Who's Better for Israel Bush or Kerry?

[Macc]

What do you guys think?

[I am David]

Kerry, for sure. He unquestionably supports Israel's right to defend itself, while Bush is completely wishy washy on it (even as recent as the hamas assisination).

[Macc]

Originally posted by I am David
Kerry, for sure. He unquestionably supports Israel's right to defend itself, while Bush is completely wishy washy on it (even as recent as the hamas assisination).

I would go with Bush before Kerry, Kerry has not have any marbles. Bush on the other hand has guns that you can be proud of.

Kerry is an appeaser, and a full pledged Liberal.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Macc
I would go with Bush before Kerry, Kerry has not have any marbles. Bush on the other hand has guns that you can be proud of.

Kerry is an appeaser, and a full pledged Liberal.

Macc, Macc, Macc...did you just "serve" I am David?

I think you did.

:p

[I am David]

Where did you get the idea that Kerry has no marbles? Probably the direct, or indirect rhetoric of the right wing cronies. It's kind of a taboo that Kerry is a elitist liberal who is wishy washy and a flip flopper, and a terrorist apeaser. I also can understand how people come to that conclusion, if they arent absolutly alert to the political agenda of people, and how things get distorted. Nor is Kerry a liberal. When asked if he is, he rightfully simply denounces that kind of attack as a "label".

Kerry HAS been consistent with his support for Israel, while Bush has not. Nor is there any indication that Kerry is weak on terror. All that is fluff, false accusations made UP by Republicans.

[I am David]

Originally posted by Donna
Macc, Macc, Macc...did you just "serve" I am David?

I think you did.

:p

If thats what you call "serving", then I'm not exactly shaking in my pants ;)

He was just repeating, (wether knowingly or not), the Republican rhetoric. It's nonsense.

[Donna]

Originally posted by I am David
If thats what you call "serving", then I'm not exactly shaking in my pants ;)

He was just repeating, (wether knowingly or not), the Republican rhetoric. It's nonsense.

My popcorn isn't done yet. Besides, you don't know if Macc is "just repeating" at all.

By the way, I'm just curious...does anyone else hear thunder and lightening and horses whinneying in the background when I am David says, "The Republican Rhetoric!"?


;)

[I am David]

Oh wow, I said "Republican rhetoric", as if there isn't nonsense partisanship that spews distortions and misinformation from the Republicans, and Democrats. Lord help us, there is actually misinformation out there, wow such thunder and lighting :-|

[Macc]

Originally posted by I am David
Oh wow, I said "Republican rhetoric", as if there isn't nonsense partisanship that spews distortions and misinformation from the Republicans, and Democrats. Lord help us, there is actually misinformation out there, wow such thunder and lighting :-|

Don't worry I wont bite you, well not unless you ask me to. :D

How is Kerry Tough on Terror? He voted against Defense and Military a number of times. Bush on the other hand is consistent, when he says something he actually does it.

Why should I trust Kerry? He wants to empower France and Germany and the UN wich is the corrupt bastard child of the League of Nations.

Don't think so, nice try. You got anymore brain busters?

[I am David]

Originally posted by Macc


How is Kerry Tough on Terror? He voted against Defense and Military a number of times. Bush on the other hand is consistent, when he says something he actually does it.

Why should I trust Kerry? He wants to empower France and Germany and the UN wich is the corrupt bastard child of the League of Nations.


Kerry has voted for more of the biggest defense bills than he hasnt. For those that he hasnt, theres a simple explanation of why: he wanted to re-introduce the bills with less giveaway money to defense contractors. Lets make it clear, he WANTED those weapons systems, he just wanted them without wasting taxepayer money.

He doesnt want to empower france, he wants to USE them, fairly, to lighten the load on American forces and taxpayers. Sounds good.

[Macc]

Originally posted by I am David
Kerry has voted for more of the biggest defense bills than he hasnt. For those that he hasnt, theres a simple explanation of why: he wanted to re-introduce the bills with less giveaway money to defense contractors. Lets make it clear, he WANTED those weapons systems, he just wanted them without wasting taxepayer money.

He doesnt want to empower france, he wants to USE them, fairly, to lighten the load on American forces and taxpayers. Sounds good.

France and Germany already made it clear that thy're against us no matter what we do. You're talking about people who commited fraud against Iraqis in the oil for food program.

France should SHUTUP, they're not even in Nato to begin with. We might get reconciled with Germany but with France that's not likely.

If people wanted to help us they should have done so, what makes you think Kerry is going to be able to draw more support then Bush?

Kerry = No record, only promises.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1082345147422

Kerry: I've got a 100% record on Israel

Janine Zacharia Apr. 19, 2004

US Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said Monday that he has a "100 percent record of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel." He also pledged to end "sweetheart relationships" with Arab countries that fund terror.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Florida, he cited a report by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that there was "a secret White House deal" with Saudi Arabia to boost oil production and lower gasoline prices before the November 2 presidential election.

"Last night... it was reported that in the Oval Office discussion around whether to invade Iraq that the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices," AP quoted Kerry as saying.

"But here's the catch. The American people would have to wait until the election, until November 2004."

At a separate fund-raising event, Kerry said he would continue the strong US-Israel relationship.
"I understand not just how we do that, but also how we end this sweetheart relationship with a bunch of Arab countries that still allow money to move to Hamas and Hizbullah and Al-Aksa Brigade," he said.

