I don't know if I would use NATO as an example of Anti-Conservative thought. Remember Reagan, Eisenhower and Bush Sr. they were sort of in favor of NATO expansion. NATO and Conservatism has gone together since 1945...Sam Lowry said:A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.whiterock said:When did you fall in love with Russia?Realitybites said:whiterock said:
You're going to have to deal with these facts:
We did not provoke this war.
It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.Quote:
Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.
Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.
As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?
Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?
Netanyahu said "we are at war,"
422,243 Views |
6508 Replies |
Last: 3 hrs ago by The_barBEARian
WSJ:
— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) July 23, 2024
-Harris will meet 1v1 w/ Bibi, then skip his address. She's expected to tell him to stop the "war" & the "suffering of Palestinian civilians"
-She likely won't keep Sullivan, Blinken, or Austin
-Jim Zogby says she's shown "'far greater empathy' for Palestinians than Biden" pic.twitter.com/EF7oX8TuCf
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed and the US had to be central.historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
I'm just glad no one of any consequence what there to meet that POS. We should freeze his ass out and let him go at it alone. No arms, no support, whatsoever.
It is a dark day in US history when an authoritarian with warrant requests from the International Criminal Court is allowed to address a joint session of Congress.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 23, 2024
40k Palestinians are dead.
Hostages aren’t home.
Netanyahu is a war criminal.
I will be boycotting his address.
Boohoo
It depends on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.
nein51 said:
Boohoo
Good riddance! Hopefully the rest of the Hamas caucus (aka the Squad) joins her in the boycott.
Trump posts letter from Palestinian leader ahead of Netanyahu meeting, expresses hope for peace https://t.co/VjJHwQSq4l
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2024
historian said:
It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.
I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.
The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.
There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.
that is true. the Cold War lions tended to almost uniformly advise against it. Yet, Nato chose to do it. EVERY MEMBER STATE chose to do it. Because it made sense. It made Nato stronger, and it posed no threat to Russia. We did not permanently station combat units in the former WP nations (just to allay Russian concerns). All we did was use membership as a "don't invade here" marker, not to actually project power to threaten Russia.Sam Lowry said:A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.whiterock said:When did you fall in love with Russia?Realitybites said:whiterock said:
You're going to have to deal with these facts:
We did not provoke this war.
It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.Quote:
Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.
Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.
As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?
Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?
That Russia squealed about that as an attack on Russian sovereignty actually proves that the expansion was necessary. It would be madness to let the nation that lost the Cold War have the entirety of Eastern Europe back without any opposition whatsoever.
Russia does not "own" anything beyond its own borders. If they'll learn how to get along with neighbors rather than bully them around, they'll find their neighbors will have a lot less interest in joining Nato.
Ukraine is fighting a just war.
Russia is not.
Fact.
Since the Houthis disrupted all shipping in the Red Sea with huge consequences, it was in everyone's (the denture planet's) interest for someone to do something about it. If America had real leaders we would have done it. Instead, we have a corrupt, incompetent, & feeble fake president so it was left to Israel to clean up the mess.
J.R. said:
I'm just glad no one of any consequence what there to meet that POS. We should freeze his ass out and let him go at it alone. No arms, no support, whatsoever.
Under continued Dem administrations your hopes will eventually become a reality.
Strange how American Jews are so slow in realizing this.
Not true.The_barBEARian said:historian said:
It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.
I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.
The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.
There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.
There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.
Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world
Maggots and crickets were released at the Watergate Hotel where PM Netanyahu is staying by activists from the DC Palestinian Youth Movement. pic.twitter.com/DkKaQSmp3B
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 24, 2024
Times have changed. I think our presence is accepted in Jordan and Saudi Arabia much moreso today than 9/11 days.Guy Noir said:
Not true.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.
There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.
Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world
As long as we could have bases in Kuwait and Jordan we should be fine. I'm tiring of funding Israel with their West Bank behavior and undefined goals in Gaza. The entire area is a collection of religious zealots and they are almost impossible to rationalize with using common sense.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among dozens of lawmakers who are planning to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's joint address of Congress.https://t.co/gLkQanFRUI
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2024
I don't get the skipping. Grill him on what they are doing if you disagree. But not showing up?boognish_bear said:Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among dozens of lawmakers who are planning to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's joint address of Congress.https://t.co/gLkQanFRUI
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2024
Pure BS.whiterock said:that is true. the Cold War lions tended to almost uniformly advise against it. Yet, Nato chose to do it. EVERY MEMBER STATE chose to do it. Because it made sense. It made Nato stronger, and it posed no threat to Russia. We did not permanently station combat units in the former WP nations (just to allay Russian concerns). All we did was use membership as a "don't invade here" marker, not to actually project power to threaten Russia.Sam Lowry said:A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.whiterock said:When did you fall in love with Russia?Realitybites said:whiterock said:
You're going to have to deal with these facts:
We did not provoke this war.
It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.Quote:
Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.
Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.
As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?
Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?
That Russia squealed about that as an attack on Russian sovereignty actually proves that the expansion was necessary. It would be madness to let the nation that lost the Cold War have the entirety of Eastern Europe back without any opposition whatsoever.
Russia does not "own" anything beyond its own borders. If they'll learn how to get along with neighbors rather than bully them around, they'll find their neighbors will have a lot less interest in joining Nato.
Ukraine is fighting a just war.
Russia is not.
Fact.
1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
FLBear5630 said:I don't get the skipping. Grill him on what they are doing if you disagree. But not showing up?boognish_bear said:Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among dozens of lawmakers who are planning to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's joint address of Congress.https://t.co/gLkQanFRUI
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2024
Dems are playing it smart.
Public grandstanding that satisfies their Arab and woke driven constituents.
While they quietly continue to supply Israel with money , weapons and military support .
Which satisfies Jewish Americans and their all important lobbyists.
Respectfully, I oppose the expansion of NATO. Would you risk WW3 over North Macedonia, Ukraine, or Latvia? I would not.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
WW1 started when interlocking treaties dragged countries into the war. I oppose additional trip wires which some
mad man considers a bluff and invades anyway,
Treaties work until they don't. Most NATO supporters think more trip wires contain the mad man, but they don't consider the obligation when the worst happens.
I have no issue with anything you say. I just get sick of being told that I am a NeoCon or not "real conservative" because I see the value of NATO and believe NATO is what has KEPT us from WW3.Osodecentx said:Respectfully, I oppose the expansion of NATO. Would you risk WW3 over North Macedonia, Ukraine, or Latvia? I would not.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
WW1 started when interlocking treaties dragged countries into the war. I oppose additional trip wires which some
mad man considers a bluff and invades anyway,
Treaties work until they don't. Most NATO supporters think more trip wires contain the mad man, but they don't consider the obligation when the worst happens.
I think the issue with WW1 and WW2 was that every Nation came in at different times and had to wait for the US to decide. That gave the Axis time to gain ground and fortify, made it worse.
I personally don't believe either view is conservative or liberal, I think there are both in both camps. If Europe had to wait for the US to decide to help or not, like in WW2 Putin would already have the Baltics. I think if we follow an isolationist path and have to argue whether we are in or out every time, that is more dangerous in both the Pacific and Atlantic. The US is the only thing keeping the balance.
All good points, but now everyone has nuclear weapons and 100 million people could die in the first days of WW3FLBear5630 said:I have no issue with anything you say. I just get sick of being told that I am a NeoCon or not "real conservative" because I see the value of NATO and believe NATO is what has KEPT us from WW3.Osodecentx said:Respectfully, I oppose the expansion of NATO. Would you risk WW3 over North Macedonia, Ukraine, or Latvia? I would not.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
WW1 started when interlocking treaties dragged countries into the war. I oppose additional trip wires which some
mad man considers a bluff and invades anyway,
Treaties work until they don't. Most NATO supporters think more trip wires contain the mad man, but they don't consider the obligation when the worst happens.
I think the issue with WW1 and WW2 was that every Nation came in at different times and had to wait for the US to decide. That gave the Axis time to gain ground and fortify, made it worse.
I personally don't believe either view is conservative or liberal, I think there are both in both camps. If Europe had to wait for the US to decide to help or not, like in WW2 Putin would already have the Baltics. I think if we follow an isolationist path and have to argue whether we are in or out every time, that is more dangerous in both the Pacific and Atlantic. The US is the only thing keeping the balance.
