"We can't kill ourselves out of this mess."

[Direckshun]

Was it just me, or did Mitt Romney say something brilliant and prescient?

****ing applause for the man. Easily his wisest line of the entire election season.

Not even kidding.

Mitt Romney, talking about the war on terror, just rejected every ounce of neoconservativism, drone-reliant warfare of civilian casualties to kill battle-aged men in countries full of brown people.

This is something foreign policy doves have been saying since the turn of the millenia. To defeat terrorism, it is not enough to simply murder a requisite number of bad guys.

You've got to exercise a foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily incite hatred in foreign countries, and turn down the heat on all the rhetoric and much of the unnecessary, counterproductive behavior that feeds recruitment for these foreign countries.

I think this was the best line of the debate. Bar none. And it's something that's been long overdue out of the mouth of a national-level Republican.

I think Obama won the debate and all that jazz, but credit where it's due. Romney found a winner of a line and an idea. I hope it finds a way to spread.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by stevieray

no such thing.

Not in the context of a race, but in the context of a PEOPLE who have a right to return to a state or compensation, the UN disagrees with you...

google article 11, resolution 194

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...resolution_194

It is pretty darn simple...and idiots like you who banter around simple yet stupid phrases such as 'no such thing' only dumb down the conversation.

So maybe you should shut the **** up and read a book before you open that gas bag and make yourself look like even more of a ****ing retard, sir.

[La literatura]

As much as I dislike Pawnmower, he will actually tell you what he believes. Maybe Pawnmower understands the theory stevieray advances and can help us less educated folk out?

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

We came VERY ****ing close already once....

I think that in our lifetime, Palestine will be a country. All they have to do is renounce hamas...or have hamas completely re-write their charter...and have the people embrace it.

Big task? Yes. I think it could be on the verge of happening.....

The information age, facebook, the web.....the sharing of knowledge....

These things will foster peace.......(maybe I am naive)

When you say re wright Hamas /are you talking about something like the New Testament for Christians?
Im to tired to read this hole thread. So is Hamas= Jihad ?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

We can't kill ourselves out of this mess......

Don't have to , just leave Obama in charge and the enemy will do it for us.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...roup-on-radar/

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Not in the context of a race, but in the context of a PEOPLE who have a right to return to a state or compensation, the UN disagrees with you...
.

The UN creates more problems than it solves. There could be a big-E headed our way from the UN if Obama gets reelected

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

When you say re wright Hamas /are you talking about something like the New Testament for Christians?
Im to tired to read this hole thread. So is Hamas= Jihad ?

I mean the Charter of Hamas.....The Charter/mandate/covenant of Hamas is like their Constitution...

Hamas is a group, a 'wing' of a larger group "The Muslim Brotherhood"

Here is a link to the covenant ("constitution" if you will) of Hamas:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

All you really have to do is read the first few paragraphs and then scroll down to article 13....But it is interesting to read the whole thing as well.


(** No it is not like a new testament, it is not a HOLY scripture, it is a political document of a political party who has been voted into power)

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

The UN creates more problems than it solves. There could be a big-E headed our way from the UN if Obama gets reelected

While this may be true, you cannot logically on one hand claim that Israel exists BECAUSE the UN created it in 1948 while on the other hand dismiss the resolution and charter making Palestine a state (or providing the path thereof).

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by stevieray

no such thing.

so israeli arabs who haved lived in palestine for generations (the british mandate of palestine included israel) or residents of gaza, none of whom were ever under jordanian control, are not palestinians, they're jordanians?

are you saying there was no palestine mandate, that the west bank is not currently run by the palestinian authority?

or just denying palestinians any form of recognition or authenticity that would potentially cut against claims of the radical religious right in israel?

arabs who lived within the bounds of the palestine mandate are palestinians. i don't see how you can get around that just by saying there are no such things as palestinians...

palestinians exist and their concerns must be addressed in order to achieve lasting peace...

just as israeli concerns must be addressed to reach an overall settlement...

[La literatura]

And crawl back to the woodwork now, stevieray.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Literature

And crawl back to the woodwork now, stevieray.

hey, be nice...

stevieray is cool, in person, and you gotta give him credit for having strong beliefs and sincerely held opinions...

besides, fde does not crawl, he glides...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Literature

As much as I dislike Pawnmower, he will actually tell you what he believes. Maybe Pawnmower understands the theory stevieray advances and can help us less educated folk out?