A spokesman later said Kerry was referring to Saudi Arabia. Kerry also criticized Saudi Arabia's support for terrorist groups during a speech last December. He has outlined an energy plan to decrease US dependence on foreign oil.

On Sunday, Kerry endorsed Israel's right to strike at Hamas leaders.

"I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to. And I support Israel's efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure," he told NBC's Meet the Press.

"The moment Hamas says, "We've given up violence, we're prepared to negotiate," I am absolutely confident they will find an Israel that is thirsty to have that negotiation."

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1082345147422

Kerry: I've got a 100% record on Israel

Janine Zacharia Apr. 19, 2004

US Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said Monday that he has a "100 percent record of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel." He also pledged to end "sweetheart relationships" with Arab countries that fund terror.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Florida, he cited a report by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that there was "a secret White House deal" with Saudi Arabia to boost oil production and lower gasoline prices before the November 2 presidential election.

"Last night... it was reported that in the Oval Office discussion around whether to invade Iraq that the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices," AP quoted Kerry as saying.

"But here's the catch. The American people would have to wait until the election, until November 2004."

At a separate fund-raising event, Kerry said he would continue the strong US-Israel relationship.
"I understand not just how we do that, but also how we end this sweetheart relationship with a bunch of Arab countries that still allow money to move to Hamas and Hizbullah and Al-Aksa Brigade," he said.

A spokesman later said Kerry was referring to Saudi Arabia. Kerry also criticized Saudi Arabia's support for terrorist groups during a speech last December. He has outlined an energy plan to decrease US dependence on foreign oil.

On Sunday, Kerry endorsed Israel's right to strike at Hamas leaders.

"I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to. And I support Israel's efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure," he told NBC's Meet the Press.

"The moment Hamas says, "We've given up violence, we're prepared to negotiate," I am absolutely confident they will find an Israel that is thirsty to have that negotiation."

Sounds sweet as Honey, but is he telling the truth or is he just saying what people want to hear?

[I am David]

Originally posted by Macc
France and Germany already made it clear that thy're against us no matter what we do. You're talking about people who commited fraud against Iraqis in the oil for food program.

France should SHUTUP, they're not even in Nato to begin with. We might get reconciled with Germany but with France that's not likely.

If people wanted to help us they should have done so, what makes you think Kerry is going to be able to draw more support then Bush?


Kerry is proposing USING the UN to help us. Yes, France + Germany is bad, but if we can get them to help us, thats the ultimate in your face. And they may not help, but theres nothing wrong with Kerry trying to get them to help. The French and Germans are responsible for a lot of the curruption as you mentioned, so I think they should pay some of the price of reconstructing.

[Oh Jerusalem]

There's nothing great about either of them on any issue.

Kerry is super flippant, however.

On the issue of Israel, just keep in mind how much money his wife's foundations have donated to extreme-fringe left anti-Israel causes.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't is certainly the rule of thumb in this race.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by I am David
Kerry is proposing USING the UN to help us. Yes, France + Germany is bad, but if we can get them to help us, thats the ultimate in your face. And they may not help, but theres nothing wrong with Kerry trying to get them to help. The French and Germans are responsible for a lot of the curruption as you mentioned, so I think they should pay some of the price of reconstructing.
The same UN that hustled yesterday to condemn Israel but let Rwandans slaughter each other under theire noses?

The same UN that is now being investigated for corruption in their Iraqi oil program with Saddam?

Kerry just lost another 20 points.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
The same UN that hustled yesterday to condemn Israel but let Rwandans slaughter each other under theire noses?

The same UN that is now being investigated for corruption in their Iraqi oil program with Saddam?

Kerry just lost another 20 points.

I agree with the previous 2 posts you made, good idea pointing out Kerry's and UN's hypocrisy.

Jerusalem UN is the bastard child of The League of Nations, the simmilarities between these two organizations is astonishing. UN was and is hostile to Israel, we Americans have some problems with the UN as well and this as you all know is an understament.

One question, why is the Israel not in the UN?

[minusthejihad]

Any president who thumbs his nose to the UN and who rigorously wants to pursue Islamo-facists despite the world's insults is the president for me.

And at the same time, when just about every terrorist or theocratic thug supports Kerry, I think I know where my allegiance stands.

[Macc]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Any president who thumbs his nose to the UN and who rigorously wants to pursue Islamo-facists despite the world's insults is the president for me.

And at the same time, when just about every terrorist or theocratic thug supports Kerry, I think I know where my allegiance stands.

Right, I feel the same way.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Macc
One question, why is the Israel not in the UN?
Israel is a paying bonafide member of the UN and gets more attention than any other UN member nation. :p

[I am David]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
The same UN that hustled yesterday to condemn Israel but let Rwandans slaughter each other under theire noses?

The same UN that is now being investigated for corruption in their Iraqi oil program with Saddam?

Kerry just lost another 20 points.

You guys don't get it. It's not like having the UN help us is saying its so great. We would be USING them for our own purposes. IE, TAKING ADVANTAGE of them. Again, considering how much the UN has done to screw up Iraq, why SHOULDNT they pay the price of rebuilding it, instead of just the US? Theres nothing intelligent about not using resources that you have (the UN).

And Kerry is super flippant. He MAY have changed his mind on a few issues. (although I cant think of too many). But guess what? Thats a GOOD THING!!! Situations change, politics change, we NEED a flexible president. We cant AFFORD to have a president as stubborn as Bush.

