If you are asking do I agree Obama should resign then my answer is yes. If you are asking to I agree with all the points in his article then no.
quote: Would you like to see Obama condemning the Armenian genocide
He promised he would do it and didn't.
quote: ending our recent tradition of indefinitely holding and torturing random dudes accused of stuff?
Very poor and poorly worded question since we did not do that. But then again you already knew that and are simply trying to sound clever. However, quoting from the article
quote: I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
Doesn't that bother you more than holding combatants we captured on the battlefield?
quote: Because, heck, it's hardly surprising that non-conservatives are ideologically more consistent and willing to criticize their leadership; that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least.
You forgot to add "In my opinion" because your statement is simply untrue and that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least. You make that false statement all the time. Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now? Ted Rall is one but he is hardly well known.
quote: What is surprising to me is that conservatives are apparently agreeing with non-conservatives about what Obama should be doing.
Following your logic, it isn't surprising to conservatives that non-conservatives want Obama to resign because Obama is a poor leader.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doesn't that bother you more than holding combatants we captured on the battlefield?
No. And you know why? Because we only had the administration's word for it that we were only holding combatants we captured on the battlefield. And since I know we also practiced "extraordinary rendition" -- which often involved kidnapping someone out of their home country to send them somewhere else, often somewhere they'd be tortured by thugs -- and know moreover that there were people held at Gitmo who were referred to us by local warlords just to get them out of the way, I know for a fact that we weren't just dealing with battlefield enemies.
quote:Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now?
Try reading the non-conservative press some time. Or just wait. Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise.
quote:Following your logic, it isn't surprising to conservatives that non-conservatives want Obama to resign because Obama is a poor leader.
Except that is surprising. Non-conservatives aren't complaining about Obama's leadership skills; they're complaining about what he's doing with them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of us realize that it is harder and more complicated and slower to get out of messes than to get into them. It would be fabulous if, by the simple act of becoming president, Obama could undo all that had been done by President Bush.
ETA: That said, keeping political pressure on President Obama to do as much as possible is a good thing. Even if we realize that every thing we want is not possible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many of us realize that it is harder and more complicated and slower to get out of messes than to get into them. It would be fabulous if, by the simple act of becoming president, Obama could undo all that had been done by President Bush.
That's a red herring, Kate. When he made the promises he was aware of the situation; it wasn't like his reversals are reactions to any changes in the state of affairs between the time of the campaign and the time of the inauguration. What changed wasn't the situation, it was Obama's position, his responsibility to his country, and his access to non-public information.
The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact. Even decisions related to the <edit>torture</edit> debacle, like his reversal on the release of the torture photos, isn't dictated by the mess he found. He thought they should be released, but when he came to understand the situation more fully he realized that the Bush administration had made the right call. His reversal wasn't dictated by some mess that sprang up, it was dictated by his changed perspective.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness that didn't sound optimistic at all. "we should keep pusking for what we want even if getting it is impossible"?
Even if President Obama wanted to do all the things we want, Congress is still (stupidly) being an obstacle.
He values intelligence and hearing other points of view. That is an improvement right there. And, seriously, who would have been doing better, right now? DO you think you would be getting more of what you want with someone else?
ETA: SenojRetep, that doesn't take into account that under Obama we wouldn't have gotten into those messes in the first place. We wouldn't have been torturing people at Abu Ghraib because we wouldn't have been there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had a lot of ups and downs in the short few months that Obama has been in office, though I confess that I'm not paying nearly as much attention to politics now as I was during the election. I'm too busy with school at the moment to focus much extra attention, and maybe I'm also a little burned out.
For the moment I'm in a holding pattern of cautious optimism. For everyone who says "but look what he hasn't done yet!" I'll just remind them that he's only been in office for four months, give or take. Economists are predicting an end to the recession by the end of the year or the middle of next year, healthcare reform is likely to be tackled this Summer, probably major climate change legislation by next year (at the latest, given a like EPA standard that business fears even more), and more. He's been focusing a lot more on Israel/Palestine in the opening weeks and months of his presidency, rather than a last ditch end of term attempt to fix things at the last minute like Bush did.
