Romney Talks international policy.

[GreecePwns]

It [Israel'] is a stain on humanity.

Jews are a stain to humanity? Wow.

Right on cue, as if I didn't totally address this a page ago.

Everyone repeat after me: anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism. Anyone who tries to equate the two has lost the debate.

Apartheid and racism are stains on humanity. Israel's foundation is based on Jewish supremacy, its actions toward Palestinians are most certainly apartheid. Israel is a stain to humanity.

And if you want Israel to be a secular nation, why aren't you demanding Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others all become secular nations? Those nations are much more dangerous than Israel.

1. Who said I don't demand that they become secular nations?
2. Libya was a secular nation before the US armed Al Qaeda rebels to topple their government. Egypt was secular until similar uprisings occur (while there is no blatant evidence yet of US intervention here, I wouldn't be shocked if there was)
3. A collection of 20-30 nations which have a combined total of 1(?) nuclear weapon is not as dangers as 1 nation with around 200 nuclear weapons.

[Night Strike]

It [Israel'] is a stain on humanity.

Jews are a stain to humanity? Wow.

Right on cue, as if I didn't totally address this a page ago.

Everyone repeat after me: anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism. Anyone who tries to equate the two has lost the debate.

Apartheid and racism are stains on humanity. Israel's foundation is based on Jewish supremacy, its actions toward Palestinians are most certainly apartheid. Israel is a stain to humanity.

Israel is simply trying to exist without being slaughtered. It's not Jewish supremacy: it's Jews trying to actually stay alive. Your hatred for Israel and Jews is astounding.

[Juan_Bottom]

Quick point here YOU GUYS WHO DON'T RECOGNIZE THIS PICTURE - Each star is a US base. Each Red Country is allied to the US, each Blue country is allied either against us, or has a less than favorable view of us. Purple I'll leave to you.

Take a look at how surrounded those blue country's are by our bases & allies.

[GreecePwns]

It [Israel'] is a stain on humanity.

Jews are a stain to humanity? Wow.

Right on cue, as if I didn't totally address this a page ago.

Everyone repeat after me: anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism. Anyone who tries to equate the two has lost the debate.

Apartheid and racism are stains on humanity. Israel's foundation is based on Jewish supremacy, its actions toward Palestinians are most certainly apartheid. Israel is a stain to humanity.

Israel is simply trying to exist without being slaughtered. It's not Jewish supremacy: it's Jews trying to actually stay alive. Your hatred for Israel and Jews is astounding.

Again with the "Any criticism of Israel means you hate Jews." Do you hate all Americans for criticizing American government? Drop this. You know this is a blatant attempt to distract from any criticism of a racist apartheid state.

If this is just Jews trying to exist without being slaughtered, then why did they choose Jerusalem? Why not New York, where there always was a large Jewish community, for example? Why didn't they move there in droves? Or literally anywhere else in the world where they wouldn't have been slaughtered there.

It was a religious fanatic belief that led them to Palestine above all else. A belief that they are a special people chosen by god for this land. That is clearly a supremacist belief.

Just trying to survive without being slaughtered? When Gaza residents try to build a school for their children out of used tires and tar, Israeli soldiers demolish it the next day because it presents a "demographic threat to Jewish society."

[Night Strike]

Maybe if you would quit claiming that Israel is "a stain on humanity", people would think you're actually discussing issues instead of hatred.

As for Jerusalem, that area has always been the homeland of the Jewish people.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe if you would quit claiming that Israel is "a stain on humanity", people would think you're actually discussing issues instead of hatred.

As for Jerusalem, that area has always been the homeland of the Jewish people.

Hey Greecepwns - how does it feel to be marginalized by your political opponent because of alleged bigotry? Yay Democratic strategy!

[GreecePwns]

I believe that apartheid South Africa was a stain on humanity, and even-worse-than-apartheid Israel is just as much a stain on humanity. I have a hatred for South African apartheid and a hatred of Israeli apartheid.

Of course, the US under Reagan enthusiastically supported South Africa (others did to, but not nearly as prominently). Did you support South Africa, Night Strike? Why is apartheid acceptable, in your view?

What did the Palestinians do pre-1948 that is deserving of open-air prison for an entire society?

[saxitoxin]

Israel is a secular state

Israel is not a secular state. Immigration is restricted to the favored religious group. The very name "Israel" is religiously inspired, as is the flag. The Central Rabbinical Authority has civil police power over food labeling regulations. The state treasury pays to fund, in part, the "birthright" program to which only members of the favored religion are permitted to participate.

As for Jerusalem, that area has always been the homeland of the Jewish people.