As far as terrorists supporting Kerry, I wouldnt trust the judgement of terrorists. Considering how much non-terrorists can get politics wrong, I would never base ANYTHING, even the smallest bit, on the judgement of terrorists. Thats just stupid beyond stupid. The terrorists assume, like many here, that Kerry is a liberal who doesnt want to purseu terror. Thats not true. Kerry is a liberal on social issues, but he has always been for the military and fighting terror. (despite the distorted claims of otherwise).

[Mediocrates]

I'm far too cynical not to believe that a weak disorganized semi anarchic Iraq isn't in our and Israel's best strategic interests. Today the effort to get the industrial base running again seems to still be moving forward albeit slower. What has stopped is the cultural revival of Iraq. There are no sports teams, no new newspapers, no international events. Moreover like every other country on earth the Iraqis are experiencing a great deal of churn as they settle how they will govern themselves.

But while the political churn will continue, the cultural revival seems stalled or simply beaten down in the mud of Islamonihilism. And as long as the cultural life of Iraq is non existent then the country will be scattered, weak, and of little strategic threat to anyone but themselves.

The only question we then need ask is, is that bad? The original goal was to strategically neuter Iraq so that it was no longer a threat to the region, our allies there and to ourselves, there, elsewhere, around the world or at home. I submit we did a fine job of that. In fact, long run instability in Iraq is probably a better outcome than even a so called democratic Iraq sympathetic to the US. What can a democratic sympathetic Iraq do for the US? It doesn't appear that it can accomplish much. Certainly we see that in Afghanistan today.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]The only question we then need ask is, is that bad? The original goal was to strategically neuter Iraq so that it was no longer a threat to the region, our allies there and to ourselves, there, elsewhere, around the world or at home. I submit we did a fine job of that. In fact, long run instability in Iraq is probably a better outcome than even a so called democratic Iraq sympathetic to the US. What can a democratic sympathetic Iraq do for the US? It doesn't appear that it can accomplish much. Certainly we see that in Afghanistan today.
Iraq is over 65% Shiite. Iran next door is about 99% Shiite. If the US leaves Iraq and the Shiites take over, will you still be smiling?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by I am David
You guys don't get it. It's not like having the UN help us is saying its so great. We would be USING them for our own purposes. IE, TAKING ADVANTAGE of them. Again, considering how much the UN has done to screw up Iraq, why SHOULDNT they pay the price of rebuilding it, instead of just the US? Theres nothing intelligent about not using resources that you have (the UN).

And Kerry is super flippant. He MAY have changed his mind on a few issues. (although I cant think of too many). But guess what? Thats a GOOD THING!!! Situations change, politics change, we NEED a flexible president. We cant AFFORD to have a president as stubborn as Bush.

As far as terrorists supporting Kerry, I wouldnt trust the judgement of terrorists. Considering how much non-terrorists can get politics wrong, I would never base ANYTHING, even the smallest bit, on the judgement of terrorists. Thats just stupid beyond stupid. The terrorists assume, like many here, that Kerry is a liberal who doesnt want to purseu terror. Thats not true. Kerry is a liberal on social issues, but he has always been for the military and fighting terror. (despite the distorted claims of otherwise).
Thank you for helping me make up my mind even more. :rolleyes:

[I am David]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Thank you for helping me make up my mind even more. :rolleyes:

Well why? If that made you support Bush even more, you should check up on your anylitical skills :)

[Macc]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Thank you for helping me make up my mind even more. :rolleyes:

Bahh don't listen to them, those guys are all Communists..... err I mean Liberals.

[Mira~]

The Bush family's ties with the House of Saud are a little too close for comfort, don't you think?

[I am David]

Originally posted by Macc
Bahh don't listen to them, those guys are all Communists..... err I mean Liberals.

Wow, what an intelligent delegitimization of all opposing viewpoints :rolleyes:

[I am David]

Originally posted by Mira
The Bush family's ties with the House of Saud are a little too close for comfort, don't you think?

Oh no, that's just a crazy left-wing luny accusation, Bush is supperb in his war on terror, you are just a liberal therefore everything you say can be discounted blah blah blah :rolleyes:

[Macc]

Originally posted by I am David
Oh no, that's just a crazy left-wing luny accusation, Bush is supperb in his war on terror, you are just a liberal therefore everything you say can be discounted blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Correct, most of the stuff liberals say goes in one ear and out the other. Dunno if this is true but I heard that all Liberals are really blood sucking Vampires.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by I am David
Oh no, that's just a crazy left-wing luny accusation, Bush is supperb in his war on terror, you are just a liberal therefore everything you say can be discounted blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Bush has managed to alienate the US from all the non-terrorist supporting coutries of the West and he's aligned us with terrorist supporting nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. He must be taking his lessons on how to fight global terror from Sun Tsu!

[I am David]

Originally posted by Macc
Correct, most of the stuff liberals say goes in one ear and out the other. Dunno if this is true but I heard that all Liberals are really blood sucking Vampires.

The same can be said for many conservatives.

There are many definitions for liberals. Many democrats consider themselves liberals, buts the more lightweight usage of the word. THe conservatives, although they think most democrats are left wing nuts, consider liberal to mean the most extreme left wing type.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mira
Bush has managed to alienate the US from all the non-terrorist supporting coutries of the West and he's aligned us with terrorist supporting nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. He must be taking his lessons on how to fight global terror from Sun Tsu!