And at the same time, I've had some disappointments. $50 billion plus to keep GM going? Surely there had to be a cheaper option. I say that as a metro Detroiter who'd like to not see southeast Michigan turn into something out of Mad Max, but geez, I'd have rather seen him spend $25 billion on green energy money to turn the area into the world's leader in environmental manufacturing and technology rather than propping up GM. I thought that was a poor use of a lot of money.
But resign? Please, you have to be kidding me. I don't necessarily have any huge problems yet with his handling of foreign policy. I haven't seen any major new pushes, and I'm waiting for a few. I think things are going to get really interesting when push comes to shove and American soldiers have to retreat from Iraqi cities next month. What's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now is near the top of my foreign policy list, and he seems pretty keenly tuned in to a delicate situation. Despite his tenuous hold on the country's government, and the fact that it teeters on the verge of collapse, they're still fighting insurgents in the Swat valley, which is more than Bush was ever able to get them to do.
As far as Guantanamo detainees go, there's actually a community in Montana that wants them, but neither Montana's governor, senator, or state rep are in favor of it. There's a gleaming, brand spanking new maximum security facility there with zero inmates, and they want the federal dollars that would come with housing them there. Everyone is saying no reflexively though. Given some of the psychos we've housed in our prisons, I'm surprised at the reaction. The facility is out in the middle of nowhere. In the offchance that someone were to escape, do we really think that he'd be able to blend in with rural Montanans? I don't think he'd make it very far.
quote:The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact.
Talk about an overstatement...
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact.
Talk about an overstatement...
Sorry, I realized after the post that I should have qualified that, but was away from my computer. Although I'm not as big a detractor as many of Bush's decisions during his first term, I freely admit that much of his foreign policy was terrible. I think he made significant strides in his second term, which few give him credit for. That was what I meant by having done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked. And if you want to dispute that, I guess you could, but I think Obama (in action, if not in rhetoric) is on my side.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, seriously, who would have been doing better, right now? DO you think you would be getting more of what you want with someone else?
That's not what I voted for. I actually held my nose voting for Obama because he's more liberal than I would like, but I had hoped that he sincerely meant his statements about change, transparency, ethical conduct, etc.
I said at the time that I was skeptical, but that I thought it was worth risking four years on a long shot. He has certainly justified my skepticism.
I know it's inevitable that any candidate who makes it that far is going to be beholden to pragmatism above all, but it's still disappointing to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. But I think that those things don't get changed overnight and they aren't going to be changed by one person. I think the fact that he at least wants those things (or even sees them as desirable enough to pretend to want them) is a good sign compared to our other choices.
ETA: SenojRetep, I do acknowledge that President Bush started to see the error of his ways in the last two years of his administration.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yet it seems to me that most of the week complaints fired at President Obama can be divided into two areas.
1) He's too liberal.
2) He's not liberal enough.
As a moderate I say, sounds about right.
From the "He's too liberal" side comes what I can mostly write off as Sour Grape attacks.
From the "He's not liberal enough" side comes what I detect as a whiney, "But I want it NOW!" that my son quit trying to use on me after he turned 7.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I fall into either of those two complaints, but I've been very disappointed with President Obama's actions so far. The populist scapegoating, reneging on promises without even acknowledging that he is doing so, let alone explaining why it is necessary, and the failures in accountability and transparency have all given me a poor opinion of his administration so far.
Yes, he's better than George Bush, but "better than one of the worst Presidents in history" isn't something I regard as an impressive standard.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want it now. I want it whenever. And Obama has already made it clear that many of the things that I wanted, and which he promised to deliver, are not things he ever intends to do.
I didn't accept that kind of thing from Bush, and I won't accept it from him. In fact, I'll demand from him the same thing I demanded from Bush, and didn't get: a full and honest explanation of why those things cannot be done.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you going to use the "contact us" option on the whitehouse.gov page? Or are you going to write letters? How are you going to demand these things?
Cause, if you DO write something, I bet a whole lot of hatrackers would love to sign and distribute your letter for more signatures. I think a lot of people who voted for Obama are unhappy with many of his decisions not to change things he said he would.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually use the contact us thingy. I also am on the mailing list of about a bazillion different liberal groups* that do exactly what you suggest.
I also write to my congresswoman (though she gets it) and to Senator Durbin, not Burris. I don't really count Burris. The congress needs to move, too. Even if President Obama was working as hard as he could on exactly what I want him to work on, congress has to do the same.
