The Next President?

Originally posted by Grasshopper@Apr 23 2008, 03:11 PM
Why would Ahmedinejad suggest other countries accept immigration of a Jewish dispora, if all he wanted was to do was 'obliterate' them or 'wipe them off the map'
Click to expand...
This appears to be where we differ. Presented with such a statement, I would ask, How does Ahmedinejad intend to persuade the illegitimate holocaust causing Zionist racists (spent too long on his website I think :P ) to immigrate to a proposed Israel in Europe or North America.
 
Far too long on his website, simmo :D

Well I don't think Ahmedinejad does think he can achieve that, or anything like it - hence why I felt it was more a mischevious than malicious statement.

Put it this way - if he nuked Israel, he would indiscriminately murder the very people (the Palestinians) that he claims he would be representing by such actions. It would be a totally nihilistic move.

And totally counter-productive too, as Israel would pop his and his countrymen/womens ass in the nuclear toaster too, with a massive retaliatory strike.

Which brings us back nicely to the mannekin Clinton, and her recent utterances.

In the massively unlikely scenario where Iran launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel, American intervention would be unnecessary, because Israel would do all the retaliation needed herself. The only time America might get involved is when Israel is subsequently carpet-bombed by every Arab nation under the sun.

At this point, I suspect the uber-tough President Clinton (Mrs) - and practically everyone else in Washington - to say "Israel is lost anyway. It's not on our doorstep, so lets stay well out".

The bollocks she trotted-out the other day was a 100% vote-grab - the kind of contemptible "power" horse-sh*t verbals which pervades American politics from top-to-bottom and from left-to-right.

Ah...............there - we got it back on subject in the end. :)
 
If a seige mentality exists amongst Israeli's, one could argue that it is of their own making, as they are still (as far as international bodies like the UN are concerned) an occupying force in many parts of Israel/Palestine. It's a truism that Israel stand in violation of several UN resolutions
Click to expand...

Bollocks

The UN is constantly upbraiding Israel for every incident but remained conveniently slient (largely because muslim states and China vetoed) on the genocide of hundreds of thousands of christians and then Black muslims in Sudan

And we are supposed to take them seriously...

As for the seige menatlity being of their own making, thats appropitae only if you think there mere presence (and jews have funnily enough lived in the middle east for rather a long time) is provocation enough
 
Clivex, wether the UN is a worthwhile institution or not is a moot point - and largely irrelevant, imo. Personally, I think it's totally toothless, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupies large tracts of land that is legally and universally (by all but Israel, at least) acknowledged as Palestinian.

It is the occupation that is at the root of the provocation - the cause if you will; everything else that has subsequently gone on is the effect.

IMO, Israel has come close on a couple of occassions to making the kind of concessions that might, just might, do enough to make a peace possible. The problem is that the lack of trust runs very deep, and every time the Kennesset get to the precipice on this subject, they back away from it ten times faster than it took them to get there.

Again imo, this is in small part due to self-preservation amongst Israeli politicians, but in large part down to the fact that they are worried that co-existence is not possible, due to the hatred and mistrust that exists between the two communities. Israel probably has a justifiable fear of more atrocities being committed, if they were ever to make a genuine attempt at breaking down the physical barriers between themselves and the Palestinians.

That's why it needs someone who is prepared to break down the mental barriers first. Without such a move, the cycle of violence seems pretty much condemned to go on ad infinitum.

The Palestinian cause (if you/we can call it that) has very little, if anything, to do with an inherent hatred of Judaism. If it did, the Palestinian Legislative Council would never have agreed to Israel's right to exist.

It's all about the occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the real or imagined injustices that go with it - imo at least.
 
Really?

you want to see some of the quotes from hamas leaders?

There is massive anti semitism within the arab world, regardless of Palestine. One country at least (Saudi) even bans people of the jewish race from even visiting.

Is there any other state in the world that actually bans a race?

I could go on...(and usualy do...), but some of the racist bile that eminates in mainstream media from morocco to Pakistan has to be seen (and it should be seen more often in the west) to be believed

I dont disagree with some of what you say about barriers and so on but to put the emnity down to the "cause" and nothing else is naive

My view is that israel should have conceded more and stopped the settlements long ago. Its a working, democractic and relatively prosperous state. Not easy, but its future is relations from outside the failed region. On the other hand it was attacked (67) and will continued to be attacked because of the race hatred of much of the middle east and regardless of what it does it will thus be under seige. Its not suprising that they have felt the need to act aggressively to defend.
 
It's late, clivex. I did have any number of ideas about how to respond, but what would be the point? You clearly see it as black-and-white with very few grey areas, and you will never be convinced of an alternative point of view (which makes you a bit of a 'fundamentalist' if you ask me :P :D ).

OK.............all Arabs hate all Jews, every Arab government on the planet wants to see the destruction of the State of Israel, and none of them think a two-state solution is possible or desirable. The occupation of Palestine has nothing whatsoever to do with Arab agitation against Israel either - it's pure anti-semitism.

You win. Happy?

PS. I generally agree with you about the Saudis - they're hateful cu*nts (or at least those that make and carry out the laws are).