Gimme a break, Bush did the right thing WE DON'T WANT HELP FROM GERMANY AND FRANCE AND UN, those big three bitch and whine every single time we try to do the right thing.

What the heck are we supposed to do? Wait for another terrorist attack, I lost a good friend of mine on 9/11 you really think I give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks?

Or maybe I should just put myself out of mysery and shoot myself in the head to save all the terrorists trouble.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Macc
Gimme a break, Bush did the right thing WE DON'T WANT HELP FROM GERMANY AND FRANCE AND UN, those big three bitch and whine every single time we try to do the right thing.

What the heck are we supposed to do? Wait for another terrorist attack, I lost a good friend of mine on 9/11 you really think I give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks?

Or maybe I should just put myself out of mysery and shoot myself in the head to save all the terrorists trouble.

huh? What does Iraq have to do with 9-11 again? France and Germany supported us in our invasion of Afghanistan.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mira
huh? What does Iraq have to do with 9-11 again? France and Germany supported us in our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a terrorist training ground, Saddam supports international terrorism. Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen also have Muslims........ err I mean Terrorists.

They're NEXT.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Macc
Iraq was a terrorist training ground, Saddam supports international terrorism. Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen also have Muslims........ err I mean Terrorists.

They're NEXT.

Oh sure...bomb them into democracy! :rolleyes: I suppose that's a far better plan than getting ourselves off our black oil crack habit and investing all those hundreds of billions of $$$ in alternative energy, therby forcing all those corrupt regimes to actually invest in their people and reform their societies. No, Cheney wouldn't ever think of something like that...and Bush...well, we can't expect him to "think" of anything now can we! You're probably right! We needed to invade Iraq because afterall Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" to us. Hey, are you old enough to be called up for the draft? We are sure gonna need you if we have our eyes set on invading every Muslim country out there by ourselves. You're right! Screw Germany and France! Viva la U.S.A.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mira
Oh sure...bomb them into democracy! :rolleyes: I suppose that's a far better plan than getting ourselves off our black oil crack habit and investing all those hundreds of billions of $$$ in alternative energy, therby forcing all those corrupt regimes to actually invest in their people and reform their societies. No, Cheney wouldn't ever think of something like that...and Bush...well, we can't expect him to "think" of anything now can we! You're probably right! We needed to invade Iraq because afterall Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" to us. Hey, are you old enough to be called up for the draft? We are sure gonna need you if we have our eyes set on invading every Muslim country out there by ourselves. You're right! Screw Germany and France! Viva la U.S.A.

If my country needs me I will answer the call, I love this country and I would not turn my back on it.

Technology already exists for alternative energy, we still need 2 or 3 more decades and after that the Arabs can have their oil and feed it to the Camels.

USA rulez, we rule and every other nation is jelous of our Power.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Iraq is over 65% Shiite. Iran next door is about 99% Shiite. If the US leaves Iraq and the Shiites take over, will you still be smiling?


If the Shiites take over so to speak they will only get a piece of the country. They will remain busy and distracted for at least a decade. They will have to export their Islamic Revolution in-country. They will put pressure on the Sunnis and it will create a very high level of regional friction with their theocratic next door neighbors the Saudis who will then be squeezed on one side from their own fundmentalists and on the other by the Iranian Anschluss.

It will all circle the drain for years while their own populations get younger, larger, poorer, less literate. One thing Allah and all the mullahs, emirs wazoos & Eurocrats, can't save them from is their own birthrate. During the next ten years the KSA (birthrate = 37.47/1000) can expect to grow from 22 to 34 million people at the same time that oil revenues are flattening out. Likewise Iran is expected to grow from 75 million to almost 100 million in the same time. Both counties would need to experience net 5% economic growth year over year for a decade just to keep pace. Now Iran paints a pretty picture with that, 7.6% GDP growth (2002) but that is largely from huge foreign investment and it has not alleviated 20%+ structural unemployment and 40% living below the poverty line. In the KSA is even bleaker. 1% real economic growth. Moreover only 3 million Saudis even work. The rest of the work is done by foreign labor. Unemployment including shadow unemployment hovers near 45%. Oil wealth covers that fact because of the social welfare net it funds. The government is directly, about 27% of the total economy and indirectly close to 40%. This year they may show a budget surplus of about 8 billion dollars but in every year since 1980 they've shown defecits. This is usually driven by the price of oil, in fact the KSA goes into deficit spending when the barrelhead price falls below $25.

So you have mushrooming populations, which are also younger, unemployable and having children themselves. You have falling revenues, you have internal strife, near civil war, sectarian violence, fundamentalism in all three countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Add into the mix cross border terrorism, the Kurdish national movement, tribal revenge wars, Sunni vs. Shiite bloody power struggles and you have a potent brew of anarchy, failure, poverty, internal destruction, terrorism, famine, disease.


I honestly can't see a downside to this; strategically. We tend to want to cower before the implied threat of the Iranian Nuclear Mullahfukaz. But why? What makes anyone think that they can even pull off an effective system built with the same technology as all the other moustache-n-epaulettes beturbanned wazoos? What makes anyone think that Iranq (Iran+Iraq) can manage a stable enough nation that's even cable of projecting force?

