George Washington's warnings

[halik]

This underscores my sentiments exactly.

I have NO idea why our representatives intent on sympathizing with one or other side in this absurd conflict. Stop the money and the fighting will stop also.

 

[ProfJohn]

The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

That's a strange checklist to work backwards from ..

What in sam hell does having an income tax, judicial review, or a US Navy have to do with the general stupidity of becoming wrapped up in foreign entanglements?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

Hey Pro-Jo, it seems here like you're almost saying that we should view the wisdom of the founding fathers within the context of changing times. Better be careful with that, you're only a hop, skip, and a jump away from a living Constitution!

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

HUGE fallacy. Had the topic of the discussion been 'Constitution', what you said would work just as well. This ain't free republic forums ....

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: halik
This underscores my sentiments exactly.

I have NO idea why our representatives intent on sympathizing with one or other side in this absurd conflict. Stop the money and the fighting will stop also.

Stop the money? Who Iran and Syria will stop the money flowing into Hamas and Hezbollah? Sure, the US can stop the flow of $$ into Israel but how do you stop Iran and Syria? If you can do that, you are absolutely correct, the fighting will stop! But how? We can't even stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb let alone how they spend their $$$!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

HUGE fallacy. Had the topic of the discussion been 'Constitution', what you said would work just as well. This ain't free republic forums ....

The only fallacy is the idea that what Washington said 200+ years ago can be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I also suggest you look at our attempts to be neutral during the Napoleonic wars and see what that got us.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

HUGE fallacy. Had the topic of the discussion been 'Constitution', what you said would work just as well. This ain't free republic forums ....

The only fallacy is the idea that what Washington said 200+ years ago can be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I also suggest you look at our attempts to be neutral during the Napoleonic wars and see what that got us.

The Louisiana purchase?

That worked out great for us actually, if you're talking about the war of 1812, well we deserved that and it had nothing to do with our supposed neutrality or lack thereof.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Stop the money? Who Iran and Syria will stop the money flowing into Hamas and Hezbollah? Sure, the US can stop the flow of $$ into Israel but how do you stop Iran and Syria? If you can do that, you are absolutely correct, the fighting will stop! But how? We can't even stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb let alone how they spend their $$$!

The fighting is only an effect of Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian land. Stopping the flow of money to Israel would be forced to shift their focus from continuing expansion into the West Bank to establishing permanent borders. Only once that is accomplished will Palestinians finally have the chance to exist as an independent nation, and the money their supporters send them would have more useful purposes in developing their own nation rather than attacking the nation they are currently being colonized by.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: halik
This underscores my sentiments exactly.

I have NO idea why our representatives intent on sympathizing with one or other side in this absurd conflict. Stop the money and the fighting will stop also.

Stop the money? Who Iran and Syria will stop the money flowing into Hamas and Hezbollah? Sure, the US can stop the flow of $$ into Israel but how do you stop Iran and Syria? If you can do that, you are absolutely correct, the fighting will stop! But how? We can't even stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb let alone how they spend their $$$!

lulz the lefties think Islamists will stop after Israel.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

You seem to be off base on what the important differences are, the world was a lot "bigger". Communication, travel, and warfare were much different. 19 men with box cutters couldn't kill 3,000. From Sept 11th on, I consider all those slain by Muslims to be of our concern.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JS80
lulz the lefties think Islamists will stop after Israel.

Search my posts and check out my position on things like social welfare and the right to bear arms before you try to pass me off as some blind ideologist.

I am a man of reason, and hence realize that terrorism against Israel will contenue at least as long as Israel's colonization of Palestinian lands does. Do you not understand this fact?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

In 1796 there was NO income tax.
The policy of judicial review had not been created yet.
The US did not even have a Navy at the time.

That's a strange checklist to work backwards from ..

What in sam hell does having an income tax, judicial review, or a US Navy have to do with the general stupidity of becoming wrapped up in foreign entanglements?

Nothing, but PJ has a 'debater's style' where he picks his side and then lobs whatever he has for it, and has little regard for the issue, IMO.

In this case, saying that the comparison is wrong suited his agenda, and so he threw out whatever was handy about 'see how different the times were'.

Who cares about the enduring principles involved, it's all about what helps his point score.

Of course, he picks an argument that *can* have merit; for example, when we talk about issues where things that have changed *are* relevant, it makes sense to point that out.

Obviously, the role of the US has changed in the world - but there is still a lesson to be learned from Washington's comments as we go down the road of 'unintentional empire'.

In short, Washington's cautions against entangelements have been replace by advocates of empire with a logic that any other powerful nation in the world is an unacceptable threat.

Simply by existing and being a potential rival. It's the official policy of the Neocons to prevent by any means necessary other nations from being even potential equals.

Which is another name for 'grand master of the universe'. We've forgotten how to get along with any equally powerful nation, much less more powerful nations.

And that is the road to unintentional empire, when any nation cannot stomach other powerful nations existing.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The world is a very different place than it was in 1796 to adhere to those types of beliefs is rather foolish.

hehehehe

wow, did a conservative or republican or whatever you want to say actually just say that???

Wow. Just wow.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: JS80
lulz the lefties think Islamists will stop after Israel.

Search my posts and check out my position on things like social welfare and the right to bear arms before you try to pass me off as some blind ideologist.

I am a man of reason, and hence realize that terrorism against Israel will contenue at least as long as Israel's colonization of Palestinian lands does. Do you not understand this fact?

Do you understand that even if the jews were expelled from Israel that the Islamists in power will not stop? Their goal is global domination. Destruction of Israel is just their first obstacle.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JS80
Do you understand that even if the jews were expelled from Israel that the Islamists in power will not stop?

