The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

(sarcasm on)
Question. From where do the Palestinians come from? Esau? If they are related to Jacob's brother, of course they should be able to live in the same land--but both sides need to stop feuding with each other like or worse than the North vs. the South (wars)..!
Israel's land mass was also called Palestine (or "the Land of Palestine") when Jesus (of Nazareth) walked upon Israel's ancient ground. To me, it makes sense on this is how the whole scenario is connected. Prior to Palestine, the regions were divided up by tribal names, meaning the name of each of Jacob's sons. The name "Israel" comes from Jacob, when he "wrestled" with the Angel of the Lord (God) in a dream. *wink*

Palestinians are Arabic. Just like Iraqis and Syrians. Which is why other Arabs care so much about them and so little about the Kurds.

When will we learn?
When we learn not to forget.

It's much more complicated than that. It's the same reason why politics is politics. Let's say you are a US Rep. to Congress and just got elected (from Texas). You have the heart of a saint. Let's say you managed to just when your districts heart and thus needed not to get in bed with lobbyists and interest groups to afford to have a campaign. Let's also say that all your fellow Congressment in both the house and Senate are the same as well as the guy in the white house. Just a government of saints.

But the people aren't. Texas loves its guns, so the NRA is bugging you about it. But Maine doesn't want them so the Maine delegation is bugging you about it. Their reps are under extreme pressure from their constituents. And they are blackmailing you using your bill that will create new jobs in your district as leverage. You're also under extreme pressure from your district. You also need to deal with external things and every district has an opinion on the matter. The complexity just grows...the problem is that there are too many people who together instinctively think in the short term and not the long term. Who don't care that in order to see good things down the road, sacrifices need to be made today. Kinda like how people don't get that a Capitalist system requires a certain level of unemployment and a continual source of new labor that outpaces birth rates.

WWII was a different kettle of fish all together. That was a nice simple war. Germany went all darkside so we went and got the cane out of the cupboard and gave Fritz a damn good thrashing.

Which is what makes WWII so different.

[StargateMillennium]

Hamas is proving Israel right - apparently they fired rockets and morters at Tel Aviv after Israel had agreed to 4 extra hours of ceasefire.

And the flight recorders of MH17 confirm the plane was shot down.

You should see the pictures coming out of there. The new rocket launch sites include crowded neighborhoods, a school, and a cemetery.

[StargateMillennium]

Because at least in the US. Both the "health & education" debates are full of PORK and WASTE of money issues.

Just because POLITICIANS say they need more Money for something doesn't mean they are gonna put it to good use instead of what they really mean. LINING THEIR OWN POCKETS AND PET PROJECTS WITH IT!

And when politicians tell the teachers they are sick of them stuffing their pockets with the money that is supposed to be used for education, the 'teachers' go ballistic. And the things they do put their money in are TERRIBLE.

[Falcon Horus]

Why do conservative governments always cut funding to health and education?
Aren't these things important at all?

They probably don't always do so, but yeah... it does feel that way sometimes. And you would think those things were somehow important, wouldn't you?

You should see the pictures coming out of there. The new rocket launch sites include crowded neighborhoods, a school, and a cemetery.

Out of where - Gaza or Israel?

I'm thinking Gaza.

[StargateMillennium]

Out of where - Gaza or Israel?

I'm thinking Gaza.

The rockets are being launched from Gaza. Gaza cemetery, Gaza suburbs, Gaza schools. Some of the rockets were launched from rooms that contained babies in their cribs.

[SoulReaver]

Why do conservative governments always cut funding to health

[SoulReaver]

Some of the rockets were launched from rooms that contained babies in their cribs.

barely born & they're waging war - that's some badass babies

[StargateMillennium]

barely born & they're waging war - that's some badass babies

It means the launchers chose to use rooms with babies in them as launch platforms. It becomes a problem when missiles hit the launch sites as retaliatory strikes and there's a newborn inside.