And what makes anyone think that bombing Israel would float to the top of their priorities even if they could? After all, Saddam really did have chemical weapons in 90-91 and he didn't/couldn't use them effectively, strategically against Israel. It didn't serve his purposes. Similarly with their countries experiencing all these economic and social problems it's not obvious to think that destroying Israel will become the cure-all we tend to want to think it might. It won't because all it would invite is disaster for them. How many cities do they think they can afford to lose? One? Thirty? Seventy?

So in closing, I welcome all the fist-pumpers, UNocrats and coffeehouse communists to throw the US out of Iraq and take their place. I envisage the entire country as an enormous refugee camp, the pall of smoking dog meat hangs over the tents. A lunar landscape of failure, regret, depression and hate. A slow motion apocalypse. It can only be a good thing to our interests.

[Kev]

He must be taking his lessons on how to fight global terror from Sun Tsu!


I thought the very same thing before Iraq and read it once again.



Simply?
As its been said so many times before?


Bush :)

Kerry :rolleyes: :(

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
If the Shiites take over so to speak they will only get a piece of the country. They will remain busy and distracted for at least a decade. They will have to export their Islamic Revolution in-country. They will put pressure on the Sunnis and it will create a very high level of regional friction with their theocratic next door neighbors the Saudis who will then be squeezed on one side from their own fundmentalists and on the other by the Iranian Anschluss.

It will all circle the drain for years while their own populations get younger, larger, poorer, less literate. One thing Allah and all the mullahs, emirs wazoos & Eurocrats, can't save them from is their own birthrate. During the next ten years the KSA (birthrate = 37.47/1000) can expect to grow from 22 to 34 million people at the same time that oil revenues are flattening out. Likewise Iran is expected to grow from 75 million to almost 100 million in the same time. Both counties would need to experience net 5% economic growth year over year for a decade just to keep pace. Now Iran paints a pretty picture with that, 7.6% GDP growth (2002) but that is largely from huge foreign investment and it has not alleviated 20%+ structural unemployment and 40% living below the poverty line. In the KSA is even bleaker. 1% real economic growth. Moreover only 3 million Saudis even work. The rest of the work is done by foreign labor. Unemployment including shadow unemployment hovers near 45%. Oil wealth covers that fact because of the social welfare net it funds. The government is directly, about 27% of the total economy and indirectly close to 40%. This year they may show a budget surplus of about 8 billion dollars but in every year since 1980 they've shown defecits. This is usually driven by the price of oil, in fact the KSA goes into deficit spending when the barrelhead price falls below $25.

So you have mushrooming populations, which are also younger, unemployable and having children themselves. You have falling revenues, you have internal strife, near civil war, sectarian violence, fundamentalism in all three countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Add into the mix cross border terrorism, the Kurdish national movement, tribal revenge wars, Sunni vs. Shiite bloody power struggles and you have a potent brew of anarchy, failure, poverty, internal destruction, terrorism, famine, disease.


I honestly can't see a downside to this; strategically. We tend to want to cower before the implied threat of the Iranian Nuclear Mullahfukaz. But why? What makes anyone think that they can even pull off an effective system built with the same technology as all the other moustache-n-epaulettes beturbanned wazoos? What makes anyone think that Iranq (Iran+Iraq) can manage a stable enough nation that's even cable of projecting force?

And what makes anyone think that bombing Israel would float to the top of their priorities even if they could? After all, Saddam really did have chemical weapons in 90-91 and he didn't/couldn't use them effectively, strategically against Israel. It didn't serve his purposes. Similarly with their countries experiencing all these economic and social problems it's not obvious to think that destroying Israel will become the cure-all we tend to want to think it might. It won't because all it would invite is disaster for them. How many cities do they think they can afford to lose? One? Thirty? Seventy?

So in closing, I welcome all the fist-pumpers, UNocrats and coffeehouse communists to throw the US out of Iraq and take their place. I envisage the entire country as an enormous refugee camp, the pall of smoking dog meat hangs over the tents. A lunar landscape of failure, regret, depression and hate. A slow motion apocalypse. It can only be a good thing to our interests.

The World will implode, by 2020 there's going to be 10 billion people in the world. Were multiplying like jack rabbits, this is bad very very bad we definately need some kind of system to keep the population growth in check.

Israel is pretty much screwed either way, by that time Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel 3 to 1.

[Mediocrates]

No probably not. Middle class people tend to have much lower birthrates than the fecund rabbits of Allah squaloring up the middle east. If Israeli arabs can be fully embraced as Israelis, and at the same time the Free State of Hamasistan can be made an attractive alternative for emmigration then Arabs will not choose to stay as a minority population in a hated country.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
No probably not. Middle class people tend to have much lower birthrates than the fecund rabbits of Allah squaloring up the middle east. If Israeli arabs can be fully embraced as Israelis, and at the same time the Free State of Hamasistan can be made an attractive alternative for emmigration then Arabs will not choose to stay as a minority population in a hated country.

Why not convert all the Arabs to Judism? It's not like Islam is hard to disprove, you will be doing yourselves and the rest of the world a favor. Bahh maybe that's just wishfull thinking on my part.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Macc
If my country needs me I will answer the call, I love this country and I would not turn my back on it.

Technology already exists for alternative energy, we still need 2 or 3 more decades and after that the Arabs can have their oil and feed it to the Camels.

USA rulez, we rule and every other nation is jelous of our Power.