PPS. What is the purpose of this thread anyway? It's obvious that McCain will hack-up in November.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Apr 23 2008, 08:49 AM
Did windbag get it in the neck for his racial slur on white small town america (the equivalent of Lazy/bitter and resort to welfare crime and drugs...)? Will be interesting to see if this resonates in the remaining states
Click to expand...
Clive, you know I have a lot of time for you and your point of view. That said, I have to take you up regarding this comment (especially in light of your discussion with Grasshopper).

To label Obama's comments a "racial slur" is completely nonsensical. Furthermore, you're interpretation as to what was actually said is also very distorted (to put it mildly).

Here are the comments, ver batim:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/356191.aspx

On the contrary your argument, I thought this comment was a remarkably accurate, frank portrayal (though I can see how it can be so easily spun as condescending or elitist).

I'll let others make their own minds up.

BTW, that link I provided was merely to show where I got the actual quote from, not anything to do with the article itself (didn't even read it.)
 
Ok...thats a fair point trackside.

Clumsy would be a fair description maybe although you can see my point that if the reference was to inner cites and then "drugs crime welfare" ...there would be some reaction

hes still a windbag though

OK.............all Arabs hate all Jews
Click to expand...

I said MANY. Try reading clearly. Tonic wine ruins eyesight you know....
 
Nice one Wright

Now..where are all those that sneered at Melanie Phlips prophetic pieces?

Theres part of me that wonders whether wright is deliberatly trying to torpedo Obama's campaign now, but it just opens up the question that (for the usual PC reasons) has been buried for too long...
 
This is from the American political program "Hardball" hosted by Chris Matthews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

Apart from being one of the most hilarious (and satisfying) bits of television I have seen recently, it really does boggle my mind how many of these Rush Limbaugh-inspired radio hosts there are, who are, for lack of a better word, gobshites.

Gotta love Chris Matthews though...
 
I actually listened to a interview with windbag the other day on NBC radio (a podcast). Tough interview with good strong Paxman like questions

It reminded me a lot of the old adage that its not what you say but how you say it (which takes a degree of intelligence too)

Thats his winning card. His manner is spot on. I was quietly impressed :what:

(trackside...ill watch that... Ive heard a fair bit of Rush when in the US and you couldnnt make it up could you?)
 
Did you see McCain's "policy speech" yesterday? Talk about a windbag.

The "appeasement" comment might end up hurting McCain, but it has already accomplished its goal (blunt the Edwards endorsement).

An Obama-Clinton looks an increasingly likely possibility if the rumuors from DC are to be listened to.
 
Another blow to Clinton tonight as the DNC rules committee has agreed to count the Florida and Michigan votes as half a delegate each (as supported by the Obama campaign).

It really is all over bar the shouting (of which there was a considerable amount from Clinton protestors).
 
Clinton wins big in Puerto Rico, now leads in the popular vote. Will not be enough though and by this time next week I would imagine Obama will have all the superdelegates he needs.

When you look at the states he has not managed to win, it is very hard to see him landing the presidency. I would think Clinton will just have another 4 years to wait before going for it again.
 
It’s hard to see what such a summit would gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks about starting another,”
Click to expand...

McCain on Obama

Very nicely put of course and whatever anyone thinks over here, a policy of talking to that idiot iranian leader is along way from being a vote winner in the US, not least amongst the Jewish vote
 
Indeed clivex.

Much the same as the British Government not talking to the Republicans through the 70's and 80's helped move the Irish peace-process forward in those years.

You really don't get it, do you? You only make progress by engaging your enemy in debate, and proving your point through the indisputable logic and superiority of your argument.

Ignoring Ahmedinejad achieves nothing - other than maintaining a thoroughly unsatisfactory status quo. But then again, sometimes that's the easiest and most politically expedient thing to do. It takes a leader with balls i.e. a real leader, to go against the prevailing consensus.

Perhaps you can answer me one question.

If Mr Obama were to win the US election in November, what harm would it do if he did have a summit meeting with Ahmedinejad? What would be the downside?
 
The downside would be giving credibility to a genocidal racist

Much like the appeasers of Hitler
 
The middle east is is run by "genocidal racists" and the U.S. talks to most of them and bank rolls some of them.
 
The obvious reply to McCain being to presume that he will cut off all diplomatic ties with the anti-Semitic regime in Saudi Arabia should he become President?
 
He'd be insane to take her as a running mate. He needs someone who can win a few southern states for him. And that's before he meets with an accident
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 3 2008, 10:23 PM
The downside would be giving credibility to a genocidal racist

Much like the appeasers of Hitler
Click to expand...
Lowest-common-denominator clap-trap.

How many wars has Iran started lately? How many times has it attacked Israel?

Perhaps you could do the arithmetic for me, clivex? If the answer happens to be 'zero', then you may wish to reconsider your use of the terms 'genocidal'.

As for your suggestion that speaking to Ahmedinjad would be akin to the appeasement of Hitler? At best, it is idiotic, juvenile and misleading. At worst, it completely fails to recognise the true extent and nature of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi's.

Getting back to the subject at hand, imo Obama would be insane to put Clinton on the ticket.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Obama can go close in the election, once he's one-on-one against McCain. He doesn't need the shrill trout Clinton (who's motive for being in the race seems largely about fulfilling her perceived destiny, rather than trying to make a difference politically) as a vote-grabber - I think his rhetoric alone will convince many 'Undecided's to vote for him.
 
Back
Top