Write your congress people.
*I am happy to suggest some of these mailing lists if people want them. The downside is you get a lot of email, the upside is that with a few clicks of a mouse, you can email lots of people.
posted
Yeah, I write my congress people and I've written Obama using the contact us option. I happen to think Tom is more eloquent on these issues than I am, and would probably write something I would love to sign, which would also express better than I could what I think of what Obama is doing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't want it now. I want it whenever. And Obama has already made it clear that many of the things that I wanted, and which he promised to deliver, are not things he ever intends to do.
Just out of curiosity, what has faltered on in your eyes?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Can you give a list, though? Some of the things that would be on my list I have had satisfactory explanations for.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Im neither defending nor opposing Obama, but you made a claim and I just wondered why you made the claim. So what has he done that you didn't like with regards to transparency? I mean clearly if you are going to be that emphatic about something then you clearly have many, many reasons and I was just wondering what they are. They might even be things I agree with.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I knew they'd do this, or something like it, sooner or later.
I'll believe it when I actually hear him or Gibbs say it.
But if it's true...that's a stunning betrayal of campaign principles. Even if they limit it to the wealthy, that would amount to a huge new tax on the wealthy of this country, and while I'm not against a slight raise in their tax rates, this I think would be unreasonably large. Those struggling to come up with a way to pay for healthcare benefits can't afford a tax, those who are barely treading water and are thanking their lucky stars every day for their healthcare can't afford a tax. That really just leads the wealthy, and we can't foist off the financial burden for solving every problem on them.
I have a hard time believing this is true. I think there's a slight difference between not doing things you said you would and doing things you specifically railed against. I find the latter more objectionable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article linked says that President Obama doesn't want this. He can't do health care reform without Congress. Which would be worse - limiting but not eliminating the tax free status of empoyer provided health care or no health care reform at all? I don't really know. Getting taxed on health care would suck. The situation as it is now is pretty untenable, too. Does it make political sense to at least consider Sen Baucus's proposal? Or would that lead to less cooperation from Congress?
My suggestion - contact your senators. Especially if you live in Montana.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why hasn't President Obama commented on the shooting at an Army recruitment center in Arkansas? One soldier, Pvt. William Long, was killed and another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, was gravely wounded. They were 24 and 18 years old, respectively. We are close with many military families and they are feeling very hurt and betrayed by Pres. Obama's silence.
I wouldn't have even heard about this if it weren't for friends of ours. Why is this not news?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um....Why should it be news? The president doesn't comment every time someone's shot at a DMV or IRS office.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Tom, how often does that happen? Besides, DMV is a state agency, and nobody likes the IRS.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He commented very quickly on the killing of Dr. Tiller, for one. Secondly, these soldiers were shot on American soil by a convert to extremist Islam.
I don't understand your point. Why wouldn't he comment on a killing at the DMV or IRS? I think it would be completely appropriate for the POTUS to comment on the murder of a government employee in the line of duty.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it would be completely appropriate for the POTUS to comment on the murder of a government employee in the line of duty.
The "line of duty" here seems an odd way to put it. I mean, if someone comes into the server room and shoots me, I suppose you could argue that I was killed in the "line of duty," but I think the phrase is considerably more meaningful if the duty in question is one that is expected to have a significant chance of death.
I wouldn't expect him to comment because -- at the level we're talking about -- it's not particularly important. People are shot and killed all the time for ridiculously stupid reasons, and the federal government is the largest employer in the country. Commenting on the on-the-job death of every federal employee doesn't seem like a good use of the president's time, especially since he's almost certain not to have known that employee in any way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
American soldiers are killed by Islamic extremists on American soil all the time, Tom?
Mrs. M clearly isn't asking why Pres. Obama isn't commenting on every federal employee death, or even every American soldier death. These particular deaths, however, are clearly rather unusual circumstances to say the least.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they're unusual in any way, they're unusual in that they might be indicative of a larger conspiracy. (If they're not, if they're just a random nut striking out in a ridiculous fashion against the nearest target of his dissatisfaction -- and from what I've heard, this is not necessarily the case -- they're definitely not unusual. So then the question becomes: is there a larger issue that should be addressed? If so, how can you address that issue in a sensitive way? It's not like the president can come out and say, "Hey, look, there are more constructive ways to deal with your feelings of abandonment than converting to Islam, joining a terrorist cell in Yemen, and shooting two random recruiters.")