Not for more than 1,000 years. The Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem were all slaughtered during the First Crusade by French and English troops after the surrender of the city. After Sultan Saladin defeated the Crusaders, he invited what remained of the Jews back to the city under the protection of the Caliphate but they were, ever after, a distinct minority (since the Crusaders killed most of them).

If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms.

The U.S. and Israel are the only countries supporting radical Muslims. It serves Israel interests to maintain their permanent state of emergency. Bush attacked Iraq, deposing a secular government. Obama attacked Libya, deposing a secular government. Obama and Romney want to attack Syria, deposing a secular government. Every U.S. president has been owned by Israel since Jimmy Carter sold the last scraps of U.S. independence to the Zionists.

[saxitoxin]

Opposing Israel is Patriotic

Scratch a counterintelligence officer in the U.S. government and they'll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States.

This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S.. The fact of Israeli penetration into the country is not a subject oft-discussed in the media or in the circles of governance, due to the extreme sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship coupled with the burden of the Israel lobby, which punishes legislators who dare to criticize the Jewish state.

http://www.alternet.org/story/130891/br ... ted_states

[BigBallinStalin]

Seriously guys, if the US didn't take such an interventionist stance in any of these countries and didn't support the absolute stain on humanity that Israel is, would there still be Islamic terrorism on the scale we see today? Of course not.


America has an undeniable streak in supporting some of humanity's worst people in order to achieve their goals. What is going on in Gaza, the world's largest prison, is much worse even than apartheid South Africa, another regime supported by the US (and Israel, and really no one else). And that's by South African accounts.

Israel is an unnecessary nation, one whose existence relies on religious fanaticism and violent racism. It is a stain on humanity. A secular state should take its place. The only Israeli objection to this is that it poses a "demographic threat" - that Palestinians will overcome Jewish majorities and the idea is therefore bad. Racism at its finest.

Zionism has literally no legs to stand on.

A few centuries ago you'd be blaming the Native Americans for fighting back and labeling them terrorists for defending themselves from genocide as well. Just remember that.

So, how do you show the counterfactual? As in, what would a world--where the US engaged in 90% less M.E. wars, and its subsidies to Dickheads was 90% less--look like?

[PLAYER57832]

[
... If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms. .

Bombing Mosques.. and bombing abortion clinics, yes.
However, in this case too many so-called Christians seem to think Muslims just being Muslim is enough to threaten Christianity. Furthermore, you have seen roughly 50 years of moderate, even liberal Islamic acceptance, not just tolerance, of the west.... and they have been too often "thanked" by being told that they have no rights to land, they are to be considered no different that terrorists... and if they even so much as oppose ANY agenda of Israel, then they are no different than Al Qaeda or Hammas or any of the other radical groups.

Further, we have allowed Israel to treat ALL Palestiniens as if they were prisoners, not war refugees as is mandated by law, and have essentially equated all Arabs as Palestiniens. They famously justify shooting kids with rocks, and we continue to do nothing more than give Israel some minor lip condemnation that has no real power to it, then we turn around and wonder why we are not absolutely loved any more in the Middle East.

[PLAYER57832]

As for Jerusalem, that area has always been the homeland of the Jewish people.

The people of Palestine actually have claim that goes back just as far, and that has been more constant, unlike the Jews that left and now are trying to claim inherent right to retake the land.

[thegreekdog]

[
... If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms. .

Bombing Mosques.. and bombing abortion clinics, yes.
However, in this case too many so-called Christians seem to think Muslims just being Muslim is enough to threaten Christianity. Furthermore, you have seen roughly 50 years of moderate, even liberal Islamic acceptance, not just tolerance, of the west.... and they have been too often "thanked" by being told that they have no rights to land, they are to be considered no different that terrorists... and if they even so much as oppose ANY agenda of Israel, then they are no different than Al Qaeda or Hammas or any of the other radical groups.

Further, we have allowed Israel to treat ALL Palestiniens as if they were prisoners, not war refugees as is mandated by law. They famously justify shooting kids with rocks, and we continue to do nothing more than give Israel some minor lip condemnation that has no real power to it, then we turn around and wonder why we are not absolutely loved any more in the Middle East.

Well here's the question, then - if the people in the Middle East raising all this ruckus were Christians, would we still be having this type of conversation? I think no. I think most people in the US would find that these people were engaging in glorious rebellion over foreign powers for the right of self-determination.

[PLAYER57832]

[
... If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms. .

Bombing Mosques.. and bombing abortion clinics, yes.
However, in this case too many so-called Christians seem to think Muslims just being Muslim is enough to threaten Christianity. Furthermore, you have seen roughly 50 years of moderate, even liberal Islamic acceptance, not just tolerance, of the west.... and they have been too often "thanked" by being told that they have no rights to land, they are to be considered no different that terrorists... and if they even so much as oppose ANY agenda of Israel, then they are no different than Al Qaeda or Hammas or any of the other radical groups.

