Obama the Zionist

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why not?

Because it was the U.S. who broke the treaties it made to the Native American tribes - the stronger, more powerful side (U.S.) took advantage, not the other way around. To imply that the U.S. is somehow weaker than Iran or any other country in today's world would require an incredible imagination and suspension of disbelief.

Wanting to negotiate would make us look weaker.

Look? So that's why you think a 300lb lineman should accept a challenge to a fight with a 90lb kid because to decline would make him 'look' weak??? What an archaic understanding of power.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why not?

Because it was the U.S. who broke the treaties it made to the Native American tribes - the stronger, more powerful side (U.S.) took advantage, not the other way around. To imply that the U.S. is somehow weaker than Iran or any other country in today's world would require an incredible imagination and suspension of disbelief.

Wanting to negotiate would make us look weaker.

Look? So that's why you think a 300lb lineman should accept a challenge to a fight with a 90lb kid because to decline would make him 'look' weak??? What an archaic understanding of power.

Size isn't everything. What if that 90lb kid is Bruce Lee?

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Why not?

Because it was the U.S. who broke the treaties it made to the Native American tribes - the stronger, more powerful side (U.S.) took advantage, not the other way around. To imply that the U.S. is somehow weaker than Iran or any other country in today's world would require an incredible imagination and suspension of disbelief.

not necessarily. the american public is very weak in regards to will - we can't support a long term war. happened in ww2, vietnam, iraq......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why not?

Because it was the U.S. who broke the treaties it made to the Native American tribes - the stronger, more powerful side (U.S.) took advantage, not the other way around. To imply that the U.S. is somehow weaker than Iran or any other country in today's world would require an incredible imagination and suspension of disbelief.

not necessarily. the american public is very weak in regards to will - we can't support a long term war. happened in ww2, vietnam, iraq......

The option to use military force is always there. Diplomacy doesn't negate that option, but looks to more peaceful means to achieve our goal, which ironically, is peaceful coexistence. Like I said, the days of the tough cowboy mentality will soon be over. Diplomacy can work as has worked in the past - you can't simply discount it as non-effective for all situations just as you can't discount war as non-effective either.

[Nagishkaw 510]

A more peaceful means? Such as, let's sit down and talk, pass the peacepipe and sign a worthless treaty? For what?

[HAL 9000 96]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

Neo-con foreign policy is about to end. The voters will put an end to this madness.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

oh so the treaties with the native americans were never meant to be respected?

and yes, they did have military recourse - they went to war as you may recall, but they still lost.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I figured you probably missed this post...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1853744

No, I didn't. It had some very good points:

1.American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.

2.To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.

3.The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.

4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.

5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

I'd like to bring your attention to #4.

You say the article made some good points, but you are completely ignoring what the author actually said. You list the bullet points of what he called *myths,* deliberately editing out the body of each paragraph where he explained *why* they are myths. Naughty, naughty !

Specifically on #4, he says:

You don't need an advanced degree in international relations to recognize that pursuing peace only with people you like is pointless. Most Israelis know this; a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that two-thirds of Israelis favor cease-fire negotiations between their government and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, exactly because Hamas is such a bitter foe. But in Washington, we self-righteously refuse to engage -- even indirectly -- with Hamas, Iran or Syria.

Hamas won the most recent Palestinian national elections in a landslide. Do we seriously think that it can be erased from the political landscape simply by assassinations and sanctions? Precisely because Hamas and Iran represent the most worrisome strategic challenges to Israel, responsible friends of Israel who'd like to see it live in security for its next 60 years should be engaging with them to search for alternatives to war.

Now you may not agree with him, but don't try to misrepresent the piece as somehow supporting your premise. It doesn't.

[HAL 9000 96]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

oh so the treaties with the native americans were never meant to be respected?

and yes, they did have military recourse - they went to war as you may recall, but they still lost.

Well, how many of those famous treaties were actually respected? I think that it may have been gullible of them to put trust in the US Government's intentions time after time... and yeah... they acted in arms to defend what was theirs... and the common belief among the prevalent American society was that "the savages" were at it again, right?

So... if these treaties had actual clauses that reparated (to the victimized parties' satisfaction, no doubt) upon treaty violation, how come the response was to act like the victimized parties were somehow wrong and savage to fight for their land rights?

Anyway... that is OTT.

[mawilson 2,133]

You say the article made some good points, but you are completely ignoring what the author actually said. You list the bullet points of what he called *myths,* deliberately editing out the body of each paragraph where he explained *why* they are myths. Naughty, naughty !

Yes, I am - thanks for noticing.

[Nagishkaw 510]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

oh so the treaties with the native americans were never meant to be respected?

and yes, they did have military recourse - they went to war as you may recall, but they still lost.

Well, how many of those famous treaties were actually respected? I think that it may have been gullible of them to put trust in the US Government's intentions time after time... and yeah... they acted in arms to defend what was theirs... and the common belief among the prevalent American society was that "the savages" were at it again, right?

So... if these treaties had actual clauses that reparated (to the victimized parties' satisfaction, no doubt) upon treaty violation, how come the response was to act like the victimized parties were somehow wrong and savage to fight for their land rights?

Anyway... that is OTT.

THEM?? THEY?? GULLIBLE??

Blindsighted and forced is more accurate.

[HAL 9000 96]

You've missed out on about 500 years of progress.

and you've missed out on about 500 years of history.

rrrrright... the days of the neo-cons and their revisionist history are almost over...I'm counting the days.

surely you remember how well the native americans negotiated with the invaders and look at where they are today.

how about the incas? how about the eskimos?

negotiating from a position of weakness is always going to end in disaster.

You're also comparing treaties that were never meant to be respected. I don't think the victims had much legal/military recourse to correct the violations, right?

Besides all this crazy anti-Zionist talk... people... Obama lives across the street from a freaking Synagogue.

oh so the treaties with the native americans were never meant to be respected?

and yes, they did have military recourse - they went to war as you may recall, but they still lost.

Well, how many of those famous treaties were actually respected? I think that it may have been gullible of them to put trust in the US Government's intentions time after time... and yeah... they acted in arms to defend what was theirs... and the common belief among the prevalent American society was that "the savages" were at it again, right?

So... if these treaties had actual clauses that reparated (to the victimized parties' satisfaction, no doubt) upon treaty violation, how come the response was to act like the victimized parties were somehow wrong and savage to fight for their land rights?

Anyway... that is OTT.

THEM?? THEY?? GULLIBLE??

Blindsighted and forced is more accurate.

No kidding... yet they were expected to be able to enforce the treaties they entered into in good faith... Jeez... Somehow I don't think that is what was all that publicly supported back in those days... go figure.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Anyway, for the sake of my own sanity,