The last thing Israel needed was for the US to fight its battles for them. It actually makes it more difficult for Israelis to do what they need to do to go after their own terrorists. This whole thing looks like a Crusader-Jew war to the Muslims with the US bombing up Iraq and occupying Muslim land while the Jews target the Hamas. It would have been a much better exercise of US power to use our diplomacy skills to get all the Western nations to crack down on the funding of terrorist organizations and to pull our collective intelligence. How much of our money that we are pouring down the drain in vain in our futile attempts at nation building in Iraq could we have used to better train our intelligence services so we could embed our spies into their networks? A country as powerful as the US shouldn't have to rely on brute force in order to get a job done. In our situation, war should have been a last resort, but we did everything we could to make it the only feasible option. I'm not convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I have said on this board, "Ask me again in ten years" because at this point I have no chocie but to be optimistic now that we have acted on this course of action. But that doesn't mean I'm not angry that our administration lied to us. It just means that I am not going to abandon ship now that our captain decided to go after this Islamic Frankenstein by plowing our ship into the iceberg!

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
The last thing Israel needed was for the US to fight its battles for them. It actually makes it more difficult for Israelis to do what they need to do to go after their own terrorists. This whole thing looks like a Crusader-Jew war to the Muslims with the US bombing up Iraq and occupying Muslim land while the Jews target the Hamas. It would have been a much better exercise of US power to use our diplomacy skills to get all the Western nations to crack down on the funding of terrorist organizations and to pull our collective intelligence. How much of our money that we are pouring down the drain in vain in our futile attempts at nation building in Iraq could we have used to better train our intelligence services so we could embed our spies into their networks? A country as powerful as the US shouldn't have to rely on brute force in order to get a job done. In our situation, war should have been a last resort, but we did everything we could to make it the only feasible option. I'm not convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I have said on this board, "Ask me again in ten years" because at this point I have no chocie but to be optimistic now that we have acted on this course of action. But that doesn't mean I'm not angry that our administration lied to us. It just means that I am not going to abandon ship now that our captain decided to go after this Islamic Frankenstein by plowing our ship into the iceberg!
Mira's my secretary.

Take another memo, Mira..................................

;)

[I am David]

Originally posted by Kev


How well you prove your point!

Look how I counter it!


Kerry :)

Bush :rolleyes: :(



Sorry, just fed up with stubborness that is governed by ideology and ego rather than facts.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Mira's my secretary.

Take another memo, Mira..................................

;)


What exactly does that mean? ;)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by I am David
How well you prove your point!

Look how I counter it!


Kerry :)

Bush :rolleyes: :(



Sorry, just fed up with stubborness that is governed by ideology and ego rather than facts.
Thank you for helping me make up my mind even more.

[Macc]

Originally posted by Mira
The last thing Israel needed was for the US to fight its battles for them. It actually makes it more difficult for Israelis to do what they need to do to go after their own terrorists. This whole thing looks like a Crusader-Jew war to the Muslims with the US bombing up Iraq and occupying Muslim land while the Jews target the Hamas. It would have been a much better exercise of US power to use our diplomacy skills to get all the Western nations to crack down on the funding of terrorist organizations and to pull our collective intelligence. How much of our money that we are pouring down the drain in vain in our futile attempts at nation building in Iraq could we have used to better train our intelligence services so we could embed our spies into their networks? A country as powerful as the US shouldn't have to rely on brute force in order to get a job done. In our situation, war should have been a last resort, but we did everything we could to make it the only feasible option. I'm not convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I have said on this board, "Ask me again in ten years" because at this point I have no chocie but to be optimistic now that we have acted on this course of action. But that doesn't mean I'm not angry that our administration lied to us. It just means that I am not going to abandon ship now that our captain decided to go after this Islamic Frankenstein by plowing our ship into the iceberg!

USA is not fighting for Israel, only a muslim could make that anology. But it so happeneds that Israel is fighting Hamas and other Terrorist organizations and so are we, thereofre to the world it seems like the USA is Israel's bitch.

We already put a ton of money into Israel, what the hell would be the point of droppping our support for that God forsaken country and seeing it destroyed by an army of Arab zombies.

By the way would you like a cookie. :D

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
What exactly does that mean? ;)
That I wish I would have said that.

[I am David]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Thank you for helping me make up my mind even more.

Broken record? ;)

[Kev]

How well you prove your point!


I didn't feel the need to pontificate my position as "certain" others might do. :rolleyes:


My opinion is the same today, as it was last week and 5 weeks before.
Had there been anyone to step forward that was better than Bush, I would have welcomed his arrival.

As it stands, I am yet to see Kerry as a man that will do anything differently but repeat the past mistakes as Clinton and those before him also chose to do.

Yes, perhaps the world will be more united and we can all present a false front and even bring back the United Nations for those that consider their moral clarity, or lack thereof as a route to combat terrorism.

I however, don't!

You can choose to "intellectualize" your position all you wish, but the choices here aren't of two men that are rather similar in their goals, yet appearing to be worlds apart in order to stand out from one another.

Therefore, for myself, it is a rather simple and easy choice to make.

As well, I accept that Saudi Arabia must be dealt with very differently than has been done with Afghanistan and Iraq.


Therefore; at the risk of appearing feeble minded.............


Bush :D

Kerry :rolleyes:

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Kev
I didn't feel the need to pontificate my position as "certain" others might do. :rolleyes:


My opinion is the same today, as it was last week and 5 weeks before.
Had there been anyone to step forward that was better than Bush, I would have welcomed his arrival.