Israeli PM Netanyahu compares the October 7th attack to "20, 9/11s in one day." pic.twitter.com/GZeyvhCCX0
— The Recount (@therecount) July 24, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enters to a standing ovation for his speech before Congress. pic.twitter.com/nsQ2QyPNaZ
— The Recount (@therecount) July 24, 2024
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has a message for pro-Palestine protesters: "You have officially become Iran's useful idiots."
— The Recount (@therecount) July 24, 2024
Rep. Rashida Tlaib holds up a sign reading, "WAR CRIMINAL." pic.twitter.com/LVzOk1v9G4
Screw this guy and Israel as long as he is PM. Cut their ass off. Now. No $, No arms, no support. While I respect the Israeli people, this govt can go eff itself as long as they continue to commit genocide of innocent women, children and civilians. They are just as nasty as Hamas. I'm really not sure why in the world this monster was invited to speak before our congress. Eff that .boognish_bear said:Israeli PM Netanyahu compares the October 7th attack to "20, 9/11s in one day." pic.twitter.com/GZeyvhCCX0
— The Recount (@therecount) July 24, 2024
J.R. said:Screw this guy and Israel as long as he is PM. Cut their ass off. Now. No $, No arms, no support. While I respect the Israeli people, this govt can go eff itself as long as they continue to commit genocide of innocent women, children and civilians. They are just as nasty as Hamas.boognish_bear said:Israeli PM Netanyahu compares the October 7th attack to "20, 9/11s in one day." pic.twitter.com/GZeyvhCCX0
— The Recount (@therecount) July 24, 2024
There is no genocide, that's a term thats overused and has a real definition.
They are not even close to Hamas, step away from the propaganda you're being fed.
Hamas sure as hell didn't give warnings to people leading up to their attacks to leave the area. They sure as hell aren't using people as human shields. They sure as hell didn't throw supporters of the last regime off buildings. They sure as hell don't stone gays to death. It was not the IDF blowing up buses with suicide bombers. Etc etc etc etc.
So take that garbage somewhere else. We are all full here.
Guy Noir said:Not true.The_barBEARian said:historian said:
It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.
I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.
The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.
There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.
Not my responsibility. If you want to pay extra in taxes to take on this responsibility, you should be taxed triple the rate of those who wisely choose to opt-out.
There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
No. We should be energy independent in this country and not reliant on the middle east, but certain countries like Israel and Saudi do everything in their power to make America energy dependent on the middle east.
There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.
Ally implies a symbiotic, beneficial relationship. We benefit Israel greatly, they give back nothing. Not once in my life have I ever directly benefitted from all the billions of billions we have sent to out greatest ally... meanwhile the added inflation from those billions has had negative impact on my quality of life.
Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world
9/11 was provoked bcs of US support for Israel. If we stopped engaging in the middle east the terrorist threat would diminish.
Great speech by the Israeli prime minister .
Surprised with his enthusiastic bi partisan reception.
Surprised with his enthusiastic bi partisan reception.
So, I guess we just don't trade in that area of the world. While we are at it, cross off the Horn of Africa, South China Sea, Red Sea, Arctic Ocean, and Space in General. That is a quick list of the contested areas. So, who are we going to sell our good to if we don't keep those areas open? We are going to just punt on those other products coming into the US.The_barBEARian said:Guy Noir said:Not true.The_barBEARian said:historian said:
It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.
I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.
The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.
There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.
Not my responsibility. If you want to pay extra in taxes to take on this responsibility, you should be taxed triple the rate of those who wisely choose to opt-out.
There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.
No. We should be energy independent in this country and not reliant on the middle east, but certain countries like Israel and Saudi do everything in their power to make America energy dependent on the middle east.
There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.
Ally implies a symbiotic, beneficial relationship. We benefit Israel greatly, they give back nothing. Not once in my life have I ever directly benefitted from all the billions of billions we have sent to out greatest ally... meanwhile the added inflation from those billions has had negative impact on my quality of life.
Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world
9/11 was provoked bcs of US support for Israel. If we stopped engaging in the middle east the terrorist threat would diminish.
It better be our responsibility, because otherwise you are relying on others to keep our economy going. China now has enough killer satellites that if we didn't counter, they would own space.
But none of that is worth you tax dollars. This is not new, this has gone back as far as the Barbary Pirates, when we literally paid tribute.