I'm not suggesting expelling any Jews from Israel though, just stopping the ones who continue to colonize the West Bank. And most of the Israel settlers in the West Bank would be happy to move back to Israel as a part of bringing and end to this conflict, as all but but a small radical faction are only there for the tax incentives and housing subsidies their government provides to continue that colonization of Palestinian land.

Originally posted by: JS80
Their goal is global domination. Destruction of Israel is just their first obstacle.

Those terrorst you speak of have unrealistic goals, and hence will die off on their own if only we would stop driving more to their cause.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: halik
This underscores my sentiments exactly.

I have NO idea why our representatives intent on sympathizing with one or other side in this absurd conflict. Stop the money and the fighting will stop also.

Stop the money and leave the playground to Russia. You're probably saying that from the standpoint of someone who's sure that the sheer number of Arabs would lead to Israel's defeat if cut from US aid. Just to remind you, US had a weapons embargo on Israel up until 1967, and yet Israel withstood very well. Israel's weapons industry is the third or fourth biggest in the world, and the entire economic aid amounts to 3.5 billion USD a year, Israel can do without that. And it has nukes, too!

Which reminds me of a story - Russia never hesitated to intervene in these conflicts. I read a memoir from a Blackbird (SR71) pilot, who said that back in 1973, Russia provided Arab forces satellite images of Israeli forced, which granted Arabs a huge tactical advantage. US countered by sending a Blackbird to photograph the area and provide counter images to Israel.

 

[CanOWorms]

Washington's warnings were for US relations with Europe. When the Euro-enslaved Americans of this nation take heed his warnings, we will finally be free. Will you be one of the free now?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Stop the money and leave the playground to Russia.

Russia gave up on Israel long ago, our veto power in the UN is the only thing left defending Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank.

 

[SamurAchzar]

In a Gallup poll from 1941, 17% of the Americans in favor of intervening in WWII

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Stop the money and leave the playground to Russia.

Russia gave up on Israel long ago, our veto power in the UN is the only thing left defending Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank.

Russia was never in favor of Israel. Go and study some history.
No one gives a shit about the UN today, not Israel and not its adversaries (resolution 1701 calls for Hizbullah disarmament - HA!)

You make me like the idea of Israel colonizing the West Bank. Seems like it's a real pet peeve for you.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Stop the money and leave the playground to Russia.

Russia gave up on Israel long ago, our veto power in the UN is the only thing left defending Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank.

Russia was never in favor of Israel. Go and study some history.

What drives your compusion to lie about things you so obviously don't understand?

If you want to change that, here is a book for you to start with:


http://books.google.com/books?...ce=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

Israel's political allegiance to the West is today unquestioned. In the early years after 1948, however, the direction of Israel's foreign policy remained uncertain. In this important book, Dr. Bialer describes the internal debates within the Israeli political parties, and particularly the highly ideological labor movement, on the choices among pro-Soviet, pro-Western or nonaligned foreign policies. Making use of recently declassified documents, the author has carried out extensive research in the State Archives and in other archives; his account is based overwhelmingly on primary sources. This book examines the ideological components of these debates as well as more material motivation factors: dependence on U.S. aid, trade links with the Soviet bloc, reliance on Czech arms supplies, and the degree of freedom allowed to the Soviet and East European Jewish communities to emigrate to Israel. Dr. Bialer concludes that there was no alternative strategy for Israel to adopt; the tilt towards the West was inevitable.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Stop the money and leave the playground to Russia.

Russia gave up on Israel long ago, our veto power in the UN is the only thing left defending Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank.

Russia was never in favor of Israel. Go and study some history.

What drives your compusion to lie about things you so obviously don't understand?

If you want to change that, here is a book for you to start with:


http://books.google.com/books?...ce=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

Israel's political allegiance to the West is today unquestioned. In the early years after 1948, however, the direction of Israel's foreign policy remained uncertain. In this important book, Dr. Bialer describes the internal debates within the Israeli political parties, and particularly the highly ideological labor movement, on the choices among pro-Soviet, pro-Western or nonaligned foreign policies. Making use of recently declassified documents, the author has carried out extensive research in the State Archives and in other archives; his account is based overwhelmingly on primary sources. This book examines the ideological components of these debates as well as more material motivation factors: dependence on U.S. aid, trade links with the Soviet bloc, reliance on Czech arms supplies, and the degree of freedom allowed to the Soviet and East European Jewish communities to emigrate to Israel. Dr. Bialer concludes that there was no alternative strategy for Israel to adopt; the tilt towards the West was inevitable.

I must be too stupid to see the obvious reference to Israeli bias by the Soviets in the above excerpt.

Up until 1977, Israel was controlled by socialistic governments. The idea of the Kibbutz was borrowed from the soviet Kolhoz. Some idiots even admired Stalin. But that doesn't imply in any way Soviet Union was in favor of Israel or assisted it somehow; the Soviets sent out fighter pilots to aid the Arabs in 1967. The Czech arm supplies were leftovers from WWII. Arabs always had a steady supply of Soviet arms and trainings.

Just so it's easy for you to orientate, these events taken place both before AND after Israeli conquering of the West Bank, in places not very far to the West Bank. I estimate most of these events to take place around 200 miles from the West Bank, so you probably should have seen them in your manifest.

Here's some concentrated reading for little minds: Soviets on the Arab side all the way from 1953, it seems

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I must be too stupid to see the obvious reference to Israeli bias by the Soviets in the above excerpt.

That isn't an excerpt, it is a summery, which alludes to the Russian support for Israel, which is address at great length in the book, and of which you'd need to read a lot more of to understand the depth of. Regardless, from the Wiki page you linked:

The USSR gradually switched sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It tried to maintain a policy of friendship with Israel at first...

 

[SamurAchzar]

At first. From 1948 to 1953. What are you doing now, point-picking?