What are people on the left wing going to do when Obama rules from the center right?

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yes but you're forgetting Obama's tenacious position on fighting terrorism, and the reason why terrorists are, by and large, pissed off in the first place.

I'm not sure you've connected all the dots yet. All roads lead back to Israel, and what is happening there first.

If Obama is able to coerce Israel to change it's philosophy, it will be a very convincing and crucial first step. So far that seems to be a very unlikely reality (see AIPAC), that will require many years. So...going on that stark and evident reality, what else do you expect to unfold as that lazily trudges along? The rest of the world is not going to be put on hold as that plays out....economics be damned. The money, firepower, and natural resources to run the war machines will be made available if need be...make no mistake about that.

So far you're just not convincing me at all of how out of touch with reality I am.

well that because you think the world revolves around Israel. I'm sorry, I clearly stated my case and you continue to reply back with vagueness

"connect the dots"

"all roads lead to Israel"

"clock is ticking"

yea...

rock solid case you make...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

well that because you think the world revolves around Israel. I'm sorry, I clearly stated my case and you continue to reply back with vagueness

"connect the dots"

"all roads lead to Israel"

"clock is ticking"

yea...

rock solid case you make...

Time is a factor, and all paths of decision making ultimately do lead back to Israel.

There's no question about it.

If you claim to know more about the topic than I do, than you already undoubtedly know the Israel/Palestinian issue is one of, if not the biggest reasons the Arab world harbors ongoing resentment. It's a catalyst like no other.

Following the current trends, as I've pointed out earlier, the existing mindset will not resolve anything, be it 5, 10, 20, 100+ years from now.

The eventuality is that Iran will be bombed into submission just like Iraq was (could be a matter of few or 50 years from now), and forces will have to move in to finish the job of restructuring the place from top to bottom, unless of course Iran no longer has a valid reason to be extremely critical of Israel and their radical Zionist policies (as this is all they talk about), and the US by proxy through their unconditional support of Israel. This can only achieved firstly in Israel itself with regards to the current state of Zionism, and how it directly relates to their immediate surroundings (read: Palestinians).

The bottom line is (inevitably)...we have to figure out how, and learn how to get along with these people. Threatening to kill them, and giving them further ultimatums, is not going to accomplish anything to this effect, only the exact opposite.

The war on terrorism still continues, same as before, just with a different, seemingly more moderate, and charismatic face.

Can Obama accomplish peace in Israel in such a short time? I'm hopeful, but nowhere near convinced just yet.

PJ_Saluki

Yeah, you're hopeful. How would you justify your existence if it wasn't defined in the fight against "Zionism" and it's worldwide conspiracy to enslave us all?

We'll see what happens in Iran. Something tells me -- maybe it's common sense -- that not all international negotiations happen out in the open and between the two countries engaged in those negotiations. It may not be happening right at this moment, but I don't think it's out of the realm of reasoned thought for an Obama administration to start back-channel talks with Iran, that way both nations can play to fuck-those-guys crowds back home.

I've got a better idea and apparently it would end all this fuss: Let's just nuke Israel.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Yeah, you're hopeful. How would you justify your existence if it wasn't defined in the fight against "Zionism" and it's worldwide conspiracy to enslave us all?

We'll see what happens in Iran. Something tells me -- maybe it's common sense -- that not all international negotiations happen out in the open and between the two countries engaged in those negotiations. It may not be happening right at this moment, but I don't think it's out of the realm of reasoned thought for an Obama administration to start back-channel talks with Iran, that way both nations can play to fuck-those-guys crowds back home.

I've got a better idea and apparently it would end all this fuss: Let's just nuke Israel.

Nuke Israel...yeah nice. Think much?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this game. One side has to be significantly restructured, be it Israel or Iran, and like minded. I'm just telling you what the problem is and why. Is that such a bad thing?

Is Obama going to redo Israel in a few years, or even 8 years? Two state solution is the question of the day. It's step #1 towards progress.

That's the question. You cannot circumvent this reality and claim moral high ground...not when you consider Iran (and the Arab world) and how they feel about it also.

One path escalates the conflict...the other moves towards defusing it by choosing the humanitarian approach.

It's not too complicated.

PJ_Saluki

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Nuke Israel...yeah nice. Think much?

Yeah, I'm serious about nuking Israel. :rolleyes:

Roland wrote:

You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this game. One side has to be significantly restructured, be it Israel or Iran, and like minded. I'm just telling you what the problem is and why. Is that such a bad thing?

That's not the problem. Lemme ask you this: You really believe that all the problems Iran has with the U.S. and Israel would disappear if Israel was restructured? This isn't a zero-sum game.

Roland wrote:

Is Obama going to redo Israel in a few years, or even 8 years? Two state solution is the question of the day. It's step #1 towards progress.