As it stands, I am yet to see Kerry as a man that will do anything differently but repeat the past mistakes as Clinton and those before him also chose to do.

Yes, perhaps the world will be more united and we can all present a false front and even bring back the United Nations for those that consider their moral clarity, or lack thereof as a route to combat terrorism.

I however, don't!

You can choose to "intellectualize" your position all you wish, but the choices here aren't of two men that are rather similar in their goals, yet appearing to be worlds apart in order to stand out from one another.

Therefore, for myself, it is a rather simple and easy choice to make.

As well, I accept that Saudi Arabia must be dealt with very differently than has been done with Afghanistan and Iraq.


Therefore; at the risk of appearing feeble minded.............


You, feeble minded? Never! Why just the other day I saw you post, "Life is like a box of chocolates......."

Meow! :rolleyes:

[I am David]

Originally posted by Kev
I didn't feel the need to pontificate my position as "certain" others might do. :rolleyes:


My opinion is the same today, as it was last week and 5 weeks before.
Had there been anyone to step forward that was better than Bush, I would have welcomed his arrival.

As it stands, I am yet to see Kerry as a man that will do anything differently but repeat the past mistakes as Clinton and those before him also chose to do.

Yes, perhaps the world will be more united and we can all present a false front and even bring back the United Nations for those that consider their moral clarity, or lack thereof as a route to combat terrorism.

I however, don't!

You can choose to "intellectualize" your position all you wish, but the choices here aren't of two men that are rather similar in their goals, yet appearing to be worlds apart in order to stand out from one another.

Therefore, for myself, it is a rather simple and easy choice to make.

As well, I accept that Saudi Arabia must be dealt with very differently than has been done with Afghanistan and Iraq.


Therefore; at the risk of appearing feeble minded.............


Bush :D

Kerry :rolleyes:

Your position is guilty of stereotyping, mass generalization, and factual incorrectness. What do you make your judgements off of? You seem, like many others here that your opinions are so similar to, to just believe the tip of the iceberg of information out there. That tip is often distorted to the highest degree possible in the mainstream media. Example: the "tip of the iceberg of informartion" dictates that Kerry is a elitist liberal who is wishy washy and weak on terrorism. While this is hard to justify factually, you seem to agree to this characterisation. I have debated a few times with you, and there doesnt seem to be much substance to your posts factually, substance that would support your accusations of Kerry and support of Bush. This goes for many here, they just like to take a position, and stick with it, just because they want to do that. It has nothing to do with real logic or facts, or justice, or intellectuall honesty, instead its all about stubborness and ego, or pure ignorance of facts and unwillingness to look into them.

That's how it is, and theres no way to fix it but asking people to be honest and conscious of what they are really thinking. I have debated with people here, and refuted their arguments as well as anyone can, yet they still, somehow, came up with some argument that allowed them to deny that I was right at all, despite the absurdy of it. Mabye you, and others here, would like to be fair regarding this issue (us politics), but so far it doesnt look like it.

[turbocohen]

Originally posted by Macc
What do you guys think?
Kerry is tying his own noose, disgracing himself day by day.

Dubya has never given Israel the ultimatum to continue forward as the sole democracy in the mid east or else.. He helps the cause. He is on the global front line of defending american interests using a big hammer. I sleep better that way!! Don't Israeli's?

And supporting Israeli security goes hand in hand with bringing democracy to the 7th century cultures that threaten Israel.

Just my sole opinion, your mileage may vary.

[turbocohen]

Originally posted by I am David
Where did you get the idea that Kerry has no marbles? Probably the direct, or indirect rhetoric of the right wing cronies. It's kind of a taboo that Kerry is a elitist liberal who is wishy washy and a flip flopper, and a terrorist apeaser. I also can understand how people come to that conclusion, if they arent absolutly alert to the political agenda of people, and how things get distorted. Nor is Kerry a liberal. When asked if he is, he rightfully simply denounces that kind of attack as a "label".

Kerry HAS been consistent with his support for Israel, while Bush has not. Nor is there any indication that Kerry is weak on terror. All that is fluff, false accusations made UP by Republicans.
A disgusting analogy.. Democrat leaning jews would be easier to lead to the gas chambers than republicans. Republicans don't pull the wool over their own eyes and wish bad thoughts away as often in my opinion.
Kerry is a wool coat yall.

Liberals, wake up and smell the rat.

[turbocohen]

Originally posted by I am David
Kerry has voted for more of the biggest defense bills than he hasnt. For those that he hasnt, theres a simple explanation of why: he wanted to re-introduce the bills with less giveaway money to defense contractors. Lets make it clear, he WANTED those weapons systems, he just wanted them without wasting taxepayer money.

He doesnt want to empower france, he wants to USE them, fairly, to lighten the load on American forces and taxpayers. Sounds good.



Use France to lighten the load.. Hmm, sounds like Bull shift less the f.

Giving it another moments thought.. Bad idea. First thing I would do is frag their asses if I saw them coming.. merely to lighten my load.

In America's time of need they are revealed as much more than sympathetic to Saddam on a wide scale..

Ask yourself why Kerry no longer uses his fluent French in public anymore, possibly the same reason he resists revealing his military record. and belligerently downplays the integrity of his own country's defense bills when they do not include language crafted to advance his personal carreer and with overwhelming pork for his constituents.