If they are part of a conspiracy, I want to hear law enforcement giving us details as they become known. This latter model is pretty much what's happening, so I don't see the problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the fact that the guy had an arsenal in his vehicle, and told the police that he planned to use it to kill as many soldiers as he could when he was apprehended. I think it's a pretty newsworthy attack, but I can understand why Obama wouldn't want to mention it right before his goodwill speech in Cairo.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Predictions on what he will say range from very low to very high. Many are saying that this speech will merely be yet another display of soaring rhetoric, with no major punches and no concrete promises or solutions. While the effects Obama might have on the Muslim world as a goodwill ambassador might be noteworthy, many are expecting nothing short of a game changing speech with concrete demands and plans for Israel/Palestine, American support for Middle Eastern dictators, and the US relationship with Islam in the Middle East.
Personally I'm leaning towards the low expectations side. He isn't going to ruffle any feathers over there because he needs Saudi support for a broad coalition against Iran, and for that matter, there are too many elections being held (Iran and Lebanon) in the next week or two that could have some pretty big effects on anything Obama might want to do. There'll be no antagonism on the issue of civil and political rights, which is sad because so many Middle Easterners claim it's their number one issue.
I think you'll hear a lot of "America is a friend to Islam" and "Mr. Netanyahu, tear down that wall!" with regards to the security fence and illegal settlements in the West Bank. He'll try to sound a little tougher on Israel, a little tougher on the Mid-East, and at the same time, not really say much of anything at all. It IS a big opportunity, but with so many things up in the air, were he to really take a tough, concrete stance on something, someone that we need is going to get pissed off. Whether it's threatening Israel to get them to capitulate on settlements, or threatening Saudi Arabia on the issue of civil rights, he'll pay a price. That's to say nothing of the huge political damage he might suffer at home for whatever he might say about Israel at a time when he's about to launch a summer domestic policy offensive. Personally, i think if he was going to say anything that might risk strained relations with those aligned with AIPAC, now is the BEST time to do it. Waiting four years until after he's been elected again, IF that happens, is too long, and he can't wait 8 years like Bush did. Attack the problem now, then at least he has a few years to see how things pan out and to explain his actions to the American people. He might win more support for doing something than he'll lose by acting against interest groups demands. But I don't see that happening.
To sum it up: He ain't gonna rock the boat.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I like that he acknowledged at the beginning the bad blood between Islam and the West. I liked his running list of Islam's best moments, and his emphasizing of Muslims in America. It's good to remind people of America's diversity (yeah, ignoring the problems inherent in such a diverse nation, but I'm okay with that).
His applause lines thus far I think have all been appropriate, though I don't think all of them are applause lines. A lot of this seems to be spontaneous. I'd be careful with the American pom-pom waving though. It's true that we aren't a stereotype, but promoting the best points of our national philosophies rings hollow to those who know that where the rubber meets the road, it's not so rosy all the time.
"Words alone aren't cannot meet the needs of our people," hm, maybe I was wrong, he will do something concrete. Okay, from the looks of things, he's actually laying out an agenda. Interesting. Hey, I almost nailed the "America is not at war with Islam" line. Tough language on Afghanistan and 9/11. I thought some of that would depress the enthusiasm of the crowd, but a couple quotes from the Qu'ran got a lot of applause. Nice concrete details on the humanitarian and infrastructure details for Afghan people.
Now he's drawing a line on Iraq. He's confirming all the agreements for troop withdrawal, which I personally like to hear. Lots of applause for no torture and no Guantanamo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we're on to the second major problem, Arab/Israeli relations. A very unsubtle swipe at Ahmadinijad here with talk about the holocaust and holocaust denial. Biggest applause yet for affirmation of America's desire to help Palestinians. Reaffirming America's desire for a two-state solution. He'll take heat for more or less legitimizing Hamas, though I roll my eyes at that. They're legitimate whether we like it or not. Hey, there's the finger wag at illegal settlements. That got an applause, where the finger wag at Hamas didn't, which is surprising from an Egyptian audience. Calling on the Arab states to recognize Israel is kind of a no duh moment. Most of them have already expressed willingness to do so, when conditions are met, but the reminder isn't so bad for Israelis listening at home.