I absolutely understand the theory, and he is ****ing it up....badly.

I've been over it and over it.....

The theory (by both sides) is one thats basically like "we were there first."

And so both sides want to go back in time and say "hey - SEE , in XXXX we were there!" but in all reality the Canaanites were probably there first and the Philistenes probably have ZERO in common with Palestinian Arabs...

The fact is, both sides (Jews and Muslims) have conquered and ruled the area...along with any number of other people (Britain, Christian Crusaders, The Ottoman Turks, The ROmans & Greeks etc...)....

Going back in time to try to prove or disprove who has a 'right' to the land is a ****ing stupid idea, by either side.


(**So I believe what he is saying is that "the philistenes havent been there for X years, so the Palestinians don't have a claim to the land...)

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I knew someone would challenge that, as it has been before, to start a major hijack ( Amnorix's specialty along with stramen arguments). I presented my case in detail in another thread. Amnorix relies on history books written by court historians. I don't. The state cannot be trusted—especially when it's being run by progressive leftists. Sheep are gullible though.

So our entrance into WWI was based on lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations—just as like many other wars. Ever hear of the saying, "In war truth is the first casualty?"

Wilson wanted us in period. He just needed the right circumstances to exploit. Such as the Zimmerman telegram. Pure war propaganda. There were no attacks on the United States. So German submarines sunk some foreign ships with American passengers, who were warned about the obvious danger of traveling in a war zone. Because a few adventurers lost their lives ignoring these warnings, does not mean an entire nation where tens or hundreds of thousands more must die was necessary. Wilson wanted us in that war and claimed our national security was linked with the fate of Britain, who was struggling to maintain her empire. What a bunch of bullshit.

FDR wanted us in WWII—before Pearl Harbor as well. His oil embargo was designed to goad the Japanese.

Today, we see Wilsonian intervention and propaganda in the NeoConservative wing of both parties. The odd thing is Amnorix, seems to agree with the idea of staying out of other people's wars but is a NeoCon when he reads about wars in history books.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by go bowe

having strong beliefs and sincerely held opinions...

He might have them, but he certainly doesn't share them clearly here.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I knew someone would challenge that, as it has been before, to start a major hijack ( Amnorix's specialty along with stramen arguments). I presented my case in detail in another thread. Amnorix relies on history books written by court historians. I don't. The state cannot be trusted—especially when it's being run by progressive leftists. Sheep are gullible though.

So our entrance into WWI was based on lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations—just as like many other wars. Ever hear of the saying, "In war truth is the first casualty?"

Wilson wanted us in period. He just needed the right circumstances to exploit. Such as the Zimmerman telegram. Pure war propaganda. There were no attacks on the United States. So German submarines sunk some foreign ships with American passengers, who were warned about the obvious danger of traveling in a war zone. Because a few adventurers lost their lives ignoring these warnings, does not mean an entire nation where tens or hundreds of thousands more must die was necessary. Wilson wanted us in that war and claimed our national security was linked with the fate of Britain, who was struggling to maintain her empire. What a bunch of bullshit.

FDR wanted us in WWII—before Pearl Harbor as well. His oil embargo was designed to goad the Japanese.

Today, we see Wilsonian intervention and propaganda in the NeoConservative wing of both parties. The odd thing is Amnorix, seems to agree with the idea of staying out of other people's wars but is a NeoCon when he reads about wars in history books.

BITCH! I thought I told you to shut up.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Was it just me, or did Mitt Romney say something brilliant and prescient?

****ing applause for the man. Easily his wisest line of the entire election season.

Not even kidding.

Mitt Romney, talking about the war on terror, just rejected every ounce of neoconservativism, drone-reliant warfare of civilian casualties to kill battle-aged men in countries full of brown people.

This is something foreign policy doves have been saying since the turn of the millenia. To defeat terrorism, it is not enough to simply murder a requisite number of bad guys.

You've got to exercise a foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily incite hatred in foreign countries, and turn down the heat on all the rhetoric and much of the unnecessary, counterproductive behavior that feeds recruitment for these foreign countries.

I think this was the best line of the debate. Bar none. And it's something that's been long overdue out of the mouth of a national-level Republican.

I think Obama won the debate and all that jazz, but credit where it's due. Romney found a winner of a line and an idea. I hope it finds a way to spread.

You're a monumental moron if you think neoconservatives believe or ever believed that we can kill our way to victory in the GWoT.