Page 3 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jan 2023, 1:20 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
I would rather people like me supply oil through fracking to the US than being held hostage to Saudi Arabia.I love fracking.
Do they do much of it next to your home?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,091
Location: temperate zone

01 Jan 2023, 1:24 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
DeathFlowerKing wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Well George Washington was no fan of foreign entanglements

The U.S.A. was not a superpower back then. Far from it.

If the U.S.A. abdicates its role of world leadership, someone else will take our place. Most likely China.


And we REALLY do not want China as the sole world superpower or else things will be so much worst for the rest of us!

Well I would rather listen to George Washington on this one.I still believe that we should listen to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers on every issue possible.


@ Everyone else on this thread. Keep in mind that TexasOilMan is a unique political specimen. He ALSO wants his state of Texas to return to 1846 status of being a seperate independent nation from the rest of the US. Just sayin.

@Texas.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different world.

George Washington also owned slaves. And so did half of the other Founding Fathers. So you obviously cant go by their wisdom on EVERY thing. Not that they were bad. Just that it was a different world then.

The US was a weak nation afraid of being swallowed up big foriegn empires. Today we are the chief superpower.

The Founding Fathers themselves couldnt even live up to their own vow of avoiding foreign entanglements.

A global war between the two superpowers broke out shortly after our nation was founded: the wars of Napoleon between Britain and France. George Washington actually 'declared neutrality". But the US ended up having to fight two wars to (paradoxically) stay out of the Napoleonic Wars ( a short naval war with France in 1805, and then later the larger War of 1812 with Britain). And during that same era we fought wars with the Barbary Pirates in Libya.

The US did not enter WWII. World War Two came to us. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. There was no way back to isolationism after that. We had to take a proactive role in the world since then.

And also...you just admitted to having vested interest. Your family would make money from fracking. And selling us oil :lol:



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,290
Location: Texas

01 Jan 2023, 1:35 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
DeathFlowerKing wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Well George Washington was no fan of foreign entanglements

The U.S.A. was not a superpower back then. Far from it.

If the U.S.A. abdicates its role of world leadership, someone else will take our place. Most likely China.


And we REALLY do not want China as the sole world superpower or else things will be so much worst for the rest of us!

Well I would rather listen to George Washington on this one.I still believe that we should listen to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers on every issue possible.


@ Everyone else on this thread. Keep in mind that TexasOilMan is a unique political specimen. He ALSO wants his state of Texas to return to 1846 status of being a seperate independent nation from the rest of the US. Just sayin.

@Texas.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different world.

George Washington also owned slaves. And so did half of the other Founding Fathers. So you obviously cant go by their wisdom on EVERY thing. Not that they were bad. Just that it was a different world then.

The US was a weak nation afraid of being swallowed up big foriegn empires. Today we are the chief superpower.

The Founding Fathers themselves couldnt even live up to their own vow of avoiding foreign entanglements.

A global war between the two superpowers broke out shortly after our nation was founded: the wars of Napoleon between Britain and France. George Washington actually 'declared neutrality". But the US ended up having to fight two wars to (paradoxically) stay out of the Napoleonic Wars ( a short naval war with France in 1805, and then later the larger War of 1812 with Britain). And during that same era we fought wars with the Barbary Pirates in Libya.

The US did not enter WWII. World War Two came to us. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. There was no way back to isolationism after that. We had to take a proactive role in the world since then.

And also...you just admitted to having vested interest. Your family would make money from fracking. And selling us oil :lol:

Well I am also in favor of fracking for national security reasons.Ya I know that Japan attacked us and thats why we went to war.However I am still not in favor of America taking a proactive role in the post-war world.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,290
Location: Texas

01 Jan 2023, 1:36 pm

magz wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
I would rather people like me supply oil through fracking to the US than being held hostage to Saudi Arabia.I love fracking.
Do they do much of it next to your home?

Well I think they do it under my home.Fracking happens all around me for miles and miles.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,091
Location: temperate zone

01 Jan 2023, 2:16 pm

Yes. We went to war 'because we were attacked'. Exactly.

The Founding Fathers lived in a world in which they could hide behind two oceans.

Those oceans could no longer shield us...not from Pearl Harbor, and not from 9-11. And our responses to both demanded cooperation with foreign allies.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,290
Location: Texas

01 Jan 2023, 2:18 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We went to war 'because we were attacked'. Exactly.

The Founding Fathers lived in a world in which they could hide behind two oceans.

Those oceans could no longer shield us...not from Pearl Harbor, and not from 9-11. And our responses to both demanded cooperation with foreign allies.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the merits of foreign entanglements and foreign aid.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,470
Location: Aux Arcs

01 Jan 2023, 2:47 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
magz wrote:
^ That would require drastically reducing interantional trade.
No more cheap oil from Saudi Arabia. No more electronics from Taiwan. No more technology from Korea and Japan.
The whole economy would need to be restructured and reduced - and someone else would take the leading role in the global world.

