Moblin Major General Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 It would be just as well to disassociate America with the Middle East/Levant as a whole. I know I'm the humanitarian liberal around here, but Southeast Asia, South America, and pretty much the whole of Africa needs our help more. Oddly enough, I have evangelical reasons for nonintervention in the Middle East. On the other hand, we still need to maintain positive relationships with our neighbors, lest the 2020s become like the 1920s. Funnily enough, I heard that Canada was going to start accepting American refugees if Trump is elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Democrats don't necessarily support the Palestinians. What has a democratic administration done to support them? My support for them extends to "withdraw the wall to the Green Line" but that's mostly settlement related. The key difference here is that the US is only facing illegal immigration, while Israel is facing the threat of terrorism. It's an absurd comparison to make. US/Israel relations are at an all-time low with Obama openly mocking Netanyahu (which is fine in my boat) and comments like "reverting to the pre-1967 borders" (which is not fine considering the security risks that we'd be undertaking) even though they have been recanted. Not only that but Obama has gone out of his way to criticize Israel and not the PLO in the same breath. Israelis really don't like Obama and when we hear comments about "Israel is our best friend in the Middle East", we cringe because it sounds phony. All I'm saying is that the Democrats seem to be on the way to backing the Palestinians while their own citizens also get killed. Eight years of Hillary Clinton in the White House may just demolish all ties the two countries have, which will be a shame for the US because Israel will probably turn towards China and Russia in regards to technology trading and economic deals. You can scoff all you want but most modern phones and computers wouldn't exist without Israeli innovations. If Israeli companies purposely look East rather than West, that's a huge blow to the American technology sector. Also, I know of that wall that's being referred to (it starts at the Taba crossing) since I used to do guard duty there. What's not mentioned is that it's more of a fence with patrols rather than a wall itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 US/Israel relations are at an all-time low with Obama openly mocking Netanyahu (which is fine in my boat) and comments like "reverting to the pre-1967 borders" (which is not fine considering the security risks that we'd be undertaking) even though they have been recanted. Not only that but Obama has gone out of his way to criticize Israel and not the PLO in the same breath. Israelis really don't like Obama and when we hear comments about "Israel is our best friend in the Middle East", we cringe because it sounds phony. All I'm saying is that the Democrats seem to be on the way to backing the Palestinians while their own citizens also get killed. Eight years of Hillary Clinton in the White House may just demolish all ties the two countries have, which will be a shame for the US because Israel will probably turn towards China and Russia in regards to technology trading and economic deals. You can scoff all you want but most modern phones and computers wouldn't exist without Israeli innovations. If Israeli companies purposely look East rather than West, that's a huge blow to the American technology sector. Also, I know of that wall that's being referred to (it starts at the Taba crossing) since I used to do guard duty there. What's not mentioned is that it's more of a fence with patrols rather than a wall itself. Hear that, Tuvarkz? The wall requires patrols. Now, how many patrols would it take to have that kind of coverage on the American border with Mexico?Does pre 1967 borders mean a total withdrawal from the PA, or withdrawing the settlements? I am fine with the latter, I can see why the former is unworkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 You know what? I don't care what sort of war would start in the Levant, but the weakness of Israel's neighbors would give it license to expand to it's biblical borders. Actually wait, that would give Netanyahu ideas. Still, I don't necessarily think the Palestinians need their own state. However, the biblical ramifications of Palestine shattering are world ending. Call me a raving religious nut, but the Middle East is not somewhere I think America needs to be involved in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reject Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I wish Canada wasn't being run into the ground right now, because otherwise I'd rather move there than contemplate a Hillary vs Trump ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 You know what? I don't care what sort of war would start in the Levant, but the weakness of Israel's neighbors would give it license to expand to it's biblical borders. Actually wait, that would give Netanyahu ideas. Still, I don't necessarily think the Palestinians need their own state. However, the biblical ramifications of Palestine shattering are world ending. Call me a raving religious nut, but the Middle East is not somewhere I think America needs to be involved in. Israel really can't afford any more expansion; that would just give it even more angry potential terrorists, stretch its army even more thin, and alienate its allies. I wouldn't worry about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 the reasons for a wall are pathetic. Yeah, I guess wanting to control the flow of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and people smuggling are pretty pathetic reasons. Let's just keep things as they are. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg042910.php3 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arizona-border-idUSKCN0SE2WZ20151020 Who cares if someone living near the border gets shot on his own property, of if Border Patrol agents end up in a shootout with drug smugglers. These things happen so rarely, we really don't need to do anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Hear that, Tuvarkz? The wall requires patrols. Now, how many patrols would it take to have that kind of coverage on the American border with Mexico? Does pre 1967 borders mean a total withdrawal from the PA, or withdrawing the settlements? I am fine with the latter, I can see why the former is unworkable. Total withdrawal (including settlements that were established before 1948 like Ein Tzurim) and they want Jerusalem including the Old City. That's the official demand. The unofficial demand is that they just want Israel wiped off the map. As for patrols, they're aided greatly by cameras but yeah, patrols would still be required. Edited March 9, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Total withdrawal (including settlements that were established before 1948 like Ein Tzurim) and they want Jerusalem including the Old City. That's the official demand. The unofficial demand is that they just want Israel wiped off the map. As for patrols, they're aided greatly by cameras but yeah, patrols would still be required. All of Jerusalem is obviously unacceptable, then. TBH it should probably be international, lest some of the ugliest borders in history be created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 All of Jerusalem is obviously unacceptable, then. TBH it should probably be international, lest some of the ugliest borders in history be created. That's the main reason why the Arabs have never sat down at the table with the intentions of peace. They know that we won't give up Jerusalem and they keep asking for it. The real issue is that if we agreed to everything, we'd still probably get attacked because according to Palestinian television, the goal is Israel's destruction, not a Palestinian state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Yeah, I guess wanting to control the flow of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and people smuggling are pretty pathetic reasons. Let's just keep things as they are. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg042910.php3 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arizona-border-idUSKCN0SE2WZ20151020 Who cares if someone living near the border gets shot on his own property, of if Border Patrol agents end up in a shootout with drug smugglers. These things happen so rarely, we really don't need to do anything at all. is bombing the middle east an appropriate response to american journalists being murdered by daesh lunatics? i'm not convinced it is. these things that happen are bad, and at times tragic, but the reactionary response of, "we're keeping all of you the fuck out," is simply not a good attempt at a solution. instead of making the process take way too long (i as well as others have shown it can take up to 7 whole years), we should redo the whole process, maybe even for just north american countries (meaning that canadians would also have an easier time becoming united states citizens). if mexicans aren't the problem in the conservative worldview, but illegal immigration is, perhaps making immigration easier is the proper solution? drug smuggling crimes are a whole story of their own. building a wall will not rid us of those problems. this is only speculative, but i suspect it may cause the problem to worsen since narcos will have to work harder (become more brutal) to get drugs into this country. this doesn't mean we ease border control, but what i mean to say is simply tightening control isn't the correct way to go about this. also, /pol/ isn't a good source for anything. admitting you grab things from /pol/ of all places is a recipe for getting your opinions disregarded. Edited March 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Blah brought up the question of where I had obtained the infogrpahic from-Not admitting it would've been outright withholding information and I wouldn't have felt alright by doing that. And while indeed /pol/ is conspiracy theory central, the infographic seemed accurate enough to me to post it for argument, because sometimes even people that are generally wrong make a point. And to note, there needs to be some control to immigration. While in a superficial viewpoint the (relatively)free movement of people, the changes that considerable influxes or outfluxes of people can create (Take into account job demand/offer, for example) need to be regulated. And if the narcos become more ruthless, then it's a problem for Mexico, not the US to solve (As long as said ruthlessness is limited to their country-Anything that happens within the US is for the US to solve). Each country should answer to the needs of its own citizens first. Also, yes, the wall would require patrolling and maintenance, but costs for staffing and maintenance are something which about every single gubernmental project generally ends up needing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 And if the narcos become more ruthless, then it's a problem for Mexico, not the US to solve (As long as said ruthlessness is limited to their country-Anything that happens within the US is for the US to solve). Each country should answer to the needs of its own citizens first. if drug cartel violence is an impetus for illegal immigration, and if you claim that illegal immigration is a problem for the US, then of course it's a problem available for the US to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 if drug cartel violence is an impetus for illegal immigration, and if you claim that illegal immigration is a problem for the US, then of course it's a problem available for the US to solve. Mexico probably wouldn't like at all having their sovereignity infringed by US armed forces, however-It could be very easily interpreted as an annexation attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 With the Mexican drug cartel brought up it's also important to think about the consequences building the wall would have on that (ie. how are the people who got their fix from the cartels going to react?) If we decide to build a wall we should make sure we have things set up to transition, like drug addiction centers or legal marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Mexico probably wouldn't like at all having their sovereignity infringed by US armed forces, however-It could be very easily interpreted as an annexation attempt. Mexico could easily ask for help. I highly doubt even Trump would put ground troops in Mexico without first asking the Mexican government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Mexico probably wouldn't like at all having their sovereignity infringed by US armed forces, however-It could be very easily interpreted as an annexation attempt. i'm not sure where you got the conclusion that helping with drug cartel problem == sending the armed forces to mexico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 i'm not sure where you got the conclusion that helping with drug cartel problem == sending the armed forces to mexico You think that if Mexico had been able (And willing to) take out the cartels, they wouldn't have already? And considering how deeply entrenched they are, nothing short of full military is going to be able to deal with them (Well, police forces might manage to do so, but a much higher human cost on their side). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 if military force has been ineffective at curtailing drug cartels, throwing more military at it is probably not going to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 ^Unfortunately, that is how the Neo-Progs in the DNC operate. You are called a conservative racist if you are not the establishment candidate. That won't change as long as the Democrats continue their demagoguery and racist voting trends. Hillary is preying upon minorities for votes, while Bernie is casually raking in votes from people like us on SF. He might make promises that "Con"gress won't allow him to keep, but he will try because this election is going to kill the GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Aaand Carson is siding with Trump! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/10/ben-carson-plans-to-endorse-trump/ https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/708078460053356544?lang=de Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) I wish Canada wasn't being run into the ground right now, because otherwise I'd rather move there than contemplate a Hillary vs Trump ticket. Sorry but we are building a wall here to stop the American immigrants from entering Canada. Edited March 11, 2016 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I just had someone take the isidewith quiz. . .and somehow, the top two answers were Sanders/Trump. I don't even. . . And on a more related note, Trump got the Hawaii delegates. I'm quite disappointed in my state right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I just had someone take the isidewith quiz. . .and somehow, the top two answers were Sanders/Trump. I don't even. . . And on a more related note, Trump got the Hawaii delegates. I'm quite disappointed in my state right now. Sanders and Trump are more similar than one would think. If you listen to his speeches, in terms of economics he is almost as anti corporate and anti free trade as Sanders is. He is appealing to poor whites in a very real way. Chances are you said you don't want corporations controlling everything, and the Republican candidate that matched most with was Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 that's pretty much where the similarities end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.