Author Topic: Are you with 'em or against em?  (Read 5599 times)

Offline Alaska Slim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
  • Howdy, I'm new here.
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2014, 10:04:32 PM »
Israel is fully capable of taking care of their own business if the USA fully supports them geopolitically and with arms.
Agreed.

Israel claims proudly that they have never asked anyone to fight their battles for them. I certainly don't want to take that mantle away from them.

They are our only ally who does this. Even our NATO allies living close to Russia didn't bother to spend the 2% GDP on defense, as the NATO charter requires, because they figured that we'd just pressure them to behave.

... and even after that blew up, they still don't think they need to. The Baltics only increased their spending to 0.5% of GDP. Maybe they think Germany will save them, I dunno...
"Fact -- the only thing more piping hot than Mom's fresh apple pie, is the sting of my anti-lowlife-terrorist mag-popper. Want a slice?!?"

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2014, 10:25:43 PM »
Agreed.

Israel claims proudly that they have never asked anyone to fight their battles for them. I certainly don't want to take that mantle away from them.

They are our only ally who does this. Even our NATO allies living close to Russia didn't bother to spend the 2% GDP on defense, as the NATO charter requires, because they figured that we'd just pressure them to behave.

... and even after that blew up, they still don't think they need to. The Baltics only increased their spending to 0.5% of GDP. Maybe they think Germany will save them, I dunno...

Israel has nukes and the ability to deliver them, and has had them since the 1960s. Israel routinely buys our best military stuff and improves it. Check out the F-16I for just one example.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Aristophanes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2014, 11:27:50 PM »
"To truly listen one must realize the full intent of the other party's message."

Israeli can take care of domestic defense and Gaza. What it needs is political support from us in that endeavor. Do you realize how many bases we have without actually expanding American economic influence? The only things we do in regions like this is to sell weapons. I say we stop selling weapons to EVERY nation, except perhaps Israel, and we establish AMERICAN SOIL in the middle east. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq should be states #52-55. The 'final four' states of America will secure our interests in the middle east. I say it is a worthy enough endeavor that we may if needed use military assets from our other foreign bases. What I am saying is that we should not be the aggressors. What I am saying is that we should gather our forces in a holding pattern around the southern middle east, publicly announce that we will allow Israel to forcibly emigrate Gaza inhabitants out of Gaza, and once a nation turns against Israel directly we strike, occupy, and patriate. This means moving US citizens into the middle east, perhaps first drawing from Americans currently living in QATAR and Arab Emirates, then pulling from illegal immigrants and other disenfranchised, and a number of willing citizens that have professional backgrounds that are necessary to set up our state, as well as the prerequisite ambition to take the leap of faith. We cannot assume to hold an empire based solely on military bases. If we do not have the will to create American states in the middle east then we should just pack our bags and take all of our troops home. Is that what you really want? To retreat with your tails between your legs? If you do that's fine, but if you don't, then you better be DAMNED sure that you are willing to set up American Colonies, American STATES, no less, and you are willing to put not only troops, but non-combatant citizens into the cross-hairs to make those dreams a reality. If you don't have the balls for that then bow down and convert to Islam, or take a full Isolationist policy and withdraw all troops and foreign aid.

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2014, 11:53:50 PM »
"To truly listen one must realize the full intent of the other party's message."

Israeli can take care of domestic defense and Gaza. What it needs is political support from us in that endeavor. Do you realize how many bases we have without actually expanding American economic influence? The only things we do in regions like this is to sell weapons. I say we stop selling weapons to EVERY nation, except perhaps Israel, and we establish AMERICAN SOIL in the middle east. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq should be states #52-55. The 'final four' states of America will secure our interests in the middle east. I say it is a worthy enough endeavor that we may if needed use military assets from our other foreign bases. What I am saying is that we should not be the aggressors. What I am saying is that we should gather our forces in a holding pattern around the southern middle east, publicly announce that we will allow Israel to forcibly emigrate Gaza inhabitants out of Gaza, and once a nation turns against Israel directly we strike, occupy, and patriate. This means moving US citizens into the middle east, perhaps first drawing from Americans currently living in QATAR and Arab Emirates, then pulling from illegal immigrants and other disenfranchised, and a number of willing citizens that have professional backgrounds that are necessary to set up our state, as well as the prerequisite ambition to take the leap of faith. We cannot assume to hold an empire based solely on military bases. If we do not have the will to create American states in the middle east then we should just pack our bags and take all of our troops home. Is that what you really want? To retreat with your tails between your legs? If you do that's fine, but if you don't, then you better be DAMNED sure that you are willing to set up American Colonies, American STATES, no less, and you are willing to put not only troops, but non-combatant citizens into the cross-hairs to make those dreams a reality. If you don't have the balls for that then bow down and convert to Islam, or take a full Isolationist policy and withdraw all troops and foreign aid.

I remember the first time I got drunk in somebody's garage. I think it sounded a lot like this.

Just out of curiosity, what is your proposed State #51? Or are you of the Kenyan school of geography, that flings 57 states already out there?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Alaska Slim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
  • Howdy, I'm new here.
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2014, 03:35:27 AM »
"To truly listen one must realize the full intent of the other party's message."

