|
Russia is NOT trying to start WW3. Obama is doing far more harm to America than a war. If they really want a war they will wait till his cabal is out. However Russia does need a ground route to its southern ports in
|
|
|
|
They took down that plane to bring the international community in the `game`. It's very hard if not impossible to fully prove who pushed the button and in Kievs equation that plane is nothing. They are about to lose much more than a foreign plane or care about other opinions of that event. The crimeea precedent for them is already a disaster. I heard they are very corrupted dude. Already being on the edge they tried to get more from Russia through somekind of blackmail but ended up by losing crimeea and now even more. There are a lot of pro-russian/russian ppl in south-eastern ukraine so they didn't won a shit over there.
What happens there is an elaborated subject. Later.
Russian 'interests' guess you are Russian then. This is all on Putin and company and anyone saying otherwise is as I said either Russian or a bootlicker. Which are you? |
|
|
|
|
It has more to do with power groupings and how coalitions have to be formed within Israel and the desire to simply occupy the land regardless of the security challenges that doing so creates. All the proof one needs is Israel's continued refusal to halt settlement expansion despite the fact that the Michell Report clearly indicated it as one of the single largest contributing factors to instability that led to the Second Intifada. (that's also why Bush's Road Map for Peace plan had Israel halting settlement expansion as its first phase of a peace process).
"Security" concerns are an obfuscation tactic that has long been used by Israeli administrations to divert attention away from other relevant issues and as an excuse to act militarily during times in which they are losing ground diplomatically.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that it is not realistic currently, but I think Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and the Arab League should put its troops in Gaza and the West Bank to patrol them after Israel leaves the West Bank. What is more likely to happen is UN troops will go into the West Bank the way UN troops patrolled the Israel-Lebanon border after the war of 2006.
|
|
|
|
Bloody Sunday Israeli soldier reportedly captured, 70 Palestinians dead in worst day of conflictGAZA CITY — Seventy Palestinians were killed Sunday in a heavy bombardment of a Gaza neighborhood and 13 Israeli soldiers were slain in the most intense day of fighting in Israel’s current offensive against Hamas fighters, officials said. The Hamas military also announced that its fighters had captured an Israeli soldier.
Abu Obaida, a spokesman for the Al Qassam Brigades, appeared on Hamas TV to announce the soldier had been taken prisoner. Minutes later, there were fireworks and shouts of “God is great!” from loud speakers.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army was investigating the claim.
A kidnapped Israeli soldier would represent a victory for Hamas and a difficult new challenge for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Footage and more... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-begins-heaviest-bombardment-yet-in-gaza-sending-residents-fleeing/2014/07/20/578ae882-0fe5-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.htmlIsrael either needs to triple it's size, or be driven out into the ocean by the Arabs. This half-way shit aint workin. Neither of those options would work either. 162 dead so far, of which 137 are civilian, with 209 civilian homes completely destroyed. Over 1000 people injured so far as well. I think the two-state solution is the only one left. ...look back in the history the always fight,they either come to an agreement and become 1 country either they destroy each other ...which is happening now.... |
|
|
|
Bloody Sunday Israeli soldier reportedly captured, 70 Palestinians dead in worst day of conflictGAZA CITY — Seventy Palestinians were killed Sunday in a heavy bombardment of a Gaza neighborhood and 13 Israeli soldiers were slain in the most intense day of fighting in Israel’s current offensive against Hamas fighters, officials said. The Hamas military also announced that its fighters had captured an Israeli soldier.
Abu Obaida, a spokesman for the Al Qassam Brigades, appeared on Hamas TV to announce the soldier had been taken prisoner. Minutes later, there were fireworks and shouts of “God is great!” from loud speakers.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army was investigating the claim.
A kidnapped Israeli soldier would represent a victory for Hamas and a difficult new challenge for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Footage and more... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-begins-heaviest-bombardment-yet-in-gaza-sending-residents-fleeing/2014/07/20/578ae882-0fe5-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.htmlIsrael either needs to triple it's size, or be driven out into the ocean by the Arabs. This half-way shit aint workin. |
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the article's title is misleading. They think they can read any private communication that may pass through foreign services.
|
|
|
|
I'd also have to disagree a bit on their interpretation of the data. They say in one of their slides that a two state solution is 'suddenly in the minority' but their was no two state solution option given as a possible response to the question, nor was the question about the resolution of conflict between Israel and Palestine.