[Gatefan1976]

It means the launchers chose to use rooms with babies in them as launch platforms. It becomes a problem when missiles hit the launch sites as retaliatory strikes and there's a newborn inside.

If that is employed as a known tactic, then the response should be to put boots on the ground, not lob a shell and count the child, who has no clue WTF is going on as an acceptable loss. The Hamas Terrorists are abject cowards for abusing their "own" in such a way, but that is the very nature of terrorism is it not? To hide amongst others, and use innocents to achieve their aims?

All I question is when our response is "acceptable losses" to this tactic, what sets "us" apart from "them"?

[The Flyattractor]

Reminds me of that time Katherine Sebelius (who was in charge of "Obamacare" at the time had that famous quote about concerning a little girl not getting a organ transfer because she didn't qualify.

Ahhh the so sympathetic Democrats..


YEAH!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!!

[StargateMillennium]

Reminds me of that time Katherine Sebelius (who was in charge of "Obamacare" at the time had that famous quote about concerning a little girl not getting a organ transfer because she didn't qualify.

Ahhh the so sympathetic Democrats..


YEAH!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!!

Speaking of obamacare, he never really did get to explain what happened to his promise of 'if you like your health care plan, you can keep it'.

[Coco Pops]

If that is employed as a known tactic, then the response should be to put boots on the ground, not lob a shell and count the child, who has no clue WTF is going on as an acceptable loss. The Hamas Terrorists are abject cowards for abusing their "own" in such a way, but that is the very nature of terrorism is it not? To hide amongst others, and use innocents to achieve their aims?

All I question is when our response is "acceptable losses" to this tactic, what sets "us" apart from "them"?

This.........

I kind of think, why aren't there troops on the ground going door to door instead of just lobbing a bomb onto a building where rockets are fired from, then worrying over the casualties?

[StargateMillennium]

This.........

I kind of think, why aren't there troops on the ground going door to door instead of just lobbing a bomb onto a building where rockets are fired from, then worrying over the casualties?

Whenever you put boots on the ground, they are risk, especially in a place where anyone and anything can be a a bomb. You know the moral question of should you divert the out of control train to ten adults or a single baby. Well, what is considered an acceptable loss? Just sending troops in will yield death tolls higher than mere air strikes against launch sites. But, the soldiers did know what they were getting into by enlisting while the people being killed in the strikes are completely oblivious to what is happening. But, people are people and sending boots in gets more killed. But, the soldiers are men who have been trained to fight and be ready to die while the civilians aren't. It's a back and forth argument.
No matter which you choose, people will die. Not might, WILL. The question is, how much and what type of blood do you want spilled.

[Gatefan1976]

It's not a back and forth argument at all.
Soldiers are employed to fight wars, that is their job, it is a known risk of the work they do.
The civilians in question do not "sign up" for that risk.

[Falcon Horus]

All I question is when our response is "acceptable losses" to this tactic, what sets "us" apart from "them"?

Nothing sets us apart then.

Whenever you put boots on the ground, they are risk, especially in a place where anyone and anything can be a a bomb.

So, I guess you agree that the innocent lives now lost in Gaza ... a whoppin' 1000+ Palestinians (about half of them women and children) ... an acceptable loss?

Just sending troops in will yield death tolls higher than mere air strikes against launch sites.

It's a soldier's risk. I say it's a choice but Israelis must serve 2 or 3 years in the army, so I can't say it's a choice for them. Maybe that's why Israel won't put boots on the ground, cause not all of them chose to serve and would rather have stood to the side instead of the middle of a warzone. Then why bother with the army anyway...

No matter which you choose, people will die. Not might, WILL. The question is, how much and what type of blood do you want spilled.

Why type of blood do you wish to be spilled?

The 30 soldiers or the 1000 palestinians? All of them victims of a war/conflict with no end in sight, not for the time being anway when you look at the terms of the peace negotiations.

It's not a back and forth argument at all.
Soldiers are employed to fight wars, that is their job, it is a known risk of the work they do.
The civilians in question do not "sign up" for that risk.

What he said.