Further, we have allowed Israel to treat ALL Palestiniens as if they were prisoners, not war refugees as is mandated by law. They famously justify shooting kids with rocks, and we continue to do nothing more than give Israel some minor lip condemnation that has no real power to it, then we turn around and wonder why we are not absolutely loved any more in the Middle East.

Well here's the question, then - if the people in the Middle East raising all this ruckus were Christians, would we still be having this type of conversation? I think no. I think most people in the US would find that these people were engaging in glorious rebellion over foreign powers for the right of self-determination.

Exactly.... and that, and other reasons are why we should stay out. Except, if Romney is elected, then suddenly any supposed attack on Israel will be like an attack on the US. And note that Israel's definitions of "imminent attacks" include basic criminality and essentially any negative action, even some that are not really negative, just purely defensive (like not leaving a house one's family has occupied for hundreds of years), by anyone who is not Jewish.

So, basically, Romney's speech is pretty scary, even without the backdrop of his previous international relations errors.

[saxitoxin]

Except, if Romney is elected, then suddenly any supposed attack on Israel will be like an attack on the US.

I wouldn't worry what Romney said during the campaign. After all, Obama said he would be different in 2008, but carried out the same policy of wholesale butchery of George W. Bush and has actually increased U.S. global war crime murders.

There's no reason to believe Romney won't maintain continuity with the policies of the war criminal Barack Obama. Romney just has to put on a bigger jock strap during the campaign to trick his base, just like Obama had to put on lipstick and high heels during 2008 to trick his base. After the election, they all move toward a common-point position of international carnage and terror.

[thegreekdog]

[
... If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms. .

Bombing Mosques.. and bombing abortion clinics, yes.
However, in this case too many so-called Christians seem to think Muslims just being Muslim is enough to threaten Christianity. Furthermore, you have seen roughly 50 years of moderate, even liberal Islamic acceptance, not just tolerance, of the west.... and they have been too often "thanked" by being told that they have no rights to land, they are to be considered no different that terrorists... and if they even so much as oppose ANY agenda of Israel, then they are no different than Al Qaeda or Hammas or any of the other radical groups.

Further, we have allowed Israel to treat ALL Palestiniens as if they were prisoners, not war refugees as is mandated by law. They famously justify shooting kids with rocks, and we continue to do nothing more than give Israel some minor lip condemnation that has no real power to it, then we turn around and wonder why we are not absolutely loved any more in the Middle East.

Well here's the question, then - if the people in the Middle East raising all this ruckus were Christians, would we still be having this type of conversation? I think no. I think most people in the US would find that these people were engaging in glorious rebellion over foreign powers for the right of self-determination.

Exactly.... and that, and other reasons are why we should stay out. Except, if Romney is elected, then suddenly any supposed attack on Israel will be like an attack on the US. And note that Israel's definitions of "imminent attacks" include basic criminality and essentially any negative action, even some that are not really negative, just purely defensive (like not leaving a house one's family has occupied for hundreds of years), by anyone who is not Jewish.

So, basically, Romney's speech is pretty scary, even without the backdrop of his previous international relations errors.

Republican rhetoric aside, what makes you think Obama would have a different reaction?

[saxitoxin]

Barack Obama - "U.S. has a unified policy to Israel that will be seen through to whatever bloody conclusion it leads regardless of who is in office."

America’s commitment to Israel has endured under Democratic and Republican presidents, and congressional leaders of both parties. In the United States, our support for Israel is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay!

AIPAC’s work continually nurtures this bond. And because of AIPAC’s effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next several days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Four years ago, I stood before you and said that, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” That belief has guided my actions as president. The fact is my administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year.

As Rosy noted, last year, I stood before you and pledged that, “the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z28qCubqBv

It literally gets worse and more sniveling from here forward as Obama grovels at the altar of the "third temple" ... it's so bad I can't even post the worst parts without puking a little.

[PLAYER57832]

Republican rhetoric aside, what makes you think Obama would have a different reaction?

He has a much better understanding of the world around, but he is still very much beholden to the same power structure.

I heard an interesting analysis by the author of a recent biography on Eisenhower. He talked about how good a poker player Eisnhower was and how critical that was in his relations with Russia in the cold war. When it comes to Obama, though, he stated things have changed. Eisenhower was able to bluff (if it was a bluff... something no one really knows) because the players were more limited and so much was unknown. Now, Obama just does not have the same table. The game itself has changed. His closing comment was that he hoped Obama had a lot of good advisors and questioners.. people who would genuinely question and challenge him, people with whom he could truly discuss things.

Today, it almost doesn't matter what the president really thinks and wants, he is far more bound in by corporate interests, and the international players are multiple.