That's true, but the question about the main goal for five years is pretty telling.. but your point about reactionism and a true lasting trend is well taken. It would be cool if israel somehow pursued this. but it's not reasonable to expect in the near future. At first glance perhaps, but that is a matter of ideology and doesn't really have much bearing on peace talks and what is going wrong with them (though it could have the potential but there isn't enough info given to connect the two). The trouble is the poll doesn't offer any meaningful connection between that expressed ideology and how it impacts views on peace talks with Israel; the poll also suffers from a lack of definitions. It would be nice if they had actually asked Palestinians if they would support a two state solution based on 1967 borders. I think this goes back to the reconciliation issue that Palestinians tend to favor at a little over 60% or even higher given some sort of mutual economic relationship. Overall, yes, we do see the hardline largely youth movement that is very militant and wants to drive Israel into the sea, but the vast majority of Palestinians seem to largely just want to be treated as humans and enjoy basic rights and freedoms that they have been increasingly denied since the late 30's to late 40's. It's one of the things that especially makes Israeli opinion polls tough to read. Military fervor can swing widely in Israel depending on the current domestic discourse of the day. It can make it difficult to really peg long run trending opinions down. |
|
|
|
I'd also have to disagree a bit on their interpretation of the data. They say in one of their slides that a two state solution is 'suddenly in the minority' but their was no two state solution option given as a possible response to the question, nor was the question about the resolution of conflict between Israel and Palestine.
That's true, but the question about the main goal for five years is pretty telling.. but your point about reactionism and a true lasting trend is well taken. It would be cool if israel somehow pursued this. but it's not reasonable to expect in the near future. At first glance perhaps, but that is a matter of ideology and doesn't really have much bearing on peace talks and what is going wrong with them (though it could have the potential but there isn't enough info given to connect the two). The trouble is the poll doesn't offer any meaningful connection between that expressed ideology and how it impacts views on peace talks with Israel; the poll also suffers from a lack of definitions. It would be nice if they had actually asked Palestinians if they would support a two state solution based on 1967 borders. |
|
|
|
|
I'd also have to disagree a bit on their interpretation of the data. They say in one of their slides that a two state solution is 'suddenly in the minority' but their was no two state solution option given as a possible response to the question, nor was the question about the resolution of conflict between Israel and Palestine.
|
|
|
|
What do the people in Palestine and Israel want though? I've heard more than enough of what the leadership thinks. Where do the people stand, in relation to the struggle and their leaderships' inability to deal with it?
Domestic polls have long showed that both sides generally want peace based on a two state solution (it tends to fluctuate a little more in Israel depending on circumstances). I'm more familiar with the Palestinian numbers there (3/4ths two state peace) than I am with the Israeli numbers. One of the problems of governments past, is that in coalition governments like Israel, you have kingmaker parties: small parties that can make or break coalitions for the larger parties. These kingmaker parties in Israel tend to be highly conservative, which means that if you want to be prime minister you have to do certain things to mollify them like not halt settlement expansion. Really? I was just looking at polls yesterday at I remember seeing that the majority of Palestinians do not support a two state solution? I need to find the source though. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...pragmatism-tooI'm a little wary of polls that offer sudden huge shifts in long standing general opinion. I'd keep watching to see if it is a reactionary spike or a legitimate new emerging long run trend of thought. But Palestinian attitudes are also subject to the politics of the day and with volatile politics opinions are going to change a lot too. I could believe it, but I think it has a lot to do with disillusionment with the peace process since 2005 - 2006. Abbas sitting at the peace table waiting for Israel has really weakened his administration and the idea of a two state solution as nothing gets better. It's honestly one reason why Israeli administrations are so frustrating to those seeking a resolution to the conflict. The opportunity is there and it is being squandered for domestic political gains in Israel proper. Meanwhile a new generation of Palestinians grow up seeing Abbas as an Israeli puppet because he won't fight back against perceived (and rightfully so) abuses to their general population. It easily makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one of the most frustrating conflicts in the world to follow even if it isn't the most violent. |
|
|
|
I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.
Institution building and reform is a process, the legislative branch is generally a good place to start given the pressures and influences that they can have elsewhere and in terms of being able to highlight issues for national discussion (to say nothing of their law making abilities). The problem is our legislative branches (at least federally) are flooded with incentive to make laws or set direction based upon what their "sponsors" want and not necessarily what is good for everyone as a whole. Regulatory laws that penalize one while enhancing a more "supportive" corporation or group seems to be the norm. It's going to be relatively impossible to really solve inequality (monetary or opportunity) if the regulators are bought and paid for. |
|
|
|
|
The far right's desperation is what's behind this campaign to destroy Obama. It proves that they do not give one damn about America - they only care about winning the next two elections.
When one side is totally driven by ideology and power (Nixon) well, that is how great nations are destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Titus Oates, late in the reign of Charles II, is famed for having ginned up a wild conspiracy of Catholics to assassinate the King and install a regime of "popery" on the nation. His accusations were beyond absurd, Charles himself questioned him and laughed at him as an idiot, but the fears and hysteria of the arch-protestants made them willing to believe anything, no matter how idiotic, due to their fears of Catholicism.