I can already hear someone shouting about Obama saying "the home of the three great faiths." I like that he mentioned the commonality of Abrahamic religions.
The third issue of tension is nuclear weapons, so here's the Iran section of the speech. Lots of applause for nuclear disarmament.
The fourth issue is democracy, which got applause before he even went into it. I guess I was wrong, maybe he's going for it. He didn't go into specifics, but I'm glad he reaffirmed the basic principles of democracy, human rights and freedom of choice.
The fifth issue is religious freedom. I assume that the "cops" in Egypt are Coptic Christians? I've never heard that reference before.
The sixth issue is women's rights. Wow, he's really going after every issue, even controversial ones. Good stuff on microfinancing and pledging help to women around the world.
The final issue is development, and beyond simply giving advice on development to the MidEast, it's a nice discussion on increased educational and other kinds of ties between America and the MidEast beyond just oil and gas ties.
Now it sounds like closing poetic niceties. Good ones, too. Looks like he might have bungled the end a little bit though. "And may God...peace be unto you." Sounds like he almost reflexively said "and may God bless America" but switched over. Not a big deal at all, but it's a little funny if that's what it was.
He got a standing ovation though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
He needs to back off of this "two-state" stuff. You'd think that by now people would realize that there's no way that's going to be feasible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: From Jeffrey Goldberg:
quote:An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
I know Jeff. We went around and around about this back in the '90s. He's wronger now than he was then, and that's impressive.
Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza).
Can you even begin to imagine the outcries of horror if anyone were to suggest that the Palestinian Arabs within the 1949 armistice lines should have to leave Israel? Hell, you don't have to imagine it. You've heard it right here on Hatrack every time I've said it.
No, it's only Jews who have to be kicked out of their homes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Can you even begin to imagine the outcries of horror if anyone were to suggest that the Palestinian Arabs within the 1949 armistice lines should have to leave Israel? Hell, you don't have to imagine it. You've heard it right here on Hatrack every time I've said it.
Are these symmetric issues (I'm asking)? The Arabs in Israel are still bound - to a point (I think they are exempted from military service; presumably other things as well) - by Israeli law? If the two state solution were to happen, would the settlers be bound by Palestinian law? I assume the settlements would be part of Israel in the event of the two state solution actually occurring.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were the settlements in Gaza kept as part of Israel? No. They were destroyed, and their population rendered homeless and jobless. Why would you think it would be any different if we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria?
In fact, when we pulled out of Gaza, the very first thing they did, after destroying the synagogues we left intact, was to start firing rockets into Israel, using the land we ceded them as a staging ground. Why would you think it would be any different if we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria?
You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Israel makes concessions, the Arabs increase their violence. Israel cedes things to them, they use whatever was ceded against us.
Netanyahu, the last time he was PM, gave the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority guns. He armed them. Why? Because as a reasonable individual, he recognized that the Arabs would need to be able to keep order in the lands the Israeli army had vacated. Those guns were supposed to be used by the Palestinian police.
Of course, they immediately named the Palestinian police "the Palestinian National Army", and those guns have been used against Israel more than they have against criminals in the PA.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was addressing your apparent claim that the de-settlement of the settlers would have been equivalent to the Israeli Arabs being evicted.
To answer your question: I'm not sure that in the short term it will be different. However I don't think the status quo is desirable or sustainable.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't you learned yet from Obama that change, as such, is not necessarily a good thing? If the status quo is undesirable (and I agree that it is), that doesn't mean that it can't be made worse. And that's what this two-state nonsense is. A recipe for disaster. A recipe for a bigger and badder Gaza.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Isn't that the point. Strong arm tactics against Palestinians in retaliation to terror attacks have resulted in the terrorists using strong arm tactics in retaliation, and both sides keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the other side to back down, do something different.
And the rest of the world looks on and mutters, "insanity."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Nice non-answer.
Big issues that need to be resolved include: -rockets, suicide attacks etc. -recognition of Israel. -settlements.
Everyone knows this. What should the Palestinians read into the continued expansion of the settlements?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise. 
