you just roll over and take it ? or like you said I dont think its possible ?? guess you dont have a answer yourself
OH avoid confrontation ? kinda like hiding from the bully in highschool ?


I say no enemy that wants to destroy us is impossible to beat ? and you fight it with a winning attitude

lefty types for some reason think I know if I am nice to them they will be nice back to me !!!!!
they told me so !!!!
the radicals are using weak people to get what they want and when they do you will be gone also !!!!!


OH and by the way the last time the muslims tried to do this they lost ? and they will again better do your history and read up on the crusades !

[Safetyhit]

I don't believe it's possible to fight Islamic extremists as a whole (if it were, rest assured I'd endorse it). They're too spread out and too hidden. What we can do is fight clearly established groups like the Taliban that have become large enough to significantly influence their own national policies. Beyond that, I'm personally a fan of minimal exposure to the region itself.


Apparently your basic premise seems to be that we essentially do nothing until the radical force has grown so large it is ready to overthrow or overtake a nations government.

This is an idealogical viewpoint and not at all practical. Fortunately we are smart enough as a nation to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes something far worse. Plus, how about helping an ally who is under constant attack or threat of attack by a common enemy? Or maybe like some others you just don't care for Israel but won't come out and say it, so you spin this nonsense instead. But that would be your right, I suppose.

We take the fight to the enemy so we don't have to fight them here. We usually do so with other allies at our side, whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, etc. Israel always sits on the sidelines so as not to inflame the region further, do they not? In fact they do everything possible to avoid conflict and tolerate constant attacks we never would.

And we need to be proactive against the smaller cells for a number a reasons, remember what almost just happened in Times Square? Where did that operation originate from, or weren't you paying attention? What if it's a dirty bomb that actually works next time, where would your sit back and wait policy have us then?