Sound familiar? Look at how the 'baggers today view Washington, with that same ultimate paranoia that makes them willing to believe anything they are fed by the modern day Titus Oates--whether they be the Limbaughs, the Becks, the Fox News, no matter how hysterical or outlandish the accusations get, the fanatics--whether 'baggers or archprotestants, are willing to believe them.
I think the psychology between the 'baggers and the archreligious is the same, the only difference really is the object of their hatred and fear.
That does certainly seem to be the case regarding the mainstream media, some of these folks and their accusations against the tea party movement. Thanks, Umair. I didn't think you had it in you to be rational. Well done. What you believe as a tea party person and what the national tea party lead by the Kock brothers is totally different than your view. They are not interested in making this country better for you and me. They don't give a shit about your freedoms. Their goal is to make more money for themselves and are more than willing to use the tea party to obtain their goal. Just as many politicians try and use the church for political gai The religious right has always been a part of the republican party helping them win elections. Racists have always been a part of the republican party helping them win elections. The rich have always been a part of the republican party helping them win elections The tea party is the republican base made out to be something different, because hardly anyone defines themselves as being a republican anymore. If you want the tea party to go away then republicans will have to regain power so their base is no longer needed to hold the fort Republican voters here who think or pretend the tea party is something special, separate from republicans are ignorant, or aware of the plan, as evidenced by the nitwits we see posting here. Rand Paul is the only one who seems different from tea party/ republican, and like his father will be cast aside |
|
|
|
|
I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.
|
|
|
|
If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.
While I have not read that book, I have read a lot by Stiglitz. I will read the book, but Stiglitz seems to get it wrong more than he gets it right. During the financial crisis he was bemoaning the system of privatized gains and socialized losses that the bailouts created. But, before the crisis, he was in favor of explicit government guarantees of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am not sure I can take him seriously. |
|
|
|
There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.
The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?
One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%. That's another part I do not understand about this debate. It appears to me that most of the people clamoring for government to address "inequality" are also in favor of more expansive government. Won't that just lead to more regulatory capture? Doesn't more government just create more opportunities for manipulation and crony capitalism? |
|
|
|
What do the people in Palestine and Israel want though? I've heard more than enough of what the leadership thinks. Where do the people stand, in relation to the struggle and their leaderships' inability to deal with it?
I guess if I was israeli i'd feel relatively ok with the status quo (compared to easily foreseeable alternatives) and if i was palestinian i'd feel completely fucked and hopeless, with basically no good moves to make. |
|
|
|
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/kal007.htmlHISTORIC SPEECHES RONALD REAGAN Address to the Nation on KAL 007 September 5, 1983 My fellow Americans: I'm coming before you tonight about the Korean airline massacre, the attack by the Soviet Union against 269 innocent men, women, and children aboard an unarmed Korean passenger plane. This crime against humanity must never be forgotten, here or throughout the world. Our prayers tonight are with the victims and their families in their time of terrible grief. Our hearts go out to them — to brave people like Kathryn McDonald, the wife of a Congressman whose composure and eloquence on the day of her husband's death moved us all. He will be sorely missed by all of us here in government. The parents of one slain couple wired me: "Our daughter...and her husband...died on Korean Airline Flight 007. Their deaths were the result of the Soviet Union violating every concept of human rights." The emotions of these parents — grief, shock, anger — are shared by civilized people everywhere. From around the world press accounts reflect an explosion of condemnation by people everywhere. Let me state as plainly as I can: There was absolutely no justification, either legal or moral, for what the Soviets did. One newspaper in India said, "If every passenger plane...is fair game for home air forces...it will be the end to civil aviation as we know it." This is not the first time the Soviet Union has shot at and hit a civilian airliner when it over flew its territory. In another tragic incident in 1978, the Soviets also shot down an unarmed civilian airliner after having positively identified it as such. In that instance, the Soviet interceptor pilot clearly identified the civilian markings on the side of the aircraft, repeatedly questioned the order to fire on a civilian airliner, and was ordered to shoot it down anyway. The aircraft was hit with a missile and made a crash landing. Several innocent people lost their lives in this attack, killed by shrapnel from the blast of a Soviet missile. An address to the nation four days later can hardly be compared to a breaking news response from the road.No matter what the President of the United States, Barack Obama, did, fault would be found with it. |
|
|
|
|
Ironic how some folks who want America to avoid being the world's policeman can get all upset when our president does not change his schedule every day that a few hundred people get killed due to a war some place.
This was not an attack on America.
Plenty of American officials have been doing their job aiding the investigation, of what happened.
AS of Thursday evening, there has not even been a confirmation that any Americans were aboard! Not that it would matter much as far as what the president should have done today.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