Israeli can take care of domestic defense and Gaza. What it needs is political support from us in that endeavor. Do you realize how many bases we have without actually expanding American economic influence? The only things we do in regions like this is to sell weapons. I say we stop selling weapons to EVERY nation, except perhaps Israel, and we establish AMERICAN SOIL in the middle east.
Neo-imperialism leads to bad end. The colonies of Britian were a net drag on their own economy, a drag they were forced to eject, it'd be no different with us.

Our own closest example to this was Liberia, and that's gone rather badly. Thankfully we didn't do this in Sicily, as we planned to if Italy had gone Commie.
"Fact -- the only thing more piping hot than Mom's fresh apple pie, is the sting of my anti-lowlife-terrorist mag-popper. Want a slice?!?"

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1934
  • Gender: Male
  • Norwegian Coffeeman
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2014, 03:36:01 AM »
Neo-imperialism leads to bad end. The colonies of Britian were a net drag on their own economy, a drag they were forced to eject, it'd be no different with us.

Our own closest example to this was Liberia, and that's gone rather badly. Thankfully we didn't do this in Sicily, as we planned to if Italy had gone Commie.

That's not entirelycorrect, Britain's income from Haiti was 7 times of the total income from all the thirteen colonies combined and stood for almost 40% of Europe's sugar import and this was just Haiti. Even tough it created a huge import-export imbalance the taxes levied from India and the colonies was used to finance this "drag" on the economy, in the case of China the British sold opium to make up for imbalance. It was also the huge export of raw materials that fed the United Kingdoms industrialization and economic growth. But they were forced to create the commonwealth because the aborigine bureaucrats the British trained and gave power wanted the money and ultimate political power for themselves, not out of economic necessity.

Offline Aristophanes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2014, 09:28:22 PM »
Just out of curiosity, what is your proposed State #51? Or are you of the Kenyan school of geography, that flings 57 states already out there?

Puerto Rico would be a likely candidate, but if American Statehood in the Middle East is to occur naturally, then Israel would have to give up its sovereignty to become officially a part of the United States. For this to occur, policy changes in the favor of Judaism and policy changes that would guarantee that, as a state within the United States, Israel could still operate fundamentally as an independent Zionist state, only with ultimate US federal ownership. It would also require a full public US defense of Zionism and the practice of maintaining the state of Israel. Anything less and we might as well forget the middle east altogether, and just pack up for home.

If we tried to operate colonies near Israel as a military partner, but without owning Israel, then our situation would remain dubious and confusing, and no clarity could be achieved. In a region where religion tensions run high, clarity is an absolute must, along with ethical and moral solidarity on key issues. Without a firm stance that is unbending and unbroken, we cannot set foot in the Middle East without adding to the turmoil. Only if we have the courage and honor to choose a stance in defense of Christian and Jewish rights in the middle east, then we may not dare return.

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2014, 06:05:28 AM »
Jews are NOT dumb. They won't accept paying taxes to support our criminal federal debt-load.

Send more nukes. They'll figure out how to use them for the best effect.

Offline Alaska Slim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
  • Howdy, I'm new here.
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2014, 11:37:36 PM »
Jews are NOT dumb. They won't accept paying taxes to support our criminal federal debt-load.
Heck, I think he has it backwards. *We* shouldn't be taking over everything, rather, everything should go to them.

The one-state solution.  :thumbup:
"Fact -- the only thing more piping hot than Mom's fresh apple pie, is the sting of my anti-lowlife-terrorist mag-popper. Want a slice?!?"

Offline JustKari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Female
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2014, 08:50:14 AM »
They say that math is the enemy of Leftists, for example the repeated claim that most Muslims are peaceful. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 1% of those is 12 million, 10% of that figure is 1.2 million. So a minuscule percentage of the Muslim community - 1 in 1 hundred still leaves a million insane terrorists. Meanwhile the West has some really ugly weapons in it's arsenals, but it won't use them - they are held back by the insane idea of proportionality. The idea that if your enemy only has a certain level of weaponry, it is some how "unfair" to use your far greater arsenal. So if your enemy only has small arms it's not "fair" to use machine guns and heavy artillery - it's as if war is a freaking video game. The common sense idea, that it's better to use every weapon you have, smash the enemy flat and get it over with - thus reducing casualties - had gone by the wayside.


Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9373
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are you with 'em or against em?
« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2014, 06:19:14 AM »
Our president is Muslim period.  He is NOT going to support Israel; he's done quite the opposite.

Yes, I do believe Christians are in danger.
I simply cannot believe why that idea - Obama being either a muslim himself or a muslim sympathizer - isn't screamed to the high heavens, nightly on the news. Jeeze, the man is celebrating Muslim holidays in the White House, the holidays of a minuscule fraction of our population. Is he celebrating Orthodox Jewish holidays? Or Mormons? Or Buddhists? Every thing he does serves to help the advance of Islam; isn't anyone paying attention. Are they so afraid of being called "racist" that they willing to ignore the obvious?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

 

Powered by EzPortal