America does not need oil from Saudi Arabia.We have enough oil in Texas for the whole country.America can do without Middle Eastern oil.We have fracking.

Please no more fracking.I like clean water and no earthquakes related to it.
It caused an earthquake swarm in my state plus people had flammable drinking water.
We also have plenty of sunlight for solar.

I would rather people like me supply oil through fracking to the US than being held hostage to Saudi Arabia.I love fracking.

Yeah I bet it didn’t shake your house with an earthquake and crack all the drywall.
https://www.arkansaspublicmedia.org/ene ... ?_amp=true
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 6320130828


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,290
Location: Texas

01 Jan 2023, 2:50 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
magz wrote:
^ That would require drastically reducing interantional trade.
No more cheap oil from Saudi Arabia. No more electronics from Taiwan. No more technology from Korea and Japan.
The whole economy would need to be restructured and reduced - and someone else would take the leading role in the global world.

America does not need oil from Saudi Arabia.We have enough oil in Texas for the whole country.America can do without Middle Eastern oil.We have fracking.

Please no more fracking.I like clean water and no earthquakes related to it.
It caused an earthquake swarm in my state plus people had flammable drinking water.
We also have plenty of sunlight for solar.

I would rather people like me supply oil through fracking to the US than being held hostage to Saudi Arabia.I love fracking.

Yeah I bet it didn’t shake your house with an earthquake and crack all the drywall.
https://www.arkansaspublicmedia.org/ene ... ?_amp=true
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 6320130828

My house was shaken by a big earthquake recently in fact and it was prolly caused by fracking and/or wastewater injection.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,470
Location: Aux Arcs

01 Jan 2023, 2:55 pm

/\Does your drinking water catch on fire?
https://www.propublica.org/article/scie ... o-fracking


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jan 2023, 3:05 pm

We went pretty much off-topic. If the OP would like the thread to stay on topic, I can offer to split the part about isolationism and oil fracking into a separate thread.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Jan 2023, 11:03 pm

Trump was insensitive when he moved the US embassy to East Jerusalem.

It seems he doesn’t have a high regard for Palestinians.



Radish
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2022
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,233
Location: UK

02 Jan 2023, 5:14 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
It seems he doesn’t have a high regard for Palestinians.


I don't think Trump has a high regard for anything or anyone other than his own vested interests.


_________________
This space intentionally left blank.


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,407
Location: Long Island, New York

12 Mar 2023, 7:51 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
The new coalition government is concerning to me. It has big-time bigots in it. The law the The Religious Zionist party has proposed a law that could be the first steps baby steps towards a theocracy, a Jewish Iran if you will. If these proposals become law American Jewish support for Israel could melt beyond the progressives.


Rising extremism and democratic crisis in Israel prompt rethinking of U.S. support
Quote:
For years, as Israeli politics marched steadily to the right, the growing backlash among its traditional supporters fueled concerns and warnings that the U.S. government may ultimately be forced to reconsider its role as Israel’s most important — and often most unflinching — ally.

Until now, they have remained just that: concerns and warnings. But, with Israel’s new government stocked with ultranationalists and stoking profound questions about the nation’s democratic future, there is a sense that this time may be different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to weaken the Supreme Court has triggered nationwide protests and a growing constitutional crisis. An eruption of violence in the occupied West Bank — including near-daily Israeli raids, a rampage by Jewish settlers and attacks by Palestinian militants — has led the CIA director to warn that a third intifada could be imminent.

And the international community is aghast over the rise of some far-right figures, including one senior minister who recently called for Israel to “wipe out" a Palestinian village.

For the Biden administration, which has echoed many of those concerns, the urgent question is whether they necessitate any change in policy toward a nation heavily reliant on assistance, military cooperation and international political support from Washington.

“The United States should back up our concerns with actions,” said Daniel Kurtzer, who was U.S. ambassador to Israel under President George W. Bush. In an interview, he said the U.S. should consider curbing bilateral programs — but not security aid — and supporting U.N. Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel that the U.S. has historically blocked.

“Maybe it’s time to send that kind of signal,” he said.

Last week Kurtzer, now at Princeton, joined nearly 150 other current and former ambassadors, rabbis and Jewish organization leaders who signed a letter opposing a planned U.S. visit this week by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has referred to himself as a “proud homophobe” and a “fascist.” Others have called on the Biden administration to deny Smotrich a visa.

The State Department has called Smotrich’s comments about erasing the Palestinian village of Hawara “disgusting and repugnant.” Although the U.S. hasn’t addressed his status, citing confidentiality, a spokesperson for Smotrich told Israeli media on Thursday that he had been granted a diplomatic visa to enter the country.

However, the Biden administration appears to be boycotting the visit; a National Security Council official told NBC News that no U.S. government officials planned to meet with him

Already, the rise of the Israeli far-right has shifted the political dynamics in the U.S., with criticism of Israel that was once limited to the most left-leaning Democrats and human rights groups now increasingly common among moderate Democrats and mainstream American Jewish organizations.