I would like to see someone better than Obama be president... but right now, we have 2 realistic options. Obama is the better one.

[Woodruff]

Seriously guys, if the US didn't take such an interventionist stance in any of these countries and didn't support the absolute stain on humanity that Israel is, would there still be Islamic terrorism on the scale we see today? Of course not.

America has an undeniable streak in supporting some of humanity's worst people in order to achieve their goals. What is going on in Gaza, the world's largest prison, is much worse even than apartheid South Africa, another regime supported by the US (and Israel, and really no one else). And that's by South African accounts.

Israel is an unnecessary nation, one whose existence relies on religious fanaticism and violent racism. It is a stain on humanity. A secular state should take its place. The only Israeli objection to this is that it poses a "demographic threat" - that Palestinians will overcome Jewish majorities and the idea is therefore bad. Racism at its finest.

Jews are a stain to humanity? Wow.

That's not what he said at all. Are you illiterate or dishonest?

And if you want Israel to be a secular nation, why aren't you demanding Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others all become secular nations? Those nations are much more dangerous than Israel.

What is it about them that you believe makes them more dangerous? If your answer is terrorism...well, Israel's not exactly innocent in that regard.

[saxitoxin]

Today, it almost doesn't matter what the president really thinks and wants, he is far more bound in by corporate interests, and the international players are multiple.

PLAYER at the start of this thread:

"Romney will be an utter foreign policy disaster!!!"

PLAYER now:

"Actually it doesn't matter what Romney really wants, he and Obama will have foreign policy dictated to them."

what a waste of a thread -- we only have a finite number of threads we can start people, let's make the most of them - thanks


Sirte, Libya B.O. (Before Obama) - Right
Sirte, Libya A.O. (After Obama) - Left
(and it would have been the same way under John McCain - the only difference is, under Obama, Player gets a few extra treats in her government goodie basket to assuage her guilt that her precious tax dollars are being used in the wholesale genocidal slaughter of an entire population)


remember, it's just foreign policy ...

[Woodruff]

His closing comment was that he hoped Obama had a lot of good advisors and questioners.. people who would genuinely question and challenge him, people with whom he could truly discuss things.

This is probably the most important thing for any leader to have. It's critical.

[saxitoxin]

"I fully support the Hellfire missile strike Obama just personally ordered on my village - it's the price I'm willing to pay for residents of northeastern Ohio to get $38/per person annually in extra goodies from the US government! We have too many babies around here anyway, Obama is doing us a favor by killing some of them for us. Obama-Biden '08!"

Obama personally overseeing the drone war
Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... -al-qaeda/

[PLAYER57832]

His closing comment was that he hoped Obama had a lot of good advisors and questioners.. people who would genuinely question and challenge him, people with whom he could truly discuss things.

This is probably the most important thing for any leader to have. It's critical.

Yes, but we are getting a generation of people who don't seem to even understand what that is, nevermind the need. To them, finding 5 different internet sites that happen to say similar things is "research" and "proof"..and hearing a few people on those sites pretend to "answer" opposition is considering all opinions.

[PLAYER57832]

"I fully support the Hellfire missile strike Obama just personally ordered on my village - it's the price I'm willing to pay for residents of northeastern Ohio to get $38/per person annually in extra goodies from the US government! We have too many babies around here anyway, Obama is doing us a favor by killing some of them for us. Obama-Biden '08!"

Obama personally overseeing the drone war
Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... -al-qaeda/

Yeah, we know.. but how would Romney do better? Bush at least knew he was not the most intelligent guy on the block. Romney doesn't seem to have that level of sense.

[saxitoxin]

"I fully support the Hellfire missile strike Obama just personally ordered on my village - it's the price I'm willing to pay for residents of northeastern Ohio to get $38/per person annually in extra goodies from the US government! We have too many babies around here anyway, Obama is doing us a favor by killing some of them for us. Obama-Biden '08!"

Obama personally overseeing the drone war
Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... -al-qaeda/

Yeah, we know.. but how would Romney do better?

If you had done the simple courtesy of reading my previous posts, you would have noted I said he would not have - therefore, it's morally indefensible to support a war criminal who buys your silence and loyalty with treats and goodies over a potential war criminal who won't, or visa versa. When you vote for Obama, you earn a number of days in hell equal to your percent of the vote multiplied by the number of babies he kills.

Gabriel will use the following equation to calculate your sentence in Hell:

X/Y x 1000/365 x p = ?

The U.S. isn't Australia, you still have the freedom not to make yourself an accessory to mass genocide. The only vote Obama deserves is a vote to convict him in The Hague of crimes against humanity before he's thrown in a dungeon for the rest of his life with his harlet wife.

Ralph Nader: “He’s gone beyond George W. Bush. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html