Sure, except neither side seems to be able to stomach it and I'm not sure how the world would divvy up Jerusalem. I don't think the UN would want to run the city and I'm sure neither Jews nor Palestinians want the other side to have control. But I see where you're going with it and I would like it to happen too.

Roland wrote:

That's the question. You cannot circumvent this reality and claim moral high ground...not when you consider Iran (and the Arab world) and how they feel about it also.

Except, again, I don't think it would matter in the end. If it's not Israel, it will be something else. When hard-liners don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, only a non-existent Israel is palatable.

Roland wrote:

One path escalates the conflict...the other moves towards defusing it by choosing the humanitarian approach.

It's not too complicated.

Actually it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. These aren't two assholes -- one in Canada and one in Illinois -- trying to make this work. These are people with prejudices that predate Christianity dealing with each other. It's pretty damned complicated. Doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, but it also doesn't mean it's as simple as drawing a line of demarcation through Israel.

Mutiny! he cried

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

then you have no idea what current path the US is on. the path has changed since 2003 in case you havent noticed. which obviously you havent cuz you seem to think its 2003. for example....

Iraq war was unpopular, unnecessary, and too expensive.
USA has way bigger issues to deal with then Iran. namely the economy.

and I love how you people love to slam Obama for voting to "fund the war". he clearly stated his position about Iraq many times. voting against the funding bill would only put our soldiers in danger.

Didn't Obama used say a few years ago he and Bush were on the same page as to Iraq?

edit: the actual quote was "There's not much difference between my position [on Iraq] and George Bush's at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." July 2004

And we know his CoS supported the invasion from the start as did Hilary...is ther anyone in his administration that opposed the war and invasion???

McJuicy

radiohead33 wrote:

What are people on the left going to do when Obama rules from the center right?

what would ever make you think that the #1 most liberal senator would govern from the right?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Yeah, I'm serious about nuking Israel. :rolleyes:


That's not the problem. Lemme ask you this: You really believe that all the problems Iran has with the U.S. and Israel would disappear if Israel was restructured? This isn't a zero-sum game.


Sure, except neither side seems to be able to stomach it and I'm not sure how the world would divvy up Jerusalem. I don't think the UN would want to run the city and I'm sure neither Jews nor Palestinians want the other side to have control. But I see where you're going with it and I would like it to happen too.


Except, again, I don't think it would matter in the end. If it's not Israel, it will be something else. When hard-liners don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, only a non-existent Israel is palatable.


Actually it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. These aren't two assholes -- one in Canada and one in Illinois -- trying to make this work. These are people with prejudices that predate Christianity dealing with each other. It's pretty damned complicated. Doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, but it also doesn't mean it's as simple as drawing a line of demarcation through Israel.

Actually I agree with everything you just said. I thought you were implying my solution was to nuke Israel. I may have misread your post.

I don't think drawing a new line in Israel will solve the problem outright, I just don't think it's possible to not go the two state route, and expect to open new dialogues and make any significant headway in getting along with this vastly different culture. I guess one could say the buck stops at Iran.

Mutiny! he cried

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

ha the half million man farmer army isnt what I'm afraid of. they would be taken out in a matter of weeks.

its the lessons learned from Iraq. no need to kick another hornets nest. its a waste of time, money, and lives.

and I dont see much happening more then bombs dropped on nuke sites. it might be similar to the no fly zones we had for Saddam in the 90s. Iran would be powerless to do anything and bombing their nukes sites may not stop them from create a nuke, but it might set them back another 10 years

It would also be an act of aggression towards a sovereign nation.

I wonder if we'd use DU rounds and cluster vbombs like usual to terrorize and kill innocents long after the fact?

unifiedscene

polaris wrote:

see post #2 and #3 in this thread ...

Do I get a cut if you won the bet then?

I think a lot of people are confused because most people on the left voted for Obama, as he was further left than McCain, but that doesn't mean that most people that voted for Obama are leftist. That's what annoys me about the left... at least the folks on the right admit that most people don't agree with them and are honest about the fact that they just don't care and think they know better. The people on the left seem prone to believing that everyone is secretly in agreement with them and either hides it or just needs a proper "Education" to be shown how wrong they are and how correct and superior the left is. It's annoyingly condescending.

Mutiny! he cried

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

ok, maybe its just better to pull numbers from my ass. yay this is fun!

Maybe....?



I just thought it was funny you basically called Roland a liar then said you trusted the word of professional liars on the matter. Even if Roland was incorrect that is so minimal compared to what those people were wrong about and I don't believe Roland did it to intentionally mislead unlike the ones you seem to trust

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

Maybe....?



I just thought it was funny you basically called Roland a liar then said you trusted the word of professional liars on the matter. Even if Roland was incorrect that is so minimal compared to what those people were wrong about and I don't believe Roland did it to intentionally mislead unlike the ones you seem to trust

I get deja vu signals big time from this situation.. This is a return poster that has been banned before.