New friends of the Democrats

[Donkey®]

So let me get this straight...Republicans HATE isolationism unless we're just talking to various parties instead of destroying them? It's ok to blow shit up but not talk to people? Interesting.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

wow democrats talk to hamas... holy shit we start talking to our enemies

Hamas isn't one of our enemies; they are Israel's enemy. They have never done anything to the United States. And they are the elected, ruling party of the Palestinian territories; they won the elections we pushed for. Its insane not to talk to them.

Hamas is actively recruiting Christian Palestinians into their ranks, so the common belief it is an Islamist organization is patently false, by the way.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Hamas isn't one of our enemies; they are Israel's enemy. They have never done anything to the United States. And they are the elected, ruling party of the Palestinian territories; they won the elections we pushed for. Its insane not to talk to them.

Hamas is actively recruiting Christian Palestinians into their ranks, so the common belief it is an Islamist organization is patently false, by the way.

Got a link for Hamas recruiting christians?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Hamas isn't one of our enemies; they are Israel's enemy. They have never done anything to the United States. And they are the elected, ruling party of the Palestinian territories; they won the elections we pushed for. Its insane not to talk to them.

Hamas is actively recruiting Christian Palestinians into their ranks, so the common belief it is an Islamist organization is patently false, by the way.

While i agree with you to a certain extent... an enemy of israel is usually an enemy of the united states.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Got a link for Hamas recruiting christians?

I heard it on the radio, so no.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

While i agree with you to a certain extent... an enemy of israel is usually an enemy of the united states.

Well, its not like we're obligated to take the Israeli side over the Palestinians. As long as we continue to so blatantly do so, with no apparent benefit to the United States, its not a big surprise we russle some feathers over in the Middle East. The bombs that killed Lebanese civilians last summer were all made in the USA, and paid for by U.S. foreign aid. Since being Israel's ally is so costly to the United States, and since their gratitude comes in the form of Johnathan Pollard and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, maybe we should let them go it alone for a while. When France wouldn't let us fly over their territory in order to bomb Libya back in '86, we managed to drop a single bomb on their Embassy in Tripoli, despite all our targets being located on the other end of town. Israel can do whatever it wants and we just increase their annual aid package. I see no reason we should be treating them any more favorably than we do our western European allies, who have actually fought by our side in times of war (unlike Israel).

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Well, its not like we're obligated to take the Israeli side over the Palestinians. As long as we continue to so blatantly do so, with no apparent benefit to the United States, its not a big surprise we russle some feathers over in the Middle East. The bombs that killed Lebanese civilians last summer were all made in the USA, and paid for by U.S. foreign aid. Since being Israel's ally is so costly to the United States, and since their gratitude comes in the form of Johnathan Pollard and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, maybe we should let them go it alone for a while. When France wouldn't let us fly over their territory in order to bomb Libya back in '86, we managed to drop a single bomb on their Embassy in Tripoli, despite all our targets being located on the other end of town. Israel can do whatever it wants and we just increase their annual aid package. I see no reason we should be treating them any more favorably than we do our western European allies, who have actually fought by our side in times of war (unlike Israel).

You honestly believe Israel gets to do whatever it wants? If it weren't for international pressure namely the US they would have bombed Iran already. They would have completely obliterated palestine after the hamas elections.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's what they do to economies...

Not always. Plenty of nations have socialist tendancies

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You honestly believe Israel gets to do whatever it wants? If it weren't for international pressure namely the US they would have bombed Iran already. They would have completely obliterated palestine after the hamas elections.

We do give Israel several billion dollars every year, which they likely couldn't survive without (and our military airlift of ammunition and other military supplies was what prevented the Israeli state's total destruction in the Yom Kippur War of 1973), so yes, they are rather concerned with our opinions, for fear we won't continue propping up their existence. I don't believe the United States should be in the business of perpetually propping up artificial, ahistorical states that can't survive without our aid, so we ought to cease all our aid to Israel and let them sink or swim on their own merits.

[DosEquis]

I believe the relationship with Israel is kind of a give and take. They shut up and do what we say as long as we keep up the funding and the weapons keep coming. During Gulf War 1 we told israel to sit tight, despite scud missiles flying in to their country. We tell Israel to sit tight with Iran despite the Iranian "wipe them off the map" comment and developing nuclear material. They basically do whatever we tell them. We told them to pull out of palestine in the past, they do it.

I believe we support israel because it is a 1st world stable democracy in a region that needs stability in a bad way. Unfortunately those who are trying to gain control of that region use a message of hate and fear... and fear is a powerful tool. Unfortunately fear usually trumps a message of hope, especially when the general population has an education equivilant to 6th graders and 1/4th of them can't even read. It also does not help when we blow something up and the Iranians, Hezbollah, or Hamas can point at it and be like.. see what the zionist infidels are doing?? and people buy it and they further build on the hate. A ton of them are also dirt poor. They have nothing to lose. Most of the "islamic" soldiers are those who had nothing to lose. They join up because they get a meal to eat.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I believe the relationship with Israel is kind of a give and take. They shut up and do what we say as long as we keep up the funding and the weapons keep coming. During Gulf War 1 we told israel to sit tight, despite scud missiles flying in to their country. We tell Israel to sit tight with Iran despite the Iranian "wipe them off the map" comment and developing nuclear material. They basically do whatever we tell them. We told them to pull out of palestine in the past, they do it.