In Congress this week, more than 90 Democratic lawmakers led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, sent President Joe Biden a letter urging him to use “all diplomatic tools available to prevent Israel’s current government from further damaging the nation’s democratic institutions and undermining the potential for two states for two peoples.”

And late last year, a group of more than 300 rabbis published an open letter declaring that members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition were not welcome to speak at their synagogues.

Especially problematic for the Biden administration is the Israeli government’s retreat from even rhetorical support for a two-state solution and eventual Palestinian statehood, which for decades has allowed the U.S. to defend Israel and to overlook its occupation of the West Bank by regarding it as temporary and best resolved through negotiations.

In a stark example of how Israel’s multiple crises are already creating headaches for the U.S., Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin this week was forced to cut his Israel trip short and relocate meetings as mass protests against the judicial reforms threatened to obstruct his safe passage into Tel Aviv.

When he did meet with his Israeli counterpart, at a site near the airport, Austin made a passing reference to the importance of an “independent judiciary” and “the need to de-escalate” West Bank violence, but made clear the U.S. government had no intention of reducing its commitment to Israel’s security.

“It will not change. It is not negotiable,” Austin said.

Even if the U.S. did opt for a change in policy, it’s unclear whether it could force Israel to change course.

A former senior Israeli government official said the emergence of a major threat to the country's democracy was a “big dilemma” for its closest ally. But the official said any U.S. efforts to condition elements of the relationship would likely be fruitless because Netanyahu, under the delicate coalition he formed with far-right parties to secure a return to power, is now beholden to them.

“It’s quite pointless at this moment,” the former official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to criticize the current prime minister. “His own members of his coalition are escalating the situation. He’s not managing to control the members of the coalition.”

Any U.S. move to reduce or leverage support for Israel would undoubtedly trigger fierce blowback from nearly all Republicans and many Democrats, not to mention Orthodox Jewish and evangelical groups in the U.S. that have been more supportive of Netanyahu’s approach.

The U.S. could seek to impose conditions on the billions of dollars of annual assistance to Israel, most of it military. Yet conditioning aid to Israel has generally been considered a third rail in U.S. foreign policy, and even many lawmakers now speaking out against Israel’s rightward shift oppose that step.

U.S. support for — or at least refusal to block — resolutions calling out Israel on the world stage could be one option to signal a shift in policy, as Kurtzer suggested.

For Israel’s government, perhaps the most alarming shift so far in response to the proposed judicial reforms has been economic, potentially jeopardizing its status as a Mideast economic powerhouse that punches above its weight.

Last week former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a self-avowed Israel supporter, said some businesspeople were already pulling their money out of the country or reconsidering whether to invest.

“As the owner of a global company, I don’t blame them,” Bloomberg wrote in a New York Times op-ed under the headline “Israel Is Courting Disaster.”

Those concerns have already sent the shekel plummeting to the lowest level in years. U.S. financial services firm JPMorgan, in an internal research memo first disclosed by Israeli media and obtained by NBC News, warned the increased risk stemming from the judicial plan could negatively affect Israel’s credit rating.

Another potentially explosive flashpoint is looming over opposition to the judicial plan from elite members of Israel’s military, including more than three dozen reservist fighter pilots who’ve announce they’d boycott a planned training, voicing concern about serving a “dictatorial regime.”

Some reservists have raised concerns that, if Israel undermines its democratic institutions, troops could be vulnerable to war crimes or other allegations in global venues like the International Criminal Court. The fact that Israel has an independent court system to appropriately handle such allegations has been a key Israeli defense in the past.

Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration and now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, said there could be further challenges for U.S. security cooperation if the situation devolves into a full-blown constitutional crisis, with Israel’s parliament and Supreme Court both claiming to have overruled the other.

“If that happens, those in uniform will have to decide whose order to follow. They may not all decide the same way,” Shapiro said. “In that scenario, U.S. officers may not know who to coordinate with.”

Any dramatic shift from the U.S. remains unlikely under Biden, said the former senior Israeli official, pointing to the 80-year-old president’s close friendship with Israel forged over decades as U.S. senator and then vice president. But younger Democratic lawmakers have been much quicker to say U.S. cooperation with Israel isn’t guaranteed.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


lil_hippie
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2023
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Portland

12 Mar 2023, 10:11 pm

Yes, I support Israel. I don't think you should give up the West Bank.

I just don't have any sympathy for the Palestinian cause.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

13 Mar 2023, 4:04 am

I'm ambivalent towards Israel. It has it's pros and cons. The pros being, it's a functioning democracy, it has a well educated population, it is a role model regarding national security and self protection. The cons are that it is a direct remnant of western colonialism, it's very existence legitimizes the idea of the strong one takes it all, flirts with theocracy, human rights abuses and enthnic cleansing. So I don't know.



DeathFlowerKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,228
Location: City of Roses

13 Mar 2023, 7:25 am

I think Israel is an apartheid state and Americans are guilty of enabling it to be one.