5 times a day I bet many wahabbist clansmen in mecca pray for Kerry AND praise allah in the same breath...

Why so many jews cling to the obsolete democratic party that as of 1968 is no more is hard to comprehend. Can somebody enlighten me? Please.

[I am David]

Use France to lighten the load.. Hmm, sounds like Bull shift less the f. Giving it another moments thought.. Bad idea. First thing I would do is frag their asses if I saw them coming.. merely to lighten my load.

So this is the reasoning you use to justify your position. I should have known, using other nations to lighten the load on America, is a bad idea, for turbocohen says its a Bull shift less the f! Oh dear me, if only I had known that turbocohen would have fragged their french asses, I would have never taken the position I have!

Thank you for the most perfect example of radical republican justifacation of Bush, and the arguments/logic used to back it up. Meaning, 0 logic, 0 facts, 0 substance.

And thank you for rehashing yet again, the same old, tired, boring and fact and logic lacking arguments that people who are not interested in the truth constantly spew.

Come back when you have a backable argument.

[turbocohen]

Originally posted by Mira
..... and investing all those hundreds of billions of $$$ in alternative energy, therby forcing all those corrupt regimes to actually invest in their people and reform their societies.


There is plenty of money invested in alternative energy, why dont you buy some of it. In fact, why don't we use more nuclear power to reduce coal and natural gas use and to cut our oil imports in half.

[Kev]

You, feeble minded? Never! Why just the other day I saw you post, "Life is like a box of chocolates......."


:D




This goes for many here, they just like to take a position, and stick with it, just because they want to do that. It has nothing to do with real logic or facts, or justice, or intellectuall honesty, instead its all about stubborness and ego, or pure ignorance of facts and unwillingness to look into them.



If that is how you perceive my statement, fine, that is your prerogative to do so.

I answered a question in this thread, rather simply which was asked by someone other than you.
I don't feel the need to prove my level of intellect to you.

You have your opinion about Kerry, which I just happen to consider emotionally ruffled and I have mine which I consider quite dispassionate especially by comparison.

C'est La Vie

[I am David]

Originally posted by Kev
:D





If that is how you perceive my statement, fine, that is your prerogative to do so.

I answered a question in this thread, rather simply which was asked by someone other than you.
I don't feel the need to prove my level of intellect to you.

You have your opinion about Kerry, which I just happen to consider emotionally ruffled and I have mine which I consider quite dispassionate especially by comparison.

C'est La Vie

Emotionally ruffled? That happens sometimes :)

[KSO]

Support the Whig Party!

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Kev
:D


Good, I'm glad you laughed. The last thing I need on this board right now is another confrontational cat fight with one more pro-Israel supporter. Us good looking women need to stick together you know! :D

[Alfred]

I don't believe Kerry would be good for Israel for two reasons:

1) Kerry is what I would call a Euro-Tory...ie he believes the US would be better off in the Euro/UN camp to the exclusion of independent American action. He is not alone, as there are lots of Tories within the US at the moment.

To gain UN/Euro support for any action the US may undertake in the war on terror, Kerry will have to compromise. As we all know what the UN/Euros thinks of Israel, and how they blame Israel for much of the terrorism in the world, we can only guess what "requirements" Kerry will have to satisfy.

2) Kerry will end up withdrawing from the the Middle East. Perhaps a future compromise with the UN/Euros. This will be a tremendous victory for the Islamic nuts, who will then gain courage and strike out at Israel and the US.

Mediocrates spoke of the Islamic birth timebomb in the MiddleEast (and in Europe for that matter). As things fall apart even more in the Middle East due to this population explosion, fanatical Islam will gain more appeal as a solution.

Israel may get to use its nukes afterall.

[Kev]

Good, I'm glad you laughed. The last thing I need on this board right now is another confrontational cat fight with one more pro-Israel supporter. Us good looking women need to stick together you know!

Cat Fight? :confused:

I don't recall any disagreements between you or I, but even if I had a different opinion than you and said so strongly it wouldn't imply that I thought any less of you.
People are far to complicated to dislike over a difference of opinion, whereas in other areas you may get along beautifully.

The only issues I ever have on this board are with the few posters who are obviously here to troll.

Even when they are wrong, which they most often are, the nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah attitude of some becomes tiring far too quickly.
If others wish to engage them, fine, that's their prerogative.
I just don't have the time, and even less so if I delve into long posts with a response.



To gain UN/Euro support for any action the US may undertake in the war on terror, Kerry will have to compromise. As we all know what the UN/Euros thinks of Israel, and how they blame Israel for much of the terrorism in the world, we can only guess what "requirements" Kerry will have to satisfy.

2) Kerry will end up withdrawing from the the Middle East. Perhaps a future compromise with the UN/Euros. This will be a tremendous victory for the Islamic nuts, who will then gain courage and strike out at Israel and the US.




I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment of Kerry with regards to Iraq and Israel


It wouldn't be fair of me to stereotype all Democratic Jews with one simple brush but suffice it to say, I have remarked here many a time of the appalling opinions many urban, successful middle class to upper middle class Democratic leaning Canadian Jews have, and not one of them I have spoken to yet even believes legally, at worst, that Israel really has the right to exist.
Or, at the very least, cares whether it does especially if it continues to "embarrass" them.

Its a mindset I certainly don't understand, nor wish too.