We told them to stop attacking Lebanon and they didn't listen.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I believe the relationship with Israel is kind of a give and take.

Precisely; we give the money, and Israel takes it.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They shut up and do what we say as long as we keep up the funding and the weapons keep coming.

Unfortunately, getting to tell Israel what to do, and what not to do (albeit with a less than perfect track record of obedience on their part), doesn't afford much in the way of benefits to the American people, most of whom could give a horse's patoot about some New Jersey-sized slice of desert between Lebanon and Egypt.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I believe we support israel because it is a 1st world stable democracy in a region that needs stability in a bad way.

If we're supporting Israel in order to stabilize the Middle East, then perhaps we are insane and/or mentally retarded in some manner, since the existence of Israel is and has been the single greatest factor contributing to instability in the Middle East since the late 1940s.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Unfortunately those who are trying to gain control of that region use a message of hate and fear... and fear is a powerful tool. Unfortunately fear usually trumps a message of hope

I have no idea what the Hell you mean when you talk in bumper sticker cliches like "hate," "fear," and "hope." I do know that most Arabs, including Muslims, Christians and secularists, all oppose Israeli imperialism ("Zionism") in the Middle Eastern region, and I can't understand why anyone would be surprised by that. You'd probably be against it too, if you were an Arab.

Let's say the Dominion of Canada were to break up into several nations in the wake of Quebecois secession (much as the Ottoman Empire broke up as a result of the First World War). Suppose China then used her military, political, diplomatic, and economic strength to take control of the then-former Canadian Province of British Columbia, and set it up as a homeland for members of the outlawed Falun Gong sect, and gave these ethnic Chinese Falun Gong adherents total control over & privileges within BC society. Let's say they took away the homes of the White and other non-Chinese Canadians, and drove them into refugee camps. Don't you think people in California, Texas, Ohio, Ontario, and both New England and Merry Olde England, among other places, would be outraged by such an event? Wouldn't a lot of them do everything they could to harm Chinese interests, and the interest of the Chinese Falun Gong adherents and their newly-created state in BC? Some of them would likely even join so-called "terrorist" groups (although perhaps "freedom fighters" would be a more accurate characterization), and chances are some very decent, law-abiding, otherwise innocent Chinese people, whether in BC or elsewhere in North America or Britain, would be targetted by hotheads, and thus have their homes firebombed, etc. That's human nature. A bunch of gobbledygook about "hate," "fear," and "hope" really doesn't address any of the underlying realities at play in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A ton of them are also dirt poor. They have nothing to lose. Most of the "islamic" soldiers are those who had nothing to lose. They join up because they get a meal to eat.

While the Middle East has a pretty mediocre economy, famine is not an issue there. Most of the people in the world are impoverished, yet its not like they have nothing to lose. Our ancestors were poor too; did they have no reason to live, whether in Medieval Europe or elsewhere? Its not like failure to live within a First World, middle class millieu is some terrible fate worse than death, as you laughably seem to be implying. And for that matter, the Palestinians were some of the best educated and most prosperous of all Arabs. The same goes for Lebanon and much of Syria (Syria, by the way, is about 40% Christian); it ain't all some sort of Third World Hellhole over there, despite what you may be inclined to assume.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Hamas isn't one of our enemies; they are Israel's enemy. They have never done anything to the United States. And they are the elected, ruling party of the Palestinian territories; they won the elections we pushed for. Its insane not to talk to them.

Hamas is actively recruiting Christian Palestinians into their ranks, so the common belief it is an Islamist organization is patently false, by the way.

Office of Counterterrorism
Washington, DC
October 11, 2005


Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)


Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.

Identification

The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the State Department (S/CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, S/CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Legal Ramifications of Designation

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)

They are our enemy

[RMNIXON]

Newt Gingrich was on O'Reilly last night and was pissed at Kerry and others acting like our State Department. A clear slap in the face of Administration policy and the Constitutional duties of the White House as far as he was concerned.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

A clear slap in the face of Administration policy and the Constitutional duties of the White House as far as he was concerned.

Well, maybe if they would do their job we wouldn't have this problem.

Where does it say in the constitution that only the President can speak to people in other countries?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Well, maybe if they would do their job we wouldn't have this problem.

Where does it say in the constitution that only the President can speak to people in other countries?

ThisNation.com--Foreign Policy


They can speak as members of Congress and as Citizens to whomever they like. That does not make it proper conduct.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Well, maybe if they would do their job we wouldn't have this problem.

Where does it say in the constitution that only the President can speak to people in other countries?

we should always speak from a unified point, regardless of who is President or what party controls congress

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we should always speak from a unified point, regardless of who is President or what party controls congress

says who/what?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we should always speak from a unified point, regardless of who is President or what party controls congress

How's that different than a dictator controlling everything?

Disagreement is fine, and I have no problem with elected officials disagreeing with the President or his foreign policy. If they were elected to represent the people in their state, or their city, or their district, that in no way means they have to follow someone's national agenda, especially if